So apparently the Libs have figured out that it's entirely legitimate to judge a government on its body of harmful work rather than waiting to read the text of the Cons' latest attempt to cling to power first. And good on them for coming around to the NDP's longtime position.
But here's the problem: the same standard of judging a party by its full track record rather than merely its latest public facade applies equally to the Libs. So how do they plan to get off the hook for having to eat two years worth of excuses for propping up the Cons?
Update: Lest there be any doubt, there's indeed plenty of reason for skepticism as to whether or not the Libs will follow through on their bluster for a change. But even if they don't, they have plenty to answer for in going from their "no reasonable party would declare non-confidence in advance!" line to doing just that.
Update II: HUD has the early lead in providing the best explanation for the Libs' change of tune.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
On business inputs
In comments here, I noted what strikes me as the underlying philosophy behind the the HST and other efforts to shift the cost of taxes from businesses to citizens. But it's worth going into a bit more detail as to just how bizarre the distinction may be.
Just so there's no doubt what type of goods will be covered by the HST, here's the Campbell government's attempt to get restaurants onside despite the increase on taxes for their customers:
Is there an obvious reason to consider keeping a home clean and well-maintained to be "consumption" to be accounted for as a negative externality when it's merely done for the benefit of family, friends and unincorporated groups, but a "business input" if some clients might also stop by? And if so, what does that say about the value we place on providing for one's home and family?
Is there in fact some real economic benefit to taxing the price of a computer which will be used for non-profit purposes including a blog without ads, while treating a blog with ads (and thus some theoretical claim to potential profit) as a business which entitles the computer's purchaser to a 12-13% rebate?
Is there a particular reason why it's considered taxable consumption to merely raise children, but a tax-creditable business enterprise to raise them for export?
Okay, the analogy likely breaks down at some point. That said, it still seems that the starting point has to be that a good purchased and consumed is a good purchased and consumed. And some hint of an underlying profit motive on its own hardly looks to be justification for overriding the considerations underlying consumption taxes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the HST debate to date has involved the least bit of scrutiny toward the premise that businesses ought to be treated more favourably than mere citizens.
Which itself seems to reflect a trend which deserves to be pointed out more than it has been. While some mention has been made of the effort to convert Canadians from seeing themselves as involved citizens to identifying themselves primarily as consumers defined by what they own, the push seems to be on toward the next step: a country of 33 million independent consulting firms seeking to maximize profit at every turn, with the mere consumers in our midst punished for their lack of interest in becoming capitalists with higher taxes.
Of course, if the HST does end up spreading from coast to coast to coast, there will be ample reason for Canadians to make just that switch for tax purposes. But is it ultimately a plus for us to be judged as possible profit centres first and foremost, while activities which can't be classified under that heading are subject to relative tax disincentives? And isn't it worth at least having the discussion in some detail before the tax system is shifted even further toward putting profits first?
Just so there's no doubt what type of goods will be covered by the HST, here's the Campbell government's attempt to get restaurants onside despite the increase on taxes for their customers:
For example, a restaurant will no longer pay sales tax (PST) on products which are considered business “inputs” under HST such as:Note that the majority of the items which the Campbell government brags about making tax-free for restaurants are also items which are used regularly for home purposes. So let's ask the question which seems to have been utterly ignored by the HST's proponents: is there actually any basis in principle for treating those items differently based on whether there's a profit motive involved?
* fridges, stoves, freezers, dishwashers and other appliances
* energy for heat, cooking and operating equipment and lighting
* cleaning supplies, such as rags, soaps and cleaning solutions,
* cash registers, computer hardware and software
* equipment repair and maintenance services
* paper towels and toilet paper
* customer food bills and menus
* cloth napkins, table cloths, tray covers and placemats
* pots, pans, kitchen implements and knives
* plates, bowls, glasses, cups, other reusable dishes, and cutlery
* coffee machines, blenders, mixers and other small appliances
* free‐standing equipment such as juice dispensers, ice machines and coolers
* office equipment, supplies and furniture,
* advertising materials, such as flyers and brochures
* items purchased to give away as free promotions
Is there an obvious reason to consider keeping a home clean and well-maintained to be "consumption" to be accounted for as a negative externality when it's merely done for the benefit of family, friends and unincorporated groups, but a "business input" if some clients might also stop by? And if so, what does that say about the value we place on providing for one's home and family?
Is there in fact some real economic benefit to taxing the price of a computer which will be used for non-profit purposes including a blog without ads, while treating a blog with ads (and thus some theoretical claim to potential profit) as a business which entitles the computer's purchaser to a 12-13% rebate?
Is there a particular reason why it's considered taxable consumption to merely raise children, but a tax-creditable business enterprise to raise them for export?
Okay, the analogy likely breaks down at some point. That said, it still seems that the starting point has to be that a good purchased and consumed is a good purchased and consumed. And some hint of an underlying profit motive on its own hardly looks to be justification for overriding the considerations underlying consumption taxes.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the HST debate to date has involved the least bit of scrutiny toward the premise that businesses ought to be treated more favourably than mere citizens.
Which itself seems to reflect a trend which deserves to be pointed out more than it has been. While some mention has been made of the effort to convert Canadians from seeing themselves as involved citizens to identifying themselves primarily as consumers defined by what they own, the push seems to be on toward the next step: a country of 33 million independent consulting firms seeking to maximize profit at every turn, with the mere consumers in our midst punished for their lack of interest in becoming capitalists with higher taxes.
Of course, if the HST does end up spreading from coast to coast to coast, there will be ample reason for Canadians to make just that switch for tax purposes. But is it ultimately a plus for us to be judged as possible profit centres first and foremost, while activities which can't be classified under that heading are subject to relative tax disincentives? And isn't it worth at least having the discussion in some detail before the tax system is shifted even further toward putting profits first?
Logical connections
Let's take Michael Ignatieff's "life support" line to its logical conclusion.
Harper government : Liberals : New Democrats :: Terri Schiavo : Republicans : Democrats
Now we just need to make sure that the Libs meet the same reward as the Republicans for their bedside manner.
(Hey, if it's not too soon for Kennedy jokes...)
Harper government : Liberals : New Democrats :: Terri Schiavo : Republicans : Democrats
Now we just need to make sure that the Libs meet the same reward as the Republicans for their bedside manner.
(Hey, if it's not too soon for Kennedy jokes...)
Monday, August 31, 2009
Someday, this could all be ours...
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
After decades of national debate over what to do with spent nuclear fuel, and with no resolution in sight, the Kewaunee nuclear power plant in northeastern Wisconsin finally ran out of storage space inside the plant.
So over the past week, Kewaunee workers have begun storing radioactive waste in casks on the grounds of the reactor, a short distance from the shores of Lake Michigan.
After a practice run a few weeks ago, workers moved spent fuel into the first of the 25-ton, 16-foot-long casks and then transferred the cask into a concrete vault outside the building Aug. 22, said Mark Kanz, spokesman for the Kewaunee Power Station. A second cask was transferred Thursday.
...
The dwindling storage space in the spent-fuel pool inside the Kewaunee plant was among the factors that led Wisconsin utilities to sell the reactor to Dominion several years ago. Dominion then proceeded with plans to build the dry-cask storage system and applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to keep the plant running until 2033.
Point Beach experienced a brief fire during a spent-fuel transfer attempt in 1996. The hydrogen fire inside one of the casks produced enough force to blow a 3-ton lid 3 inches into the air. That incident resulted in an investigation and a $325,000 fine against Wisconsin Electric, which owned the plant at the time.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission later required Wisconsin Electric, which now operates under the trade name We Energies, to use a different kind of storage container for the used but still radioactive nuclear fuel.
Some Wisconsin environmental groups have been critical of nuclear power in part because of the onsite storage of radioactive waste on the grounds of the two plants.
Iggy said it, not us
I'd point out that it's really been for two years, but otherwise Michael Ignatieff seems to be coming to terms with the role his party continues to play:
“We've kept this government on life support for 10 months. It's important to remember that,” he said at his news conference.Indeed it is - particularly when it comes time to decide who can be taken seriously in saying they're prepared to offer a better alternative.
Another slap in the face
Shorter Maria Minna, trying to deflect criticism of the Libs' $550/plate Sudbury fund-raiser in the midst of a lengthy and bitter strike at Vale Inco:
I'm shocked the little people aren't grateful that we're trickling down all over them.
I'm shocked the little people aren't grateful that we're trickling down all over them.
Burning questions
Since Deficit Jim Flaherty has fallen in line with the Cons' attempt to deny responsibility for sales tax harmonization at the same time as David Akin has released the Cons' latest spending figures, now seems like a perfect time to put the stories together by asking the Finance Minister to answer the point I raised here.
Namely, how much of the Cons' $69 billion in announcements since last fall didn't involve a decision by any other party? And when can we expect the Cons to publicly retract their attempt to take credit for the rest of it?
Namely, how much of the Cons' $69 billion in announcements since last fall didn't involve a decision by any other party? And when can we expect the Cons to publicly retract their attempt to take credit for the rest of it?
Unobstructed
I mentioned in an earlier post that if Stephen Harper cared in the slightest about ensuring that the Senate didn't stand in the way of the will of Canadians as expressed through the most recent election, then he'd have made sure that his appointees committed to working with all future governments rather than appointing a set of Con hacks. But let's take another look at the implicit assertion that the current makeup of the Senate has affected the passage of government bills in the first place.
Fortunately, we can start with LegisInfo's handy list of bills which passed one chamber but not the other. Since the list doesn't consider bills in the current session which could still pass in the second chamber, the most recent bills listed are ones from the 2nd session of the 39th Parliament - but that timing should only help the Cons' claim since it reflects a Senate composed of a higher proportion of Libs than the present one.
But not surprisingly, the Cons appear to have awfully little to complain about. The bills which passed the House but not the Senate included 8 private members' bills and only 2 government bills - meaning that Jack Layton, Nathan Cullen, Dan McTeague and Nicole Demers have at least as much justification as the Cons for concern about their democratically-passed bills getting bottled up.
So what were the rare examples of government bills which didn't get through the Senate? Bill C-10 from 2007 was rushed through the House of Commons in a single day - resulting in serious issues such as film censorship provisions being completely unaddressed. Let's grant that this counts as maybe the sole relevant example of the Senate delaying the passage of a government bill. But if there was ever a point where the Senate would be justified in putting the brakes on a bill in the interest of some sober second thought, that would have to be it.
Meanwhile, Bill C-29 took nearly eight months to pass in the House of Commons before finally making its way to the Senate on June 17, 2008. Since the Senate only sat for a grand total of two more days before the summer break, it can hardly be blamed for the fact that the bill didn't manage to get any further - particularly when it was the Cons who chose to halt the bill's progress at that point in order to try their luck at the polls.
What about the Cons' bills from the previous session (39th Parliament, Session 1)? There, the list of government bills which passed the House but not the Senate is somewhat longer - but the path taken by those bills once again thoroughly undercuts any claim that the Senate was responsible for holding up bills agreed to by the democratically-elected chamber.
Starting from the top of the list of bills considered last by the Senate...
- Bill C-51 passed the House four days before the Senate's summer break;
- Bill C-22 spent a month and a half in the Senate after taking nearly a year to pass the House of Commons;
- Bill C-33 reached the Senate the last week before the summer after needing 8 months to pass the House of Commons;
- Bill C-23 took a year to pass the House of Commons, and reached the Senate only a week before the summer recess;
- Similar patterns applied to C-10 (introduced May 4, 2006 and only reached the Senate on May 29, 2007) and C-35 (introduced November 23, 2006; reached the Senate June 5, 2007). (Which, as the Libs note is a pattern which the Cons are repeating with more recent bills).
- About the only exception was C-62, which passed through the House on a single day in June 2007 and theoretically could have made it into law if the Senate had acted equally quickly. But based on the fact that the bill still didn't arrive until shortly before the summer recess, that would presumably have required unanimous consent in the Senate, not merely a majority.
And of course, it was again the Cons who pulled the plug on those bills in the Senate by opting for prorogation.
In sum, then, the Cons can point to a grand total of one government bill where delay caused by the current party standings in the Senate could have affected their ability to implement legislation approved by the House. Which hardly seems like a compelling impetus for not just breaking but downright eviscerating what was supposed to have been a firm campaign promise based on the founding principles of the party which first launched Harper into Parliament.
Meanwhile, there's also the future of the Senate to look at. And the fact that Harper has obviously made loyalty his top priority in Senate nominees suggests that it may not be long before exactly the problem which the Cons are falsely claiming to want to solve becomes a reality for the next government.
After all, if the current Con caucus in the Senate sticks together and continues to take orders from Harper or another leader equally determined to press every potential political advantage with no regard for democratic principles, then a Con majority created by the next wave of Harper appointments would figure to have no more regard for the will of the majority of the House of Commons than...well, Harper himself when it's proven inconvenient. And the fact that Harper's current rhetoric ties any talk about democratically-elected governments to his personal "agenda" should provide yet one more hint that when push comes to shove, his appointees will be instructed to put the Cons' political interests ahead of any commitment to respecting the will of the democratically-elected House.
So Harper's patronage appointments look far more likely to create a roadblock to the implementation of legitimate legislation in the future than they are to resolve any meaningful difficulty in getting bills passed now. Which should make it clear that they have nothing to do with "evening out" the legislative process, and everything to do with tightening the Cons' grip on Canada no matter how many of their promises and principles they have to discard in the process.
Fortunately, we can start with LegisInfo's handy list of bills which passed one chamber but not the other. Since the list doesn't consider bills in the current session which could still pass in the second chamber, the most recent bills listed are ones from the 2nd session of the 39th Parliament - but that timing should only help the Cons' claim since it reflects a Senate composed of a higher proportion of Libs than the present one.
But not surprisingly, the Cons appear to have awfully little to complain about. The bills which passed the House but not the Senate included 8 private members' bills and only 2 government bills - meaning that Jack Layton, Nathan Cullen, Dan McTeague and Nicole Demers have at least as much justification as the Cons for concern about their democratically-passed bills getting bottled up.
So what were the rare examples of government bills which didn't get through the Senate? Bill C-10 from 2007 was rushed through the House of Commons in a single day - resulting in serious issues such as film censorship provisions being completely unaddressed. Let's grant that this counts as maybe the sole relevant example of the Senate delaying the passage of a government bill. But if there was ever a point where the Senate would be justified in putting the brakes on a bill in the interest of some sober second thought, that would have to be it.
Meanwhile, Bill C-29 took nearly eight months to pass in the House of Commons before finally making its way to the Senate on June 17, 2008. Since the Senate only sat for a grand total of two more days before the summer break, it can hardly be blamed for the fact that the bill didn't manage to get any further - particularly when it was the Cons who chose to halt the bill's progress at that point in order to try their luck at the polls.
What about the Cons' bills from the previous session (39th Parliament, Session 1)? There, the list of government bills which passed the House but not the Senate is somewhat longer - but the path taken by those bills once again thoroughly undercuts any claim that the Senate was responsible for holding up bills agreed to by the democratically-elected chamber.
Starting from the top of the list of bills considered last by the Senate...
- Bill C-51 passed the House four days before the Senate's summer break;
- Bill C-22 spent a month and a half in the Senate after taking nearly a year to pass the House of Commons;
- Bill C-33 reached the Senate the last week before the summer after needing 8 months to pass the House of Commons;
- Bill C-23 took a year to pass the House of Commons, and reached the Senate only a week before the summer recess;
- Similar patterns applied to C-10 (introduced May 4, 2006 and only reached the Senate on May 29, 2007) and C-35 (introduced November 23, 2006; reached the Senate June 5, 2007). (Which, as the Libs note is a pattern which the Cons are repeating with more recent bills).
- About the only exception was C-62, which passed through the House on a single day in June 2007 and theoretically could have made it into law if the Senate had acted equally quickly. But based on the fact that the bill still didn't arrive until shortly before the summer recess, that would presumably have required unanimous consent in the Senate, not merely a majority.
And of course, it was again the Cons who pulled the plug on those bills in the Senate by opting for prorogation.
In sum, then, the Cons can point to a grand total of one government bill where delay caused by the current party standings in the Senate could have affected their ability to implement legislation approved by the House. Which hardly seems like a compelling impetus for not just breaking but downright eviscerating what was supposed to have been a firm campaign promise based on the founding principles of the party which first launched Harper into Parliament.
Meanwhile, there's also the future of the Senate to look at. And the fact that Harper has obviously made loyalty his top priority in Senate nominees suggests that it may not be long before exactly the problem which the Cons are falsely claiming to want to solve becomes a reality for the next government.
After all, if the current Con caucus in the Senate sticks together and continues to take orders from Harper or another leader equally determined to press every potential political advantage with no regard for democratic principles, then a Con majority created by the next wave of Harper appointments would figure to have no more regard for the will of the majority of the House of Commons than...well, Harper himself when it's proven inconvenient. And the fact that Harper's current rhetoric ties any talk about democratically-elected governments to his personal "agenda" should provide yet one more hint that when push comes to shove, his appointees will be instructed to put the Cons' political interests ahead of any commitment to respecting the will of the democratically-elected House.
So Harper's patronage appointments look far more likely to create a roadblock to the implementation of legitimate legislation in the future than they are to resolve any meaningful difficulty in getting bills passed now. Which should make it clear that they have nothing to do with "evening out" the legislative process, and everything to do with tightening the Cons' grip on Canada no matter how many of their promises and principles they have to discard in the process.
On their side
If there's any element of the right-wing self-image that fits even less with the facts than their claim to responsible financial management, it's their attempt to be seen as consumer-friendly by...every so often declaring that businesses could consider doing better without government action. And Michael Geist points out just who it is that the Cons side with when they have the choice:
Last week I discussed the well-known challenge faced by millions of Canadians as they sort through a myriad of cellphone pricing plans in a marketplace still lacking in robust competition.So never mind the market forces which the Cons normally claim to want to apply, nor the obvious value of providing more and better information to Canadians than carriers would provide themselves. Instead, Tony Clement apparently fully supports the telecoms' view that lower-income Canadians should pay more for their cell-phone plans than they would if they knew what options actually existed. Which should make it clear that when it comes down to choosing between the interests of citizens and those of corporations looking to preserve artificially high profits at customer expense, the Cons will side against mere Canadians every time.
Previously unreported, however, is that Industry Canada officials identified the same problem and worked for years to develop an online tool to address it.
After spending tens of thousands of dollars creating and testing an online calculator designed to help consumers select their ideal wireless plan, Industry Minister Tony Clement killed the project weeks before it was scheduled to launch.
Government records suggest intense lobbying this spring by Canada's wireless companies, who feared the service would promote lower-cost plans, played a key role in the decision.
...
The focus groups' response to the cellphone cost calculator was positive, with the vast majority of participants indicating they would use the tool and encourage friends and family to do the same.
Yet just as Industry Canada was set to launch the tool, the major wireless carriers began lobbying against it.
According to lobbyist registration records, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and Bell Canada met with officials from Clement's office on April 8, with the association listing telecommunications regulation and consumer issues as the topics of discussion.
Two weeks later, Telus also met with the same officials to discuss consumer issues.
The carriers were apparently concerned that the tool only covered voice services and was geared toward lower-priced plans.
Sensing that Clement was facing pressure to block the calculator, Canadian consumer groups wrote to the minister, urging him to stick with it.
Despite months of preparation, thousands of dollars in taxpayer expense, the creation of an effective tool and the obvious benefits for lower-income Canadians, Clement nevertheless killed the project.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
A Decreasingly Brief, Updated History of Liberal Declarations that they Can't Go On Supporting the Harper Government's Every Whim
Since they've delivered more material since this post...
October 20, 2007:
October 20, 2007:
Dion told his MPs that it would be unthinkable for him to yield to the humiliation of supporting the throne speech and Harper's vision of Canada. He said that he'd merely be suffering the death "of 1,000 cuts," as long as he propped up the government and he would emerge from the whole ordeal with reputation and leadership damaged.December 2, 2007:
Dion has had a rough year dealing with constant questions about his leadership abilities, crucial by-election losses in Quebec, and low poll numbers that have forced him to prop up the Conservatives in order to avoid heading to the ballot box.January 14, 2008:
However, Dion vowed to The Canadian Press that the coming year will be a different story.
"2008 will be another ball game," he said. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."
"I honestly don't see how they can support the budget. They are the opposition, they are there to oppose. This notion of appeasing and sitting on your hands, that's run its course. The political price to be paid for doing nothing is too high. If the Tories were to come out with a very Liberal budget, that might diffuse it, but what are the chances of that especially since they [the government] don't have a lot of money," said one top Liberal who requested anonymity.February 17, 2008:
"The Liberals are coming around to the notion that they can't continue to abstain so I think that's not a viable long-term strategy. So, I don't see the government getting Liberal support on this budget or abstaining."
"We hear now that ... Chretien and Jean Pelletier, his former chief of staff, are telling him it's a matter of credibility, that he can't support the government any more and that the timing would be right," Jean Lapierre told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.April 9, 2008:
Lapierre, now a political commentator for Quebec's TVA network, said Dion would be "comfortable with that advice."
The Liberals have hammered away at the government in recent weeks over the bill, accusing the Conservatives of seeking a back-door way to enforce an anti-immigrant agenda. But they have refused to say when or if they will actually oppose it in Parliament.October 20, 2008:
Some political observers say the Liberals could suffer damage within one of their core constituencies — ethnic communities in urban and suburban ridings — unless they back up their rhetoric with action.
One of the chief questions, being asked of returning Liberal MP's- are they prepared to endure another period of abstentions? The theory being, a weakened opposition, with no leader and no money, will be forced to dodge and weave to avoid another election. I would argue, that there should be little chance for a repeat of last spring's embarrassing string of abstentions.April 10, 2009:
At some point, you can't wait forever. You can't play cat and mouse. You have to have the courage to defeat the government. With the economy deteriorating, you have to be capable of providing an alternative, or else you're endorsing the government.June 29, 2009:
A Liberal source told The Hill Times that the Liberals are unlikely to vote for the Harper government on confidence votes anymore.And now today:
"There's an inherent dichotomy in, 'This government is terrible but I'm going to support them.' How do you reconcile that? [Stéphane] Dion took a lot of political hits because he never reconciled that," said the Liberal source.
(O)thers close to Mr. Ignatieff — and many MPs, who loathe propping up the government — are raring to plunge into a campaign. They argue that Mr. Ignatieff's and the party's credibility can't withstand yet another retreat.
On political games
Shorter Con spokesflack Dimitri Soudas:
The opposition's failure to approve our appointment of one party hack three years ago has left us no choice but to keep appointing hundreds more ever since.
The opposition's failure to approve our appointment of one party hack three years ago has left us no choice but to keep appointing hundreds more ever since.
Well said
HUD:
We're being given the illusion of choice when really it's all the same crap tied up in different coloured bows. Yes, that's how I think about American politics and increasingly Canadian politics too. We've got 2 big box parties in Canada that are now so similar, one of them is terrified to make their "policies" public for fear the other party will steal all their ideas. Gee, did it never occur to anyone that they might have to come up with something the other guys can't steal. Something new. Something daring. Something people really need and want. No, that would be too risky. People might not like something new. You'd have to work really hard to sell it and convince people it's worth having. If you just put out the same old stuff that's already selling, you know people will buy it (or at least you're pretty sure they will) and you don't have to explain why it's better so it's safer and easier to just make the same lame crap as everyone else. Just roll out a huge ad campaign and put a shinier bow on your stuff and hope people are drawn to the shiny keys.Of course, I'd think HUD's ultimate conclusion misses part of the point: in politics as in shopping, the problem isn't so much a lack of other choices as an all-too-easily accepted assumption that it's not worth seeking them out. But the first step of recognizing the illusion of choice between the big boxes is an important start - and the more voters realize how many others are similarly sick of the same old same old, the better the chance that another choice will be able to compete on an equal footing with the current big boxes.
Sunday Morning 'Rider Blogging
Thanks to the bye week, there isn't much to talk about by way of news about the Saskatchewan Roughriders. And indeed even off the field the times have been fairly quiet, as the big story a week ago (the possibility of signing Reggie Hunt to patch up the team's linebacker corps in the wake of injuries to Rey Williams and Kye Stewart) remains a matter of speculation at best. But the lack of an immediate game to dissect should also present an opportunity to look at the season as a whole - so let's compare where the 'Riders are now to where one might have expected them to be.
The obvious good news for the 'Riders this season has been the defence - despite a surprisingly high number of points against (worst in the league at 256).
At its best, Gary Etcheverry's line has been a turnover machine which has made virtually every quarterback other than Anthony Calvillo look unusually uncomfortable in the pocket - and even at worst it's generated regular pressure while keeping most offences from putting games out of reach. With the exception of some issues in wrapping up running backs, there's been little dropoff in the linebacking corps despite the loss of Mo Lloyd and Anton McKenzie. And the secondary has managed to become more opportunistic than it was under Richie Hall without sacrificing its coverage on opposing receivers.
About the only question going into the second half of the season is then whether or not the front seven in particular can stay healthy - and if not, whether any injured players can be replaced without too much of a drop in production. For now, the 'Riders have managed to get solid efforts out of backups on the defensive line (and thankfully so in light of Scott Schultz' retirement) and the linebacking corps. But it's not hard to see how another key loss or two could be the breaking point, and that could be a problem particularly given John Chick's history of injuries.
On offence, while the story has changed from week to week, the results are actually best described as remarkably steady. Darien Durant ranks a solid fourth or fifth among CFL starters in nearly every key passing category including completions, yards, touchdowns and QB rating, while posting a decent but unspectacular TD-to-interception ratio of 11 to 11. Likewise the 'Riders rush offence ranks fourth in the CFL, though with a bit more variation in the players involved than some teams (as due to Wes Cates' early absence no single 'Rider ranks higher than eighth). And not surprisingly, the combination of average passing and average rushing has led to an average point total, as the 'Riders sit fourth in the league there as well.
The good news is that there's some obvious room for improvement in the second half. With any luck the offensive line should be healthier and more experienced - and it looks like Andy Fantuz will soon rejoin a group of receivers that has been surprisingly effective in his absence. And most importantly, the extra experience which Durant has picked up over the first half of 2009 should help prepare him to move from solid to upper-echelon down the stretch.
Of course, the reason the 'Riders have managed to struggle at teams even with the offence and defence generally doing relatively well has been the special teams. But rather than hammering the same point that seems to be dominating discussion about the team, I'll take a moment to point out that some key parts of that unit have been reasonably solid, as the kicking numbers of Jamie Boreham and Luca Congi aren't all that far off from past seasons. The issue has instead been with the return and coverage teams (where to my surprise it's actually the punt return coverage team which ranks as worst in the league by a wide margin, while the rest have been merely below average) - which means that a fix requires more than just putting somebody new in the returning roles.
Which may make for the general theme for the 'Riders: there doesn't figure to be much room for improvement based on trying to sub in new personnel for what the team has. Instead, the key is to get back to health at a few positions, and to continue to developing the talent on the roster where it hasn't yet come together. And while the team still looks more like an average CFL unit than a top contender, there's plenty of reason for hope that it has enough potential to emerge from the pack over the rest of 2009 and beyond.
The obvious good news for the 'Riders this season has been the defence - despite a surprisingly high number of points against (worst in the league at 256).
At its best, Gary Etcheverry's line has been a turnover machine which has made virtually every quarterback other than Anthony Calvillo look unusually uncomfortable in the pocket - and even at worst it's generated regular pressure while keeping most offences from putting games out of reach. With the exception of some issues in wrapping up running backs, there's been little dropoff in the linebacking corps despite the loss of Mo Lloyd and Anton McKenzie. And the secondary has managed to become more opportunistic than it was under Richie Hall without sacrificing its coverage on opposing receivers.
About the only question going into the second half of the season is then whether or not the front seven in particular can stay healthy - and if not, whether any injured players can be replaced without too much of a drop in production. For now, the 'Riders have managed to get solid efforts out of backups on the defensive line (and thankfully so in light of Scott Schultz' retirement) and the linebacking corps. But it's not hard to see how another key loss or two could be the breaking point, and that could be a problem particularly given John Chick's history of injuries.
On offence, while the story has changed from week to week, the results are actually best described as remarkably steady. Darien Durant ranks a solid fourth or fifth among CFL starters in nearly every key passing category including completions, yards, touchdowns and QB rating, while posting a decent but unspectacular TD-to-interception ratio of 11 to 11. Likewise the 'Riders rush offence ranks fourth in the CFL, though with a bit more variation in the players involved than some teams (as due to Wes Cates' early absence no single 'Rider ranks higher than eighth). And not surprisingly, the combination of average passing and average rushing has led to an average point total, as the 'Riders sit fourth in the league there as well.
The good news is that there's some obvious room for improvement in the second half. With any luck the offensive line should be healthier and more experienced - and it looks like Andy Fantuz will soon rejoin a group of receivers that has been surprisingly effective in his absence. And most importantly, the extra experience which Durant has picked up over the first half of 2009 should help prepare him to move from solid to upper-echelon down the stretch.
Of course, the reason the 'Riders have managed to struggle at teams even with the offence and defence generally doing relatively well has been the special teams. But rather than hammering the same point that seems to be dominating discussion about the team, I'll take a moment to point out that some key parts of that unit have been reasonably solid, as the kicking numbers of Jamie Boreham and Luca Congi aren't all that far off from past seasons. The issue has instead been with the return and coverage teams (where to my surprise it's actually the punt return coverage team which ranks as worst in the league by a wide margin, while the rest have been merely below average) - which means that a fix requires more than just putting somebody new in the returning roles.
Which may make for the general theme for the 'Riders: there doesn't figure to be much room for improvement based on trying to sub in new personnel for what the team has. Instead, the key is to get back to health at a few positions, and to continue to developing the talent on the roster where it hasn't yet come together. And while the team still looks more like an average CFL unit than a top contender, there's plenty of reason for hope that it has enough potential to emerge from the pack over the rest of 2009 and beyond.
The reviews are in
The Edmonton Journal:
Albertans, it seems we misunderstood this Senate obsession of Reformers and Stephen Harper Conservatives.
When they raged at the appointment of party bagmen, former aides, sympathetic media types and hockey celebrities by the Chretien Liberals, we imagined the problem was the kind of person for whom the Grits were holding out the cushy seat.
But it turns out bagmen, aides, and names in hockey and journalism are just hunky-dory in Tory-land. The Conservatives' real problem in the bad old Liberal days was simply that they weren't the ones doling out the loot.
...
Maybe Harper expects future senators--elected or otherwise--to look on the bright side his concept of the Senate. If second thought is downgraded as a virtue, maybe it's less important to be sober as well.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
On pledges
Jeff and James provide some excellent thoughts on what Stephen Harper would be doing if he really cared about reforming the Senate. But let's toss one more possibility into the mix.
Most of Harper's current criticism of the Senate consists of complaining about its impact on the speedy/immediate/retroactive passage of legislation which has emerged from a democratically-elected House of Commons. Which seems to me to be an entirely misplaced criticism which I'll address in more detail in a future post.
But if that rather than naked partisanship were his main concern, then why doesn't the set of pledges he's extracted from his new nominees include a commitment not to stand in the way of legislation which passes the House in the future, regardless of which parties supported it along the way?
Most of Harper's current criticism of the Senate consists of complaining about its impact on the speedy/immediate/retroactive passage of legislation which has emerged from a democratically-elected House of Commons. Which seems to me to be an entirely misplaced criticism which I'll address in more detail in a future post.
But if that rather than naked partisanship were his main concern, then why doesn't the set of pledges he's extracted from his new nominees include a commitment not to stand in the way of legislation which passes the House in the future, regardless of which parties supported it along the way?
Deep thought
If Stephen Harper is indeed more concerned with "God's verdict" than what mere humans think, he owes Canada an awfully thorough explanation of what he thinks God wants him to do.
Update: Particularly since, as Greg points out, his treatment of the "least" in his eyes wouldn't seem likely to stand him in good stead under the teachings he apparently follows.
Update: Particularly since, as Greg points out, his treatment of the "least" in his eyes wouldn't seem likely to stand him in good stead under the teachings he apparently follows.
On immediate impacts
There's plenty of speculation flying around as to the possible impact of Gary Doer's appointment as U.S. ambassador. But surprisingly, none of it seems to focus on the area which holds the most potential for Doer to either achieve something of importance despite the weaknesses of the government which appointed him, or permanently tarnish his image.
At the moment, much of Doer's reputation - both in terms of his policies as premier, and his connections built within the U.S. - is based on his having been one of the driving forces for progress in fighting climate change. And in particular, his work with the Western Climate Initiative has helped to set up the most promising means of getting around what was then complete recalcitrance at the federal level on both sides of the border.
Now, the playing field has changed: the U.S. administration looks to be trying to take a lead role on the issue, leaving Stephen Harper's government as the most determined to halt any international progress. And with the Copenhagen conference set to take place this fall, Doer's first couple of months on the job would seem to have potential to either create a path toward a deal, or undermine any hope of getting one signed.
How might Doer make a difference for the better? We know all too well that Harper is seldom one to listen to anybody who might challenge his orders. But there will be an obvious need for Doer to be in regular contact with Harper and his office in managing Canada's most important international relationship.
Which should create a significant opportunity: to the extent both the Obama administration and Doer himself see action on climate change as an integral part of the economic relationship between the two countries and make that message clear to Harper, it'll be awfully difficult for the Cons to justify their usual vocal opposition to a global deal which has U.S. backing. So Doer's appointment could lead to a joint effort by Canada and the U.S. to push toward agreement in Copenhagen rather than being the two main holdouts against international consensus.
In the long run, that would seem to make for the best outcome for everybody involved. And even Harper would seem to stand to benefit from being seen as willing to work toward international solutions rather than being just as petulant in the world as he is at home.
But then it's equally possible that Harper doesn't have any intention of moving from his usual position. In that case, Harper might well be hoping that Doer's previous credibility on the issue will reduce the U.S.' inclination to criticize Canada's position, and make him at least marginally more persuasive in spouting the same old lines about how we'll never agree to cut emissions until the developing world agrees not to develop.
Of course, few outside the tar sands (and their analogues around the world) figure to be particularly eager to see Canada successfully stand in the way of global agreement based on Doer's current profile. But Doer himself might well be the biggest loser if that's indeed Harper's strategy.
The initial surprise of having him suddenly lined up against any international agreement might well play a role in shaping the relative positions of Canada and the U.S. this fall, giving him at least some claim to have influenced global events (if contrary to the principles he's espoused during his public life so far). But the result once that initial impact wore off would be to undermine his own credibility on the issue - and the few friends he'd make in Harper's camp for sacrificing his good name to the interests of the oil companies would seem to be far outweighed by the current goodwill that he'd lose.
For now, we don't have much way of knowing exactly how much autonomy Doer will have as ambassador, and how much (if it all) Harper is willing to listen to him on climate change or on any other issue. But with Copenhagen just a few short months away, we may find out in a hurry whether any good will come of Doer's appointment, or whether Harper is simply looking for somebody else whose reputation can be thrown under the bus to further the Cons' agenda.
At the moment, much of Doer's reputation - both in terms of his policies as premier, and his connections built within the U.S. - is based on his having been one of the driving forces for progress in fighting climate change. And in particular, his work with the Western Climate Initiative has helped to set up the most promising means of getting around what was then complete recalcitrance at the federal level on both sides of the border.
Now, the playing field has changed: the U.S. administration looks to be trying to take a lead role on the issue, leaving Stephen Harper's government as the most determined to halt any international progress. And with the Copenhagen conference set to take place this fall, Doer's first couple of months on the job would seem to have potential to either create a path toward a deal, or undermine any hope of getting one signed.
How might Doer make a difference for the better? We know all too well that Harper is seldom one to listen to anybody who might challenge his orders. But there will be an obvious need for Doer to be in regular contact with Harper and his office in managing Canada's most important international relationship.
Which should create a significant opportunity: to the extent both the Obama administration and Doer himself see action on climate change as an integral part of the economic relationship between the two countries and make that message clear to Harper, it'll be awfully difficult for the Cons to justify their usual vocal opposition to a global deal which has U.S. backing. So Doer's appointment could lead to a joint effort by Canada and the U.S. to push toward agreement in Copenhagen rather than being the two main holdouts against international consensus.
In the long run, that would seem to make for the best outcome for everybody involved. And even Harper would seem to stand to benefit from being seen as willing to work toward international solutions rather than being just as petulant in the world as he is at home.
But then it's equally possible that Harper doesn't have any intention of moving from his usual position. In that case, Harper might well be hoping that Doer's previous credibility on the issue will reduce the U.S.' inclination to criticize Canada's position, and make him at least marginally more persuasive in spouting the same old lines about how we'll never agree to cut emissions until the developing world agrees not to develop.
Of course, few outside the tar sands (and their analogues around the world) figure to be particularly eager to see Canada successfully stand in the way of global agreement based on Doer's current profile. But Doer himself might well be the biggest loser if that's indeed Harper's strategy.
The initial surprise of having him suddenly lined up against any international agreement might well play a role in shaping the relative positions of Canada and the U.S. this fall, giving him at least some claim to have influenced global events (if contrary to the principles he's espoused during his public life so far). But the result once that initial impact wore off would be to undermine his own credibility on the issue - and the few friends he'd make in Harper's camp for sacrificing his good name to the interests of the oil companies would seem to be far outweighed by the current goodwill that he'd lose.
For now, we don't have much way of knowing exactly how much autonomy Doer will have as ambassador, and how much (if it all) Harper is willing to listen to him on climate change or on any other issue. But with Copenhagen just a few short months away, we may find out in a hurry whether any good will come of Doer's appointment, or whether Harper is simply looking for somebody else whose reputation can be thrown under the bus to further the Cons' agenda.
Friday, August 28, 2009
More reviews are in
Andrew Coyne:
As ever with Stephen Harper, there is an in-your-face element to the latest batch of Senate appointments. It’s almost as if he said to himself, okay, if I’m going to get slammed for these appointments anyway, what are the most obnoxiously partisan, disgustingly sycophantic choices I can make? I know — I’ll name my former press flack! No, wait — I’ll name the president of the party! Or maybe — yes! — the most hyper-partisan, Grit-hating thug I know, my former campaign manager!Of course, there's one key flaw in Coyne's reasoning, as there's one party which continues to work to point out the rot which goes to the core of each of the Libs and Cons. Which means that the main question arising from Harper's latest excesses is that of whether genuine outrage and desire for change can surface amidst the kabuki theatre playing out as ever between the two parties who have made the Senate into the dumping ground that it is.
I’ve got it! I’ll appoint all of them!
Yes, I know, the Liberals did just the same for years — the same Grits who are now assailing the appointments, just as the Tories used to attack theirs. This is the cycle we have become caught in, each party justifying its own excesses by the other’s, each hypocritically accusing the other of hypocrisy. And the public, educated by long useage to expect no better, cannot even be roused to outrage any more. Time was when this sort of flagrant cronyism would have caused a scandal. Certainly in any other country it would. But not here, not any more.
We have a deeply, deeply cynical political culture, and the Senate is a big part of it. A country that teaches itself to accept that one of its two legislative bodies should be composed almost entirely of appointed party hacks and bagmen (the other being made up of obedient ciphers) can accommodate itself to a great many things.
The reviews are in
The Ottawa Sun:
It was just five years ago when Harper said, “Despite the fine work of many individual senators, the upper house remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister.”
But that was then and this is now, and Harper seems to have no problem making sure that “dumping ground” is filled with his friends. Among yesterday’s appointees are Harper’s former communications aide, his election campaign chair, and the president of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Harper’s description of the Senate five years ago is no different today — it’s just his friends he’s dumping there now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)