Here, building off of my previous analysis on the current positioning of Canada's federal parties.
For further reading, see:
- Bob Hepburn and Carol Goar on the purpose and effect of attack ads in general; and
- Andrew Coyne on the Cons' particular brand of personal attack, featuring some suggestions to reduce the amount of negative advertising.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Thomas Walkom points out that banks are far from the only corporations who are conspicuously moving jobs offshore to the detriment of Canadian workers and citizens:
- Meanwhile, Matt O'Brien highlights the fact that the main case for austerity can be traced back not just to questionable theories, but to obviously-flawed arithmetic. Which isn't to say that anybody on the right is above declaring that 2+2=panda if it means an excuse to attack public services.
- And in that vein, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Health Council of Canada is the latest institution to face demolition at the hands of the Cons.
- Finally, Joe Fiorito writes about Marc Hamel's observations on the costs of poverty in Ontario:
- Thomas Walkom points out that banks are far from the only corporations who are conspicuously moving jobs offshore to the detriment of Canadian workers and citizens:
Unions are being ground down; wages are being ground down. Jobs are being ground out of existence. With the economy so weak and foreign competition so fierce, domestic firms find it harder to expand.
For many, the only solution is to squeeze their workers.
Before the Great Recession, goods moved easily across borders. So did capital.
But what’s new about this slump is that labour has become an equally fluid component of the production process.
Sometimes labour moves physically. The federal temporary foreign worker program is designed to shift individual labourers swiftly and painlessly into Canada in order to accelerate the downward pressure on wages here.
Sometimes, as the Royal Bank has demonstrated, jobs move at the flick of a switch. The physical workers remain in Canada. But their work moves abroad.- The Cons are trying to justify cutting the public out of any review of future pipeline development by shrieking about people "gaming the system" - in contrast to, say, the oil industry which simply owns it. And they're also apparently equally concerned about the inherent unfairness involved in allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to offer unwanted knowledge and perspective about Canada's election rules.
- Meanwhile, Matt O'Brien highlights the fact that the main case for austerity can be traced back not just to questionable theories, but to obviously-flawed arithmetic. Which isn't to say that anybody on the right is above declaring that 2+2=panda if it means an excuse to attack public services.
- And in that vein, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Health Council of Canada is the latest institution to face demolition at the hands of the Cons.
- Finally, Joe Fiorito writes about Marc Hamel's observations on the costs of poverty in Ontario:
He noted something that you, I hope, already know: if you live in poverty as a child, there’s a 20 per cent chance you will live in poverty as an adult.
His best guess, based on reading and research? “If we could help this 20 per cent with skill training and higher education, the income gain for Ontario would be $3.2 billion a year.”
He puts the total cost of child poverty in Ontario at anywhere between $4.6 billion and $5.9 billion a year. And then he talked about lost opportunity.
“If we were able to increase the income and participation of the lowest quintile of income earners, and raise their incomes to the second quintile, the benefit to the Ontario economy would be over $16 billion a year.”
He also noted that, if we did so, there would be an increase in tax revenues of $4 billion.
But here’s the real money quote: “In total, poverty costs the residents of Ontario a staggering $32 billion to $38 billion a year — the equivalent of over 5 per cent of provincial GDP.”
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The first move
Following up on this morning's post on the federal political scene, I'll offer a few observations on the Cons' immediate attack ad against Justin Trudeau:
Now, I've pointed out before that the Cons' previous attack ads against Lib leaders succeeded precisely because they made claims which were so vague as to be unfalsifiable. And by that standard, there would indeed be substantial risk in an attempt to define Trudeau as comic relief (which would seemingly allow him to defeat the Cons' definition simply by avoiding the most massive of gaffes) or as inexperienced (which falls under the category of self-defeating criticisms as a leader spends more time in the public eye).
But I have to wonder whether the first salvo against Trudeau is less an indication of the Cons' ultimate plan to define him, and more a form of inoculation against future scenes like this.
The Libs will naturally want to build up a unique persona for the man who holds their party's future in his hands. But the Cons will now have a ready-made counter to any step outside the political straight and narrow - with any originality on Trudeau's part framed as evidence of a dilettante "in over his head" rather than a distinctive personality. And the flat-out falsehoods within the Cons' ad will seem far less significant in the long run if Trudeau's actions make the underlying theme seem plausible - forcing the Libs into some much more complicated calculations as to how to set Trudeau apart without risking the Cons' message sticking to him.
Meanwhile, the Cons also look to have signaled that at least for now, they're more intent on dealing with Trudeau than managing risks posed by both the NDP and the Libs - as both points of criticism within the ad involve areas of strength for Tom Mulcair. (Hence my suspicion that Stephen Harper may be placing a greater emphasis on destroying the Libs for good than on his own likelihood of holding onto power in 2015.)
Now, I've pointed out before that the Cons' previous attack ads against Lib leaders succeeded precisely because they made claims which were so vague as to be unfalsifiable. And by that standard, there would indeed be substantial risk in an attempt to define Trudeau as comic relief (which would seemingly allow him to defeat the Cons' definition simply by avoiding the most massive of gaffes) or as inexperienced (which falls under the category of self-defeating criticisms as a leader spends more time in the public eye).
But I have to wonder whether the first salvo against Trudeau is less an indication of the Cons' ultimate plan to define him, and more a form of inoculation against future scenes like this.
The Libs will naturally want to build up a unique persona for the man who holds their party's future in his hands. But the Cons will now have a ready-made counter to any step outside the political straight and narrow - with any originality on Trudeau's part framed as evidence of a dilettante "in over his head" rather than a distinctive personality. And the flat-out falsehoods within the Cons' ad will seem far less significant in the long run if Trudeau's actions make the underlying theme seem plausible - forcing the Libs into some much more complicated calculations as to how to set Trudeau apart without risking the Cons' message sticking to him.
Meanwhile, the Cons also look to have signaled that at least for now, they're more intent on dealing with Trudeau than managing risks posed by both the NDP and the Libs - as both points of criticism within the ad involve areas of strength for Tom Mulcair. (Hence my suspicion that Stephen Harper may be placing a greater emphasis on destroying the Libs for good than on his own likelihood of holding onto power in 2015.)
Stephen's Choice
Karl Nerenberg offers one comparative look at how the NDP and the Libs are positioned for the next few years after this weekend's conventions which saw Tom Mulcair resoundingly confirmed as the NDP's leader and Justin Trudeau anointed as the Libs'. But I'll take a bit of time to discuss the wider political scene - and how the most important choice over the next few years may still lie in the hands of Stephen Harper and his party.
While media coverage of polls inevitably tends toward proclaiming a horse race, the trend since Trudeau has instead pointed toward another possibility: for the foreseeable future, we figure to be in a true three-party system, where relatively small shifts can create plausible scenarios in which each of the NDP, Libs and Cons has a path to power. And the range of possible outcomes is only heightened by the respective positions of the NDP and the Libs - who can be seen as exemplifying the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
For the NDP, the next steps look mostly to involve continued progress along the party's existing trajectory. While the 2011 Quebec breakthrough may have provided a bit more public attention and a stronger base in Parliament than expected, the path ahead still means implementing the strategy first developed when Jack Layton won the leadership over a decade ago - including consolidating the NDP's hold over progressive policy positions (as Frank Graves points out), further outreach to groups who haven't been sufficiently included before, and slowly but surely building Mulcair's reputation as a strong and steady leader defined by a commitment to social democratic causes ignored by the other two official parties.
For the Libs, on the other hand, the only goal for the moment is to catch lightning in a bottle. As Andrew Coyne notes, the entire party is now focused entirely on Justin Trudeau alone, which creates both obvious opportunities and significant dangers. It's possible that the Libs may be able to harness an immediate outpouring of attention to jump-start the fund-raising, volunteer and activist bases needed to support a government-in-waiting. But the Libs are effectively starting from scratch yet again in trying to assemble those pieces - and if Trudeau loses his political celebrity status before they're in place, then that may well be the end of the party as a viable political force.
Which leads us to the most interesting factor to watch over the next few years.
Stephen Harper's time as the Cons' leader has been defined primarily by two goals: to incrementally spread small-c conservative values around the political scene to the extent possible, and to kill off the Liberals as a viable political force. And until 2011, there wasn't any need to choose between those two goals, as any action which supported one tended to contribute to the other.
But with Trudeau conspicuously trying to position himself as a centre-right leader while the NDP has emerged as a serious contender for government in its own right, the two goals may now be mutually incompatible.
The "spread conservative values" goal might well be best achieved (at least in the sense of trying to secure another majority in 2015) through a strategy of opposition whack-a-mole: launching concerted attacks on whichever opposition party manages to reach relative parity with the Cons at any given time, and easing off to allow either party to rebuild strength if it's in danger of falling out of the picture entirely.
Of course, that line of attack isn't without its risks either: in particular, if the two opposition parties are both allowed to push their support into the high twenties or beyond, a minority scenario could easily materialize which Harper wouldn't likely survive. And moreover, a three-party system featuring the Libs as a significant option obviously falls short of the goal of performing a victory dance on the Libs' corpse.
That leaves the other possibility. It's often been mooted that Harper's long-term goal is a system akin to that which has existed in B.C. for the past few decades - with a right-wing coalition which can be assembled (under various party banners) to win a majority of elections in the long run, and a left-wing counterweight strong enough to contend in most elections but facing a small, persistent structural disadvantage.
And Harper will have some significant influence in determining whether that dynamic materializes. If he simply decides to attack Trudeau early, often and with even less regard than usual for the Cons' immediate popularity, he may well be able to push the Libs over the edge. But in so doing, he'd almost certainly improve the NDP's chances of emerging on top in 2015. (And it might well have other unintended side effects - such as reinforcing so many negative perceptions as to push his own party into third place if Trudeau's popularity holds up.)
So these may be the choices facing Harper: between an Ontario-style three-party system which often requires triangulation and compromise or a B.C.-style winner-take-all ideological slugfest; between Justin Trudeau having a better chance to come to power pushing centre-right policies or Tom Mulcair receiving a greater opportunity to implement centre-left ones; between short-term power in 2015 and a long-term party alignment which he may see as more consistent with his agenda.
I have my own suspicions as to what will prove the be the overriding force in the Cons' decision-making. And I see the first wave of attacks on Trudeau supporting the theory - though I'll have more to say about those later on.
[Update: Corrected fable. Fun update to be able to offer.]
While media coverage of polls inevitably tends toward proclaiming a horse race, the trend since Trudeau has instead pointed toward another possibility: for the foreseeable future, we figure to be in a true three-party system, where relatively small shifts can create plausible scenarios in which each of the NDP, Libs and Cons has a path to power. And the range of possible outcomes is only heightened by the respective positions of the NDP and the Libs - who can be seen as exemplifying the fable of the tortoise and the hare.
For the NDP, the next steps look mostly to involve continued progress along the party's existing trajectory. While the 2011 Quebec breakthrough may have provided a bit more public attention and a stronger base in Parliament than expected, the path ahead still means implementing the strategy first developed when Jack Layton won the leadership over a decade ago - including consolidating the NDP's hold over progressive policy positions (as Frank Graves points out), further outreach to groups who haven't been sufficiently included before, and slowly but surely building Mulcair's reputation as a strong and steady leader defined by a commitment to social democratic causes ignored by the other two official parties.
For the Libs, on the other hand, the only goal for the moment is to catch lightning in a bottle. As Andrew Coyne notes, the entire party is now focused entirely on Justin Trudeau alone, which creates both obvious opportunities and significant dangers. It's possible that the Libs may be able to harness an immediate outpouring of attention to jump-start the fund-raising, volunteer and activist bases needed to support a government-in-waiting. But the Libs are effectively starting from scratch yet again in trying to assemble those pieces - and if Trudeau loses his political celebrity status before they're in place, then that may well be the end of the party as a viable political force.
Which leads us to the most interesting factor to watch over the next few years.
Stephen Harper's time as the Cons' leader has been defined primarily by two goals: to incrementally spread small-c conservative values around the political scene to the extent possible, and to kill off the Liberals as a viable political force. And until 2011, there wasn't any need to choose between those two goals, as any action which supported one tended to contribute to the other.
But with Trudeau conspicuously trying to position himself as a centre-right leader while the NDP has emerged as a serious contender for government in its own right, the two goals may now be mutually incompatible.
The "spread conservative values" goal might well be best achieved (at least in the sense of trying to secure another majority in 2015) through a strategy of opposition whack-a-mole: launching concerted attacks on whichever opposition party manages to reach relative parity with the Cons at any given time, and easing off to allow either party to rebuild strength if it's in danger of falling out of the picture entirely.
Of course, that line of attack isn't without its risks either: in particular, if the two opposition parties are both allowed to push their support into the high twenties or beyond, a minority scenario could easily materialize which Harper wouldn't likely survive. And moreover, a three-party system featuring the Libs as a significant option obviously falls short of the goal of performing a victory dance on the Libs' corpse.
That leaves the other possibility. It's often been mooted that Harper's long-term goal is a system akin to that which has existed in B.C. for the past few decades - with a right-wing coalition which can be assembled (under various party banners) to win a majority of elections in the long run, and a left-wing counterweight strong enough to contend in most elections but facing a small, persistent structural disadvantage.
And Harper will have some significant influence in determining whether that dynamic materializes. If he simply decides to attack Trudeau early, often and with even less regard than usual for the Cons' immediate popularity, he may well be able to push the Libs over the edge. But in so doing, he'd almost certainly improve the NDP's chances of emerging on top in 2015. (And it might well have other unintended side effects - such as reinforcing so many negative perceptions as to push his own party into third place if Trudeau's popularity holds up.)
So these may be the choices facing Harper: between an Ontario-style three-party system which often requires triangulation and compromise or a B.C.-style winner-take-all ideological slugfest; between Justin Trudeau having a better chance to come to power pushing centre-right policies or Tom Mulcair receiving a greater opportunity to implement centre-left ones; between short-term power in 2015 and a long-term party alignment which he may see as more consistent with his agenda.
I have my own suspicions as to what will prove the be the overriding force in the Cons' decision-making. And I see the first wave of attacks on Trudeau supporting the theory - though I'll have more to say about those later on.
[Update: Corrected fable. Fun update to be able to offer.]
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- George Monbiot comments on the outsized influence of advertisers on children:
- Martin Regg Cohn points out that the Ontario Libs' gas plant scandal also serves as a case in point as to the dangers of ill-advised privatization:
- And finally, CBC reports that while Peter Penashue gets ever more shrill in shouting that he abused his ministerial authority in order to secure pork for his riding, his party refuses to even acknowledge that anything of the sort ever happened.
- George Monbiot comments on the outsized influence of advertisers on children:
How many people believe this makes the world a better place? A company called TenNine has hung hoardings in the corridors and common rooms of 750 British schools. Among its clients are Nike, Adidas, Orange, Tesco and Unilever. It boasts that its "high impact platform delivers right to the heart of the 11-18 year old market".- But Erika Shaker notes that corporate interests haven't been able to completely override critical thought - with the Cons' temporary foreign worker system looking like a prime example of an issue where the general public is rightly questioning why actual people have no place in Conservative and corporate decision-making. And Ken Georgetti calls on the Cons to fix the system they've broken.
Other firms are closing in. Boomerang Media, which represents Sega, Atari, Virgin, Umbro and others, has persuaded schools to distribute Revlon perfume samples to their pupils. This campaign, it says, "was effectively linked into their PSHE and PE classes". PSHE means personal, social, health and economic education, or "learning to live life well". How the disbursement of perfume by teachers helps children to keep fit and live well is a mystery I will leave you to ponder.
Advertising in schools offers corporations a genuine captive market. Trade associations which defend the dark arts of persuasion argue that if you don't like advertisements, then you don't have to look at them. But in this case you do. While surveys suggest that roadside hoardings raise awareness of a company's products among 28% of the people who pass them, posters in schools, according to TenNine, reach over 80%.
Every year, advertisers press a little further into our lives, shrinking the uncontaminated space in which we may live. In ways of which we are often scarcely aware, they change our perceptions of the world, alter our values, infiltrate the language.
...
In his book Childhood Under Siege, Joel Bakan shows how computer games and social networking are being merged to create new advertising platforms. The aim, according to an executive he quotes, is to "get users in the door to play for free and then monetise the hell out of them once they're hooked". One way is to issue points or virtual coinage to kids who click on advertisements.
All this is promoted as fun and freedom. Parents who try to restrict children's access look like prudes and killjoys. "As our kids become immersed," Bakan notes, "in a [corporate] culture that works to pry them loose from us, we become less able to find the connection, respect, authority and credibility we need to keep them safe, healthy and in the long term happy."
...
So it didn't take me long to decide to sign the open letter by a new campaign called Leave Our Kids Alone, asking for a ban on all advertising aimed at children under 11. It is long overdue: it's a marvel that we have for so long tolerated this capture of children's minds by companies exploiting their innocence and wonder. This is a campaign about more than advertising. It's about who we are: free-thinking citizens, raised on the best information and judgment that parents and teachers can provide; or captive consumers, suckled at home and at school on subtle corporate lies. I urge you to join it.
- Martin Regg Cohn points out that the Ontario Libs' gas plant scandal also serves as a case in point as to the dangers of ill-advised privatization:
It was the Liberal embrace of privatization in 2004 that drove the government to contract out any new power generation — from gas-fired plants, solar and wind — to the private sector, explicitly sidelining government-owned Ontario Power Generation.- Which offers a useful reminder to work on avoiding the same types of problems with a new Regina wastewater treatment plant.
Think about that: OPG happens to have decades of experience in siting power plants — including nuclear reactors — across Ontario while engaging with local communities (ever notice our nukes aren’t plagued by active NIMBYism?). It also has enormous fiscal capacity to borrow money for power plant construction without resorting to parasitical U.S. private equity funds charging nearly criminal rates of interest and penalties.
Instead, the Liberals bought into the fantasy that privatization equals efficiency. And the shibboleth that the private sector always delivers on time and on budget.
Not in Mississauga, where the private sector ran out of time — and money. Eastern Power won the contract by bidding low for the project, but turned out to be a high-cost operator: Not only did it borrow money at 14 per cent (compounded quarterly), as the auditor noted incredulously, it demanded to be compensated for supposedly paying an administrative assistant at the rate of $110,000 a year.
So much for efficiency.
- And finally, CBC reports that while Peter Penashue gets ever more shrill in shouting that he abused his ministerial authority in order to secure pork for his riding, his party refuses to even acknowledge that anything of the sort ever happened.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Someday, this could all be ours
Sure, we know that an undue obsession with standardized testing leads to incentives for administrators and teachers to cheat in order to give the impression of improvement. But that's nothing compared to the impact on other parts of a child's eduction which get shoved aside in the name of test scores:
(H/t to Kay at Balloon Juice.)
At Public School 10 on the edge of Park Slope, Brooklyn, parents begged the principal to postpone the lower school science fair, insisting it was going to add too much pressure while they were preparing their children for the coming state tests.But in fairness, I'm sure gratuitous stress at the school level will only help to prepare students prepare for a workforce similarly built on random burdens imposed from on high with no consideration for the interests of the rabble. So we at least can't say the Saskatchewan Party's plans are anything less than internally consistent.
On Staten Island, a community meeting devolved into a series of student stress stories, with one parent recounting how his son had woken up from a bad dream, mumbling that he had forgotten to fill in a bubble answer.
And at Public School 24 in the Riverdale neighborhood in the Bronx, a fifth-grade teacher, Walter Rendon, has found himself soothing tense 10- and 11-year-olds as they pore over test prep exercises. “Sometimes, I say: ‘Just breathe.’ ”
(H/t to Kay at Balloon Juice.)
#mtlqc13 - Day 3 Review
Once again, Aaron has a list of the resolutions passed at the NDP's federal convention - and I won't comment much on what passed other than to note that once again, some key resolutions (on social housing, health care funding and temporary foreign workers) were passed by the plenary session after being pushed to the front of the line by members at convention.
However, I'll take some time to discuss the session on the party's constitution and internal governance.
While far too much talk about the convention focused on the constitutional preamble (which I discussed here), two other highly-ranked resolutions also raised the prospect of constitutional change. And indeed, the first resolution on the topic led to my first direct intervention in a federal NDP convention.
Resolution 7-01-13, explained as being intended to ensure that nomination rules are set at the federal level rather than devolved to the NDP's provincial wings, read as follows:
As a result, I moved as follows:
Naturally, the constitutional preamble - featuring a couple of amendments from the pre-convention version - was the subject of a heated debate. But the most effective interventions came from the pro side - including the likes of Bill Blaikie who could say that he had concerns about the party's previous proposed amendment, but saw the new version (which he of course participated in drafting) as having resolved those issues. (And that stood in stark contrast to the "con" side, which seemed aimed mostly at expressing the greatest possible outrage rather than convincing anybody who might have been on the fence).
If there was any key lesson to be learned from the standpoint of planning the convention, it may have been that there's a need to address more policy than it's possible to debate over the course of a weekend. In particular, I wonder whether a mechanism to designate some resolutions as "non-controversial" would allow for a show of party support without spending a lot of time debating resolutions which don't face any opposition - but there's obviously room to discuss how best to get to more policy priorities.
But this weekend nonetheless highlighted how an engaged membership and an effective leader can reinforce each other rather than being seen as mutually inconsistent - and the NDP looks to be on solid ground on both fronts as it builds up to the 2015 election and beyond.
However, I'll take some time to discuss the session on the party's constitution and internal governance.
While far too much talk about the convention focused on the constitutional preamble (which I discussed here), two other highly-ranked resolutions also raised the prospect of constitutional change. And indeed, the first resolution on the topic led to my first direct intervention in a federal NDP convention.
Resolution 7-01-13, explained as being intended to ensure that nomination rules are set at the federal level rather than devolved to the NDP's provincial wings, read as follows:
7-01-13Unfortunately, having spent most of my time analyzing the convention resolutions looking at policy points which I hoped to see promoted, I hadn't looked a in a lot of detail at the issues seen as non-controversial enough to already be at the front of the line. And while I'm happy to see standards set at the national level, it struck me as questionable to leave total discretion in the hands of federal council rather than ensuring that the NDP's nomination rules and procedures are based on meaningful constitutional guidelines - particularly given my frequent criticism of other parties for practices like shielding incumbents from nominations or appointing candidates from the top.
Resolution to Amend the Constitution Submitted by Federal Council
WHEREAS the NDP has different rules governing nominations in each province; and
WHEREAS using different rules in each province creates inconsistency and confusion;
BE IT RESOLVED that Article XV of the constitution be struck and replaced by:
Article XV: Rules governing the nomination of candidates
1. The Federal Council shall create rules and procedures for the nomination of the federal candidates.
2. The Federal Council shall review these rules after each general election.
As a result, I moved as follows:
MOVED that Resolution 7-01-13 be referred to Federal Council to develop a new Article XV providing for federal nomination standards which respect the principles of open nominations and electoral district association-level nomination elections.Fortunately, Nathan Rotman's response indicated that those values would be taken into account in the current Council's work. But ultimately, I'd still see it as important to ensure that the core values underlying the NDP's nomination process can't be fundamentally altered by Federal Council without membership approval - and I'll want to see some discussion on that point (with a lot more advance preparation on my part) at the party's Edmonton convention in 2015.
Naturally, the constitutional preamble - featuring a couple of amendments from the pre-convention version - was the subject of a heated debate. But the most effective interventions came from the pro side - including the likes of Bill Blaikie who could say that he had concerns about the party's previous proposed amendment, but saw the new version (which he of course participated in drafting) as having resolved those issues. (And that stood in stark contrast to the "con" side, which seemed aimed mostly at expressing the greatest possible outrage rather than convincing anybody who might have been on the fence).
If there was any key lesson to be learned from the standpoint of planning the convention, it may have been that there's a need to address more policy than it's possible to debate over the course of a weekend. In particular, I wonder whether a mechanism to designate some resolutions as "non-controversial" would allow for a show of party support without spending a lot of time debating resolutions which don't face any opposition - but there's obviously room to discuss how best to get to more policy priorities.
But this weekend nonetheless highlighted how an engaged membership and an effective leader can reinforce each other rather than being seen as mutually inconsistent - and the NDP looks to be on solid ground on both fronts as it builds up to the 2015 election and beyond.
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Peter Gillespie discusses the problems with tax cheats (and the overseas tax havens which encourage them):
- Carol Goar discusses a few examples of single statistics being used as talking points even when they're carefully selected to obscure the real picture.
- And finally, Michael Harris muses that the Harper Cons may have run out of gas:
- Peter Gillespie discusses the problems with tax cheats (and the overseas tax havens which encourage them):
Multinational corporations and banking and financial institutions routinely use tax havens to lower or eliminate their tax obligations, avoid regulation, and shield themselves from liability. Tax havens host more than two million “international business corporations,” often little more than shell companies with a postal address. The British Virgin Islands, with a population of 30,000, hosts an estimated 460,000 business corporations. One modest building in the Cayman Islands is home to more that 18,000 of these entities.
Last December, media reports in the United Kingdom revealed that Google, Amazon and Starbucks were paying little or no taxes to the national treasury despite earning billions in profits in the British market. During a parliamentary investigation, officials from the three companies admitted they were shifting profits out of Britain into lower tax jurisdictions. Amazon collects its U.K. sales in Luxembourg. Google collects its sales in Ireland and through a complicated scheme sends its earnings to the tax haven of Bermuda via the Netherlands.
...
(T)hese opaque and secretive jurisdictions are causing serious harm, especially in the era of austerity and the attendant erosion of social support programs worldwide. The reports from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists are shining a light into the murkiest spaces within the global economy. We should all be grateful.- Doug Saunders writes that Canada has developed largely thanks to the full integration of immigrant workers - and argues that the same opportunity, not only temporary worker status, should be available for new arrivals today. And Heather Mallick discusses the hollowing-out of Canada's work force:
Stephen Harper’s long-term plan for Canada includes not just the Thatcherite destruction of unions but a clear-out of government workers and a lowering of all wages. The man keeps winning elections because he trusts that voters won’t make the connection and take it personally.- But fortunately, the corporatist effort to take more and more away from mere workers isn't without some organized opposition - as John Bonnar reports on the work of the Canadian Foundation for Labour Rights.
Indeed wages drop slowly, not instantly, and they’re hard to track. But CBC.ca welcomes news tips from the public. Here’s my story, one man wrote, and journalists recognized that the story of one man was in fact the story of many. And that’s when Canada got angry.
Eventually, outsourcing will ravage Canadian office workers. Their loss will become our loss, and that’s what we still don’t grasp. We know about specific bank IT complaints, and teachers’ strikes, but we don’t see the big picture.
...
Government workers inspect our food, issue our passports and clean our hospital rooms. As they are laid off, replaced with outsourced low-paid foreign workers or not replaced at all, our quality of life sinks like a stone. What is true for government workers is also true for the private sector. We need Canadian bank workers to be paid fairly, too.
- Carol Goar discusses a few examples of single statistics being used as talking points even when they're carefully selected to obscure the real picture.
- And finally, Michael Harris muses that the Harper Cons may have run out of gas:
(W)ith a rejuvenated opposition capturing the public’s eye — one party through a policy-driven convention taking dead aim at this government, and the other by selecting a new leader who might just bring the kids back into politics — Stephen Harper suddenly looks old.
He looks old flying to the funeral of a woman who defended apartheid and whose death sent thousands of her own countrymen into the street partying. He looks old fronting for a corporate elite who can’t buy enough advertising to portray their greed as swashbuckling philanthropy, putting us all to work. He looks old welcoming Chinese panda bears to Canada while cold-shouldering native kids who walked through an eternity of winter to be heard on the lawns of Parliament.
Old is bad enough. Then there is ancient. That’s the place where Stephen Harper has arrived on the environment. This is a file you just can’t lie your way through, no matter how many spinners do your bidding. The polar ice caps are disappearing and Canada opts out of Kyoto. There is a reason that anyone in this PM’s environment portfolio ends up with more wrinkles than an Agatha Christie plot.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
#mtlqc13 - Day 2 Review
Aaron Wherry has been documenting the resolutions passed at the NDP's convention in Montreal - and so I haven't seen much need to comment on them in detail. But the most noteworthy development in today's policy debates came from a resolution which wasn't passed - but which nonetheless signalled the NDP's willingness to tackle difficult but important social issues based on members' input.
The following resolution was pushed up the priority list in the resolution panel, and came to the floor for debate this afternoon:
The other major development today was Tom Mulcair's speech to members following a successful leadership evaluation. And while I raised some questions about his past speech-making in yesterday's review (based in large part on an address to Saskatchewan's leadership convention which was generally strong on content, but rushed and wordy), he hit the mark today - combining his characteristic intelligence with a far better connection to the audience than I've seen from him in the past. And both that and the review vote bode extremely well for his prospects in holding and building on the NDP's current coalition in the face of a new Liberal leader.
The following resolution was pushed up the priority list in the resolution panel, and came to the floor for debate this afternoon:
6-31-13Now, the resolution didn't pass. But that wasn't a matter of it lacking support on the convention floor: instead, after one strong speech favouring the resolution, Libby Davies moved that it be referred to federal council with instructions that it return a formal policy later this year. And that motion, combined with the obvious support of the convention for the cause of ensuring that sex workers are recognized as citizens rather than stigmatized, looks to ensure that the NDP will present an unprecedentedly inclusive policy in the years to come.
Resolution on Upholding Sex Workers’ Rights to Life, Liberty, Security, and Equality Submitted by Vancouver East
WHEREAS Canadian values include respect for human and labour rights of all persons, including the right to life, liberty, security, equality and freedom of expression and association as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
WHEREAS Canadian courts, the Parliamentary Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry concluded that criminalization of sex workers increases the violence perpetrated against them and decreases their access to police and other legal and social protections.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, support the repeal of sections 210, 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to improve the health, safety, equality and social citizenship of sex workers.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT we, the NDP, do not support the enactment of legislation that prohibits the purchase or sale of sexual services or sex workers’ ability to work with others.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT while the prostitution laws remain in force, we, the NDP, call on all Canadian police departments to immediately halt enforcement of ss. 211, 212(1), 212(3), and 213 and, instead, ensure sex workers have equal access to police protection and the justice system when they are the victims of crime.
The other major development today was Tom Mulcair's speech to members following a successful leadership evaluation. And while I raised some questions about his past speech-making in yesterday's review (based in large part on an address to Saskatchewan's leadership convention which was generally strong on content, but rushed and wordy), he hit the mark today - combining his characteristic intelligence with a far better connection to the audience than I've seen from him in the past. And both that and the review vote bode extremely well for his prospects in holding and building on the NDP's current coalition in the face of a new Liberal leader.
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Thomas Walkom offers an insider's look at outsourcing:
- Joe Oliver became the first cabinet minister to say publicly what seems to be the Cons' obvious operating principle of denying that climate change exists (or calls for any policy whatsoever).
- Finally, Alex Himelfarb comments on the importance of public service. And in a fine example of the antithesis of that principle, Sixth Estate explores the traditional dirty politics at work in Peter Penashue's remarkable boast that he used his cabinet position to deliberately refuse to approve a needed project in order to push funding into his own riding.
- Thomas Walkom offers an insider's look at outsourcing:
- Meanwhile, Joanna Smith and Bea Vongdouangchanh both report on Joseph Stiglitz' speech yesterday - focusing on the need to combat inequality through investment in people and real regulation of rent-seekers and plutocrats - as providing an economic focal point for the NDP.Arlene says any outsourcing scheme begins with the institution’s senior management. Usually, she says, the aim is to transfer about 60 per cent of the affected jobs — often in back-shop areas like information technology — to India where wages are a fraction of those paid in Canada.
The remaining 40 per cent, which generally require more local support, are outsourced to third-party firms in Canada. They in turn, subcontract the jobs to individual Canadians.
The aim here, Arlene says, is to not only to save the bank money but ensure that it is legally insulated from those who work for it.
Technically, those Canadians doing outsourced work are viewed as self-employed. That means that the bank no longer has to pay statutory benefits such as Canada Pension Plan premiums.
In most cases, subcontracts with Canadian workers are renewed for up to two years. Then, in order to maintain the fiction that they are not real bank employees, they are let go. After a few weeks, they are rehired on another set of short-term contracts.
...
“It’s sad,” says Arlene. “Really and truly sad. If you’re on contract you have no security. You do exactly what you’re told or you’re gone. You look the wrong way at someone and you’re gone. If you even question someone, you’re gone.”
The former outsourcer says she now thinks outsourcing is monstrous. She says she left the field because she couldn’t bear it any more. She says she has seen too much damage up close.
She says outsourcing, either domestically or abroad, is destroying the dreams of young Canadians. She has a child of her own. She wants government to crack down on companies that, just to make a buck, deliberately kill good jobs.
- Joe Oliver became the first cabinet minister to say publicly what seems to be the Cons' obvious operating principle of denying that climate change exists (or calls for any policy whatsoever).
- Finally, Alex Himelfarb comments on the importance of public service. And in a fine example of the antithesis of that principle, Sixth Estate explores the traditional dirty politics at work in Peter Penashue's remarkable boast that he used his cabinet position to deliberately refuse to approve a needed project in order to push funding into his own riding.
Friday, April 12, 2013
#mtlqc13 - Day 1 Review
Based on my posts leading up to the NDP's federal convention, it shouldn't come as much surprise that my main focus is on the substantive policy debates. And the first day saw some positive developments on that front.
Rather than sticking to the party's chosen list of topics for discussion, members intervened in the resolution panel on the economy to push resolutions on employment insurance (1-53-13) and pay equity (1-17-13) into the mix for approval in this afternoon's plenary session. And while those might not have come first among my own priorities on the economy, they certainly reflect both an injection of strong progressive values, and a demonstration that membership participation still has a substantive effect on the NDP's policy discussions.
The other noteworthy development on the day was Tom Mulcair's evening town hall. For all the talk of an attempt to bolster Mulcair's image by telling more of his personal story, that effort would have fallen flat if he hadn't lived up to the introduction in the subsequent question-and-answer session. But Mulcair reminded us that he's at his best offering well-thought-out responses to a wide range of questions - and it particularly helped for an NDP crowd that the questions themselves led to a more focused articulation of progressive values than Mulcair seems to default toward on his own.
Tomorrow will see plenty more plenary sessions along with a speech by Mulcair. But the first convention test for Mulcair and his party looks to be off to a good start.
Rather than sticking to the party's chosen list of topics for discussion, members intervened in the resolution panel on the economy to push resolutions on employment insurance (1-53-13) and pay equity (1-17-13) into the mix for approval in this afternoon's plenary session. And while those might not have come first among my own priorities on the economy, they certainly reflect both an injection of strong progressive values, and a demonstration that membership participation still has a substantive effect on the NDP's policy discussions.
The other noteworthy development on the day was Tom Mulcair's evening town hall. For all the talk of an attempt to bolster Mulcair's image by telling more of his personal story, that effort would have fallen flat if he hadn't lived up to the introduction in the subsequent question-and-answer session. But Mulcair reminded us that he's at his best offering well-thought-out responses to a wide range of questions - and it particularly helped for an NDP crowd that the questions themselves led to a more focused articulation of progressive values than Mulcair seems to default toward on his own.
Tomorrow will see plenty more plenary sessions along with a speech by Mulcair. But the first convention test for Mulcair and his party looks to be off to a good start.
#mtlqc13 - Preamble Ramble
Over the past few days, I've highlighted a few policy resolutions I'd like to see promoted and discussed at the NDP's federal convention this weekend in Montreal. But I'll take a few minutes to discuss the topic that's receiving the most media attention in advance of the convention - even if I see its significance as largely overstated.
Aaron Wherry compares the text of the NDP's proposed constitutional preamble to the existing wording here. And the trend to be seen in the existing language, the 2011 proposal and the new draft looks primarily to involve the use of lengthier and weaker wording to describe much the same set of concepts.
That means I'm not hugely excited to see the amendment pushed forward. If nothing else, I'd hope there's room for some editing - in part to cut down on the preamble's length, and in part to reinstate a few concepts (such as social ownership) which don't appear the current version, but remain consistent with the overarching vision of government as a force for the common good.
That said, I also don't consider it a major problem if the new wording passes as is. Again, the general principles included in the new version leave plenty of room for all the progressive policy one could possibly hope to see - that is, so long as the role of government in pursuing the common good is defined through more detailed policy.
Which brings me back to my broader view of this weekend's convention. I don't see the constitutional issue as carrying too much weight one way or the other, but the treatment of policy resolutions which haven't been treated as party priorities (both in the ability of delegates to change the agenda to suit members' concerns, and in the party's response to resolutions that pass as a result) will be the most important test for the NDP. And if party loyalists manage to block any change to the preamble while being unable to substantially shape current party policy, that doesn't strike me as a positive outcome for anybody.
Aaron Wherry compares the text of the NDP's proposed constitutional preamble to the existing wording here. And the trend to be seen in the existing language, the 2011 proposal and the new draft looks primarily to involve the use of lengthier and weaker wording to describe much the same set of concepts.
That means I'm not hugely excited to see the amendment pushed forward. If nothing else, I'd hope there's room for some editing - in part to cut down on the preamble's length, and in part to reinstate a few concepts (such as social ownership) which don't appear the current version, but remain consistent with the overarching vision of government as a force for the common good.
That said, I also don't consider it a major problem if the new wording passes as is. Again, the general principles included in the new version leave plenty of room for all the progressive policy one could possibly hope to see - that is, so long as the role of government in pursuing the common good is defined through more detailed policy.
Which brings me back to my broader view of this weekend's convention. I don't see the constitutional issue as carrying too much weight one way or the other, but the treatment of policy resolutions which haven't been treated as party priorities (both in the ability of delegates to change the agenda to suit members' concerns, and in the party's response to resolutions that pass as a result) will be the most important test for the NDP. And if party loyalists manage to block any change to the preamble while being unable to substantially shape current party policy, that doesn't strike me as a positive outcome for anybody.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Thursday Evening Links
Assorted content to end your day.
- Carol Goar discusses how the Cons' latest attacks on Employment Insurance add just one burden to the backs of workers who have already borne the brunt of decades of corporatist policy:
- In what should come as a shock to anybody who's paid absolutely no attention, Don Cayo finds that once again the NDP has a better track record managing publicly money than right-wing alternatives. And Vaughn Palmer notes that the B.C. NDP in particular is taking the all-too-rare step of building an election platform on more realistic budget assumptions than the ones put forward by the Libs - trading the nominal spending room which would allow for larger campaign promises for the prospect that the NDP's platform might actually be deliverable.
- Finally, let's round up some others' reports and commentary on the NDP's convention this weekend - with Dan Tan, Gloria Galloway, Mia Rabson, Bea Vongdouangchanh, Jennifer Ditchburn, Arash Azizi, Lawrence Martin and Thomas Walkom among others contributing to the discussion.
- Carol Goar discusses how the Cons' latest attacks on Employment Insurance add just one burden to the backs of workers who have already borne the brunt of decades of corporatist policy:
(L)ast Sunday, employment insurance benefits in two-thirds of the country were quietly reduced. Existing recipients were spared but new EI claimants — starting with the 54,500 workers who lost their jobs in March — will be subject to tougher rules. Most will get less support.
Generalizations are impossible. The impact on any person depends on his or her employment record, skills and the health of the local job market. But by and large, EI applicants in Oshawa, Windsor, Hamilton, the Niagara region, Sudbury, Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, Regina and Vancouver will fare worse under the new rules. (The effect in Toronto will minimal because EI claimants here never received the same benefits as their counterparts in the rest of the country.)
Employment insurance rates are set by formulas so complex they defy explanation. But the essence of this change is that the government has pushed the threshold to qualify for the most generous form of EI treatment out of reach for most Canadians.
...
Ironically, Flaherty’s objective was to make the EI system more equitable, a goal shared by Canadians and the Ontario government. They envisaged a uniform rate structure that would boost benefits for everyone. What the minister delivered was a plan to lower them.
It was equity of a sort — a stingy sort.
Sunday’s rule change was the government’s latest move toward a “flexible labour” agenda. It came on the heels of a crackdown on EI recipients last month to ferret out “false and inappropriate claims.” Federal officials made unannounced house calls, grilling recipients. The month before, the government imposed a requirement that repeat EI claimants accept any job in a 100-kilometre radius that paid as little as 70 per cent of their previous salary.
No doubt these measures will sharpen the private sector’s competitive edge. But they will drive down wages and make it harder for workers who lose their jobs to recover.
These trade-offs have far-reaching consequences. Over time, they will erode Canada’s standard of living and reduce the resilience of its workforce. All Canadians — even those with ostensibly secure jobs — need to pay attention.- Meanwhile, Karl Nerenberg nicely documents the Cons' "old-fashioned red-baiting" as the preferred means of distracting attention from how ill-advised policies are hurting Canadians. But if there's anything wrong with Nerenberg's approach, it's found in his apparent assumptions that the Cons would see the label as a criticism rather than a compliment.
- In what should come as a shock to anybody who's paid absolutely no attention, Don Cayo finds that once again the NDP has a better track record managing publicly money than right-wing alternatives. And Vaughn Palmer notes that the B.C. NDP in particular is taking the all-too-rare step of building an election platform on more realistic budget assumptions than the ones put forward by the Libs - trading the nominal spending room which would allow for larger campaign promises for the prospect that the NDP's platform might actually be deliverable.
- Finally, let's round up some others' reports and commentary on the NDP's convention this weekend - with Dan Tan, Gloria Galloway, Mia Rabson, Bea Vongdouangchanh, Jennifer Ditchburn, Arash Azizi, Lawrence Martin and Thomas Walkom among others contributing to the discussion.
#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - Human Rights
The final panel on policy resolutions at the NDP's Montreal convention will deal with human rights issues. And the Young New Democrats of Quebec have proposed a resolution which covers a number of issues worth including in that discussion:
6-26-13Of course, the open government theme is addressed in a number of other resolutions (including two I've mentioned before). But the NDP will be well served to also embrace the combination of intellectual property policy oriented toward creativity rather than rent-seeking, a commitment to Internet accessibility, and protections for both privacy and free expression online. And in each case, the party has the opportunity to stand alone in taking the side of Canadian citizens in dealing with rapacious (and deservedly unpopular) corporate interests.
Resolution on Rights in the Digital Age
Submitted by the Young New Democrats of Quebec
WHEREAS protecting digital rights is necessary to develop a sustainable economy in the 21st century;
BE IT RESOLVED that a new subsection (6.10) be added to the Policy Book:
6.10 Rights in the digital age
New Democrats believe in:
(a) Ensuring all Canadians have affordable high-speed Internet access.
(b) Updating the notion of copyright for the 21st century, while protecting creators.
(c) Preventing malicious prosecutions for copyright infringement.
(d) Putting an end to the legal protection for “digital locks,” to enable Canadians to transfer their digital content from one medium to another.
(e) Protecting the right to privacy and free expression on the Internet.
(f) Reforming the patent system with such measures as patent lifespan that varies by sector and measures to limit malicious prosecutions.
(g) Making government more transparent by adopting open government principles.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Subsection 6.7 g be struck from the Policy Book.
#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - Governance
One of the most obvious sources of cynicism in politics - which the NDP should be seeking to combat at every turn - is the presence of issues where opposition promises turn into government inaction or even abuse. And the Cons have sadly offered a case in point when it comes to accountability and transparency.
That means it's particularly important for the NDP to establish a strong message on accountable government which fits into the party's grassroots values. And luckily, there's just such a resolution up for discussion:
That means it's particularly important for the NDP to establish a strong message on accountable government which fits into the party's grassroots values. And luckily, there's just such a resolution up for discussion:
5-28-13Once again, another, higher-ranking resolution deals with much the same subject matter (5-14-13). But the difference between the two lies in the distinction between transparency merely as a way of peering in on goverment activity, and two-way communication which facilitates citizen participation. And the NDP should be seeking to emphasize its commitment to the latter ideal.
Resolution on Open Government Submitted by Terrebonne-Blainville
WHEREAS new information technologies enable citizens to interact more directly with government and participate more directly in government decision-making;
BE IT RESOLVED that Subsection 5.8 of the Policy Book be amended as follows:
New Democrats believe in:
f. Promoting an open government strategy with the objective of encouraging public participation, facilitating communication between government and citizens, and making information accessible to citizens while tracking which information is most sought after by the public with a view to gradually making this government information accessible to the public in a user-friendly, modifiable form.
#mtlqc13 Priority Resolution - International Affairs
The NDP's position on trade policy has of course been a hot-button issue
both inside and outside the party - making it the area I'd see needing some discussion in Montreal. And while a number of other
resolutions deal with the issue, one offers a particularly
neat means to add an explicit commitment to the bigger picture while
allowing for the approval of reasonable trade agreements (and avoiding
unnecessary modifications to what's already a well-worded section of the
policy book).
But the starting point in addressing trade should be a concrete commitment to ensuring that social values are strengthened rather than undermined by international trade. And the resolution from Beaches-East York fits that goal.
4-21-13Of course, there's room to import some other principles as well - such as ensuring that "unfair trade practices" aren't merely enforceable by corporate interests or measured in terms of lost profits. And if the resolution can be further strengthened to account for those types of considerations, then all the better.
Resolution on Unfair Trade Practices Submitted by Beaches-East York
BE IT RESOLVED the following clause be added to Section 4.5 of the policy book, after clause b, and that subsequent items be reordered accordingly:
[4.5 New Democrats believe in] c) Classifying wage suppression, union suppression and lax environmental regulation as prohibited "unfair trade practices“ in international trade agreements.
But the starting point in addressing trade should be a concrete commitment to ensuring that social values are strengthened rather than undermined by international trade. And the resolution from Beaches-East York fits that goal.
New column day
Here, on how the Wall government is extending purely individual rights such as the right to privacy to corporations - and how that could lead to yet more corporate abuse in the future.
For further reading...
- The Hansard record from March 18 featuring Gord Wyant's approval of corporate secrecy in the name of civil libertarianism is here (PDF, starting at p. 2747).
- The Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner's letter to Wyant questioning the "company's privacy" language (among other parts of Bill 65) is here (PDF).
- The Supreme Court of Canada's seminal decision on the quasi-constitutional nature of individual privacy is here; see in particular paragraph 64 and subsequent analysis (which was approved of by the majority which disagreed on the application of the agreed principles).
- Finally, I can't make mention of Mitt Romney's "corporations are people, my friend!" without including the most memorable context for it:
For further reading...
- The Hansard record from March 18 featuring Gord Wyant's approval of corporate secrecy in the name of civil libertarianism is here (PDF, starting at p. 2747).
- The Saskatchewan Information and Privacy Commissioner's letter to Wyant questioning the "company's privacy" language (among other parts of Bill 65) is here (PDF).
- The Supreme Court of Canada's seminal decision on the quasi-constitutional nature of individual privacy is here; see in particular paragraph 64 and subsequent analysis (which was approved of by the majority which disagreed on the application of the agreed principles).
- Finally, I can't make mention of Mitt Romney's "corporations are people, my friend!" without including the most memorable context for it:
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Thomas Walkom adds another piece to the picture showing the Cons' efforts to shift both jobs and wealth offshore, pointing out that lax visa rules have only encouraged RBC-style outsourcing schemes. Craig McInnes recognizes that a cheap, low-rights worker strategy is a problem whether labour is imported to Canada or exploited abroad. Haroon Siddiqui, David Doorey, Heather Mallick and Barbara Yaffe express their own outrage about the deliberate elimination of Canadian jobs. And the Alberta Federation of Labour calls attention to the scope of the temporary foreign worker program.
- Mike de Souza offers a detailed look at how the Cons encouraged the oil industry to completely rewrite (and gut) Canada's environmental laws through omnibus legislation.
- And in case anybody was under the illusion that nobody has noticed the Cons' ethical abuses beyond the editorial pages, a new poll should put that to rest:
- And finally, Peter Graefe rightly comments that with two parties with a combined legislative majority jockeying for position on the left in Ontario, now would be an ideal time for some significant action to combat poverty in the province.
- Thomas Walkom adds another piece to the picture showing the Cons' efforts to shift both jobs and wealth offshore, pointing out that lax visa rules have only encouraged RBC-style outsourcing schemes. Craig McInnes recognizes that a cheap, low-rights worker strategy is a problem whether labour is imported to Canada or exploited abroad. Haroon Siddiqui, David Doorey, Heather Mallick and Barbara Yaffe express their own outrage about the deliberate elimination of Canadian jobs. And the Alberta Federation of Labour calls attention to the scope of the temporary foreign worker program.
- Mike de Souza offers a detailed look at how the Cons encouraged the oil industry to completely rewrite (and gut) Canada's environmental laws through omnibus legislation.
- And in case anybody was under the illusion that nobody has noticed the Cons' ethical abuses beyond the editorial pages, a new poll should put that to rest:
Fifty-eight per cent of Canadians disapprove of the Conservative government under Harper’s leadership, compared to 42 per cent who approve.- David Climenhaga exposes the Fraser Institute's main method of ensuring that their corporatist propaganda never faces any direct rebuttal.
Canadians are especially troubled by the government’s actions in one area — secrecy and ethics.
The poll found that 69 per cent of people believe “the Harper Conservatives are too secretive and have not kept their promise to govern according to high ethical standards.” Thirty-one per cent believe the Tories have kept their promise.
Similarly, the poll found that 63 disagreed with the statement the “Harper Conservatives are living up to the promise they made when first elected in 2006 to provide an ethical, open and transparent government.”
- And finally, Peter Graefe rightly comments that with two parties with a combined legislative majority jockeying for position on the left in Ontario, now would be an ideal time for some significant action to combat poverty in the province.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)