Following up on this morning's post, let's note that if the Cons did indeed "double-dip" to try to claim both national-level and riding-level rebates for the same polling expenses, expense reports filed with Elections Canada suggest that the Cons would have inflated the riding-level numbers beyond the actual cost of the national polling in the process.
The Winnipeg Free Press identified transfers from candidates' campaigns to the national party totalling $854,000 under the heading of "election surveys or other surveys or research", while the Cons' party return lists only $697,105.00 in expenses under the same category. Which means that if the dollar values refer to the same material, then the Cons would have received rebates totalling $860,952.50 for their initial expenditure: $348,552.50 at the national level, and $512,400 at the riding level. Or in the terms discussed in this morning's post, the Cons would have claimed and received $1.24 in rebates for every dollar spent on surveys and research.
Of course, that kind of return on investment seldom materializes without some significant risk. And it remains to be seen what the Cons' electoral manipulations may wind up costing them.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
CAIRSless
Plenty of bloggers have discussed the Cons' decision to kill CAIRS, a program which lists the wording of all access-to-information requests made to the federal government. But I haven't yet seen any detailed discussion of how eliminating the program figures to actually change the public's ability to access government information - and it's worth noting that the effect might be slightly different than it seems at first glance.
In particular, the elimination of CAIRS won't do anything to change the federal government's obligation to provide the same information when it's requested. Assuming the Cons won't somehow try to declare that the contents of access requests are now exempt from disclosure in some way (and that may well not be a safe assumption), it'll still be open to the website currently maintaining a public CAIRS database to continue to do the same.
What does figure to change, though, is the difficulty in gathering the same information. In particular, there won't be a central source from which a government-wide list of requests can be obtained. Instead, it'll be necessary to either contact each department for its list of requests then compile that information to make it available, or request government-wide records from a single source who would then be required to contact other government sources for the full information.
Assuming that researchers have found CAIRS to be a valuable tool, I'd expect somebody to keep requesting the information. But what happens once the requests are made?
Remember that a number of federal departments are already under fire for being unable to respond to access to information requests in a timely manner. Now, the employees responsible for information requests will face an extra burden in trying to manage requests based on the information previously recorded in CAIRS - and of course with no hint that the Cons will make up for that extra burden with any added resources.
At best, it would seem likely that federal departments could plan to collect the same information manually in order to have it available once it's requested. But from this angle, it looks like the height of inefficiency to dismantle a centralized and automated system in favour of requiring departments to manually collect the same information based on the virtual certainty that it'll be requested.
And if any department doesn't think ahead far enough to collect the information in advance (or otherwise decides it would rather drag out the process than provide the information), the result will be a delay in making the information available to the public.
As a result, and again assuming that the Cons won't try to break from the past by withholding the wording of access requests, the CAIRS decision seems to fall more in the category of throwing a monkey wrench into the works of the federal government, rather than that of a radical move toward added secrecy. But either way, it looks to be a symptom of Con views which are antithetical to effective government.
In particular, the elimination of CAIRS won't do anything to change the federal government's obligation to provide the same information when it's requested. Assuming the Cons won't somehow try to declare that the contents of access requests are now exempt from disclosure in some way (and that may well not be a safe assumption), it'll still be open to the website currently maintaining a public CAIRS database to continue to do the same.
What does figure to change, though, is the difficulty in gathering the same information. In particular, there won't be a central source from which a government-wide list of requests can be obtained. Instead, it'll be necessary to either contact each department for its list of requests then compile that information to make it available, or request government-wide records from a single source who would then be required to contact other government sources for the full information.
Assuming that researchers have found CAIRS to be a valuable tool, I'd expect somebody to keep requesting the information. But what happens once the requests are made?
Remember that a number of federal departments are already under fire for being unable to respond to access to information requests in a timely manner. Now, the employees responsible for information requests will face an extra burden in trying to manage requests based on the information previously recorded in CAIRS - and of course with no hint that the Cons will make up for that extra burden with any added resources.
At best, it would seem likely that federal departments could plan to collect the same information manually in order to have it available once it's requested. But from this angle, it looks like the height of inefficiency to dismantle a centralized and automated system in favour of requiring departments to manually collect the same information based on the virtual certainty that it'll be requested.
And if any department doesn't think ahead far enough to collect the information in advance (or otherwise decides it would rather drag out the process than provide the information), the result will be a delay in making the information available to the public.
As a result, and again assuming that the Cons won't try to break from the past by withholding the wording of access requests, the CAIRS decision seems to fall more in the category of throwing a monkey wrench into the works of the federal government, rather than that of a radical move toward added secrecy. But either way, it looks to be a symptom of Con views which are antithetical to effective government.
On services rendered
It looks like Walkswithcoffee was right on target in commenting on this post about Conadscam, as other in-and-out transactions are being called into question for what looks like good reason. With that in mind, let's note the two major issues raised by the latest allegations.
First, as discussed by Cameron, is the question of substantial transactions being dated after the election itself. It would seem obvious that the intention of allowing candidates time after an election to supply their returns would be to permit the inclusion of transactions legitimately related to the election which were overlooked initially - not to allow them to throw money back and forth to try to change the substance of how money was actually spent.
Indeed, the potential for abuse if the situation were otherwise would be obvious. Remember that each party may only be reimbursed for local expenses in a riding where it obtains 10% of the vote: if expenses could legitimately be reallocated after the fact, then parties would be able to rig up transfers after the vote takes place to make sure all their expenses took place in ridings where that threshold was achieved.
Second is the question of Elections Canada rebates - and it's here that there may be an important distinction compared to Conadscam as discussed so far. To date, the major issue with the Cons' ad expenses was the level at which expenditures were claimed: money which was in reality spent at the national level was claimed at the local level in an effort to circumvent the national expense limits.
In other words, Conadscam involved the Cons pretending that a single transaction took place between riding associations and suppliers rather than the national party and suppliers. That would result in a higher level of rebate (60% at the riding level rather than 50% at the national level), but there's no indication that the rebate was the primary motivating factor - and certainly the potential for rebate abuse is relatively small compared to the dangers associated with exceeding the expenditure limits.
In contrast, today's allegations present the first serious question about double-dipping when it comes to rebates. In effect, the allegation is that the Cons first spent national money on polling from a third-party supplier, presumably claiming that amount at the 50% rebate level. Then, the Cons' national party would bill riding associations for providing the same poll - securing a 60% rebate at the riding level without adding any additional service into the mix.
Which means that if the amount charged to the riding associations matched the amount originally spent, the Cons would receive $1.10 back for every dollar originally spent on polling. (And of course there's no particular reason why the amounts couldn't have been inflated even further by increasing the amount charged at the riding level.)
Now, the issues involved in the polling scheme are largely the opposite of those raised by Conadscam: the scheme would actually boost the amount spent under the election spending caps for the purpose of inflating the available rebates.
But that's where the timing may be particularly significant. A campaign coordinating both kinds of schemes could shuffle money around ala Conadscam to leave itself the ability to spend beyond any limit applicable during the campaign, then transfer money around after the election was done with to maximize the available rebates once the limits were no longer a concern.
We'll see if the new in-and-out scheme is laid out by the same kind of damning evidence already available when it comes to Conadscam. But for now, it looks like the Cons' 2006 campaign was planned to make a mockery of Canada's election rules - which would offer plenty of reason for Elections Canada to keep the Cons under the microscope.
(Edit: typo.)
First, as discussed by Cameron, is the question of substantial transactions being dated after the election itself. It would seem obvious that the intention of allowing candidates time after an election to supply their returns would be to permit the inclusion of transactions legitimately related to the election which were overlooked initially - not to allow them to throw money back and forth to try to change the substance of how money was actually spent.
Indeed, the potential for abuse if the situation were otherwise would be obvious. Remember that each party may only be reimbursed for local expenses in a riding where it obtains 10% of the vote: if expenses could legitimately be reallocated after the fact, then parties would be able to rig up transfers after the vote takes place to make sure all their expenses took place in ridings where that threshold was achieved.
Second is the question of Elections Canada rebates - and it's here that there may be an important distinction compared to Conadscam as discussed so far. To date, the major issue with the Cons' ad expenses was the level at which expenditures were claimed: money which was in reality spent at the national level was claimed at the local level in an effort to circumvent the national expense limits.
In other words, Conadscam involved the Cons pretending that a single transaction took place between riding associations and suppliers rather than the national party and suppliers. That would result in a higher level of rebate (60% at the riding level rather than 50% at the national level), but there's no indication that the rebate was the primary motivating factor - and certainly the potential for rebate abuse is relatively small compared to the dangers associated with exceeding the expenditure limits.
In contrast, today's allegations present the first serious question about double-dipping when it comes to rebates. In effect, the allegation is that the Cons first spent national money on polling from a third-party supplier, presumably claiming that amount at the 50% rebate level. Then, the Cons' national party would bill riding associations for providing the same poll - securing a 60% rebate at the riding level without adding any additional service into the mix.
Which means that if the amount charged to the riding associations matched the amount originally spent, the Cons would receive $1.10 back for every dollar originally spent on polling. (And of course there's no particular reason why the amounts couldn't have been inflated even further by increasing the amount charged at the riding level.)
Now, the issues involved in the polling scheme are largely the opposite of those raised by Conadscam: the scheme would actually boost the amount spent under the election spending caps for the purpose of inflating the available rebates.
But that's where the timing may be particularly significant. A campaign coordinating both kinds of schemes could shuffle money around ala Conadscam to leave itself the ability to spend beyond any limit applicable during the campaign, then transfer money around after the election was done with to maximize the available rebates once the limits were no longer a concern.
We'll see if the new in-and-out scheme is laid out by the same kind of damning evidence already available when it comes to Conadscam. But for now, it looks like the Cons' 2006 campaign was planned to make a mockery of Canada's election rules - which would offer plenty of reason for Elections Canada to keep the Cons under the microscope.
(Edit: typo.)
Friday, May 02, 2008
On serious distortion
Shorter National Post blitz against Statistics Canada's report showing that the lowest-earning quintile of full-time workers have seen a 20% decline in their average earnings since 1980:
It's reckless and misleading to try to discuss national income trends by relying on just one number. That is, unless you rely on the single number which supports our preferred spin.
(Edit: typo.)
It's reckless and misleading to try to discuss national income trends by relying on just one number. That is, unless you rely on the single number which supports our preferred spin.
(Edit: typo.)
On motivating factors
Jane Taber's column on the first quarter fund-raising numbers adds a bit more information about. And what's particularly noteworthy is the type of appeal which seems to work best for the NDP compared to the Cons.
Remember this post from last week, where the NDP mentioned which fund-raising appeal had helped bring in the most contributions:
But what's even more significant is the continued gap between the will of the grassroots as expressed in their fund-raising response, and the public face put on by Deceivin' Stephen.
After all, Harper and his inner circle largely stayed out of the public fray in the CBC dispute - presumably in large part because for all the money their party brings in by bashing the CBC, they can't afford to do so personally due to the impact that would have on voters. That disconnect between what the Cons' base wants to see from the party and what the Cons pretend to be in public hints at best at some serious tension within the party, and at worst at what Canadians can expect if the Cons ever win a majority.
In contrast, the message which achieved the most fund-raising success for the NDP is the same one which the party has gladly presented to the public as its central theme ever since the Libs starting propping up the Harper government. Which means that unlike the Cons, the NDP doesn't face a fundamental conflict between its base and the voters it's trying to reach out to. And that can only help the NDP's cause in both raising funds and winning new voters going forward.
Remember this post from last week, where the NDP mentioned which fund-raising appeal had helped bring in the most contributions:
An NDP fundraising appeal that asked, "Who will stand up to Stephen Harper's agenda?" proved a winner for the party.In contrast, here's what spurred the Cons' base into the most action:
"We'll stand in our places and vote against him – and face him in an election if we have to," the email read.
That effort won the party donations that totalled five figures, twice as much as other recent fundraising missives.
For their part, the Conservatives say a fundraising campaign in which they criticized the CBC drove a significant number of donations into their coffers.Now, it's striking enough that the Cons' base was most motivated by a narrow gripe about the CBC rather than any agreement or disagreement as to any party's policies. Needless to say, that's in stark contrast to the NDP's appeal based on opposing Harper's broad agenda.
"It was overwhelmingly our single biggest fundraising initiative," said a Tory official. Late last year, party campaign director Doug Finley sent out a letter asking for money after reports that a CBC reporter supplied questions to a Liberal MP during a committee hearing.
"It demonstrates a huge level of suspicion amongst grassroots Canadians about the Liberal Party and the CBC," the official said.
But what's even more significant is the continued gap between the will of the grassroots as expressed in their fund-raising response, and the public face put on by Deceivin' Stephen.
After all, Harper and his inner circle largely stayed out of the public fray in the CBC dispute - presumably in large part because for all the money their party brings in by bashing the CBC, they can't afford to do so personally due to the impact that would have on voters. That disconnect between what the Cons' base wants to see from the party and what the Cons pretend to be in public hints at best at some serious tension within the party, and at worst at what Canadians can expect if the Cons ever win a majority.
In contrast, the message which achieved the most fund-raising success for the NDP is the same one which the party has gladly presented to the public as its central theme ever since the Libs starting propping up the Harper government. Which means that unlike the Cons, the NDP doesn't face a fundamental conflict between its base and the voters it's trying to reach out to. And that can only help the NDP's cause in both raising funds and winning new voters going forward.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
On contributions
While there's been some attention paid to the latest federal fund-raising numbers for the first quarter of 2008, let's point out just how it is that the NDP has pulled into a solid second place in the fund-raising standings.
Previously, the NDP has consistently tapped a fairly large base of support for relatively small donations. (See the 2007 numbers listed at the link.) And that generally led to results such as those in 2007, when the Libs raised more money than the NDP despite having barely 2/3 as many donors.
But for the first quarter of 2008, the NDP has actually managed to pull ahead of the Libs on a per-donor basis ($84 to $83) - in the process also topping its 2007 average of $75 despite each contributor having three more quarters in which to boost their donations. And all that while maintaining a healthy lead in the number of contributors.
Of course, a single quarter's fund-raising numbers may only say so much - particularly when the NDP had an even better first quarter last year which didn't carry over to the rest of the year. But the new comparative advantages over the Libs have to bode well for the NDP's ability to compete on other terrain as well.
Previously, the NDP has consistently tapped a fairly large base of support for relatively small donations. (See the 2007 numbers listed at the link.) And that generally led to results such as those in 2007, when the Libs raised more money than the NDP despite having barely 2/3 as many donors.
But for the first quarter of 2008, the NDP has actually managed to pull ahead of the Libs on a per-donor basis ($84 to $83) - in the process also topping its 2007 average of $75 despite each contributor having three more quarters in which to boost their donations. And all that while maintaining a healthy lead in the number of contributors.
Of course, a single quarter's fund-raising numbers may only say so much - particularly when the NDP had an even better first quarter last year which didn't carry over to the rest of the year. But the new comparative advantages over the Libs have to bode well for the NDP's ability to compete on other terrain as well.
Clear communication
It hasn't taken long for the Cons to try to backtrack somewhat from their draft communications plan which would force even independent officers of Parliament to have their public communications vetted by Deceivin' Stephen's inner circle. But it's worth noting both that the Cons' clarification still looks to create problems for even the offices which should most obviously be excluded from the plan, and that the proposal still looks seriously problematic even if it's going to apply more narrowly.
First, let's take a look at what the Cons have said with respect to the Auditor General and other offices which would fall under the policy:
Based on that background, there's a serious risk that the Cons will handle any "disputes" by sticking to their own interpretation of what an office should be able to say, and forcing independent offices to go to court to affirm their ability to say a single word more. And while it might suit the Cons just fine to mire Canada's independent watchdogs in litigation rather than being able to do their jobs unimpeded, it should be obvious that the effect would seriously affect the ability of those offices to hold the Cons accountable.
Moreover, the Cons' "case-by-case" handling of disputes looks like it could relate to specific communications "products" rather than offices as a whole - meaning that every press release which the Cons would like to see re-worded would be the start of a new battle.
So the Cons' plan still figures to cause problems even for the likes of the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner (i.e. independent entities whose main functions include determining whether the government is hiding information which should be made public).
But let's turn to a broader question which seems to have been missed so far. Even leaving aside offices which are independent by statute, what valid explanation can there possibly be for the Privy Council Office demanding to vet every single press release or public contact coming from every single entity related to the federal government?
From what I can tell, this is the most ridiculous example yet of Deceivin' Stephen's obsessive micromanagement. And it should be fairly obvious that such a requirement will make it more difficult for every branch of the federal government to get anything done - particularly since there's no indication that the Cons have given any meaningful thought to whether the PMO has the ability to handle what would figure to be a significant amount of material.
Of course, it's not entirely clear just how much of the plan is an extension of what the Cons already have in place, and how much has already been in effect for some time. But from Sheila Fraser's testimony, it looks like an already secretive government is trying to put in place wording designed to expand Harper's control even further - and to force even arm's-length bodies to fight for any ability to inform the public. And if the Cons see a need to formulate their communications guidelines on the basis that they can't afford to have any government office speak openly and honestly, there doesn't seem much reason to dispute that conclusion.
First, let's take a look at what the Cons have said with respect to the Auditor General and other offices which would fall under the policy:
Treasury Board officials claim it's a misunderstanding as they try to "simplify" the government's communications policies. And they insist that the statutory independence of these agencies would trump any new guidelines.If there's anything we've learned from the Cons' stay in office, though, it's that the Cons tend to read what they want in the law rather than what's actually there - and Conadscam offers a prime example of the Cons refusing to acknowledge that their interpretation could possibly be fallible.
"I can assure you that we respect the independence of the officers of Parliament and this government would not do anything inconsistent with the independent role of those officers," Treasury Board President Vic Toews told the Commons yesterday.
In March, he sent a letter to officers of Parliament saying that he accepts that not all Treasury Board policies can be applied to the independent agencies. He said disputes would be handled on a "case-by-case" basis.
His spokesperson, Mike Storeshaw, said that the new communications policy "will respect and maintain the independence of agents of Parliament like the (auditor-general), as they always have."
Based on that background, there's a serious risk that the Cons will handle any "disputes" by sticking to their own interpretation of what an office should be able to say, and forcing independent offices to go to court to affirm their ability to say a single word more. And while it might suit the Cons just fine to mire Canada's independent watchdogs in litigation rather than being able to do their jobs unimpeded, it should be obvious that the effect would seriously affect the ability of those offices to hold the Cons accountable.
Moreover, the Cons' "case-by-case" handling of disputes looks like it could relate to specific communications "products" rather than offices as a whole - meaning that every press release which the Cons would like to see re-worded would be the start of a new battle.
So the Cons' plan still figures to cause problems even for the likes of the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner (i.e. independent entities whose main functions include determining whether the government is hiding information which should be made public).
But let's turn to a broader question which seems to have been missed so far. Even leaving aside offices which are independent by statute, what valid explanation can there possibly be for the Privy Council Office demanding to vet every single press release or public contact coming from every single entity related to the federal government?
From what I can tell, this is the most ridiculous example yet of Deceivin' Stephen's obsessive micromanagement. And it should be fairly obvious that such a requirement will make it more difficult for every branch of the federal government to get anything done - particularly since there's no indication that the Cons have given any meaningful thought to whether the PMO has the ability to handle what would figure to be a significant amount of material.
Of course, it's not entirely clear just how much of the plan is an extension of what the Cons already have in place, and how much has already been in effect for some time. But from Sheila Fraser's testimony, it looks like an already secretive government is trying to put in place wording designed to expand Harper's control even further - and to force even arm's-length bodies to fight for any ability to inform the public. And if the Cons see a need to formulate their communications guidelines on the basis that they can't afford to have any government office speak openly and honestly, there doesn't seem much reason to dispute that conclusion.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
On non-accomplishments
With the stench of scandal rapidly enveloping the Harper government, it might be easy to lose sight of just how useless the Cons have been while in power. But the Cons themselves took the opportunity to remind us in yesterday's question period, using one of their allotted questions to try to take credit for the Manitoba NDP's announcement that it will put $92 million of provincial money into creating new child care spaces.
Suffice it to say that the Cons can plausibly claim about as much credit for the spaces as I can for the 'Riders' Grey Cup win. (And even that might be on the generous side, since unlike the Cons I didn't tear up an agreement intended to reach the end result.)
Since the Cons have cleared out federal coffers to the point where they can't can't afford to spend money on meaningful new initiaties, they don't figure to have much more to run on than what they've done to date. But even the Cons apparently recognize that they have so little to their credit as to need to latch on to a provincial NDP government's accomplishments. Which signals that while the scandals may offer plenty of reason to doubt the Cons' fitness for office, it's the track record in office that offers the most pressing need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power.
Suffice it to say that the Cons can plausibly claim about as much credit for the spaces as I can for the 'Riders' Grey Cup win. (And even that might be on the generous side, since unlike the Cons I didn't tear up an agreement intended to reach the end result.)
Since the Cons have cleared out federal coffers to the point where they can't can't afford to spend money on meaningful new initiaties, they don't figure to have much more to run on than what they've done to date. But even the Cons apparently recognize that they have so little to their credit as to need to latch on to a provincial NDP government's accomplishments. Which signals that while the scandals may offer plenty of reason to doubt the Cons' fitness for office, it's the track record in office that offers the most pressing need to remove Deceivin' Stephen from power.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
On opportunities
Last weekend, I noted that there's some reason to suspect that the NDP is taking steps toward a more open form of politics than we currently see on the federal scene. Crawford Kilian is less hopeful, but offers an analysis of what any party could stand to gain by moving past narrow scripting:
Particularly with the Cons and Libs clinging to their nominally risk-averse strategies in hope that the other will stumble in an election campaign, though, the door is wide open for the NDP to present a stark contrast to the one-way messaging of Harper and Dion. And the opportunity is one which the NDP should be happy to take.
If Canadian politicians study Obama too, they must realize that becoming a two-way, interactive democracy will require big changes -- and probably the biggest will be personnel changes at the top.The lack of any strong moves in the direction of a more interactive political model strikes me as especially surprising in the context of the current federal stalemate - which should seemingly leave every party looking for the next great possible advantage, rather than clinging to a status quo which nobody's particularly happy with.
...
Canadian politicians will eventually figure out how to apply Obama's armoury of communication skills to our own battles. Some party will realize it needs a new leader -- not a web-savvy Trudeau or Mulroney, but a person of our own time who understands both us and the media we use as a communicating community.
That party will stay in power in this century the way Mackenzie King's stayed in power in the last.
Particularly with the Cons and Libs clinging to their nominally risk-averse strategies in hope that the other will stumble in an election campaign, though, the door is wide open for the NDP to present a stark contrast to the one-way messaging of Harper and Dion. And the opportunity is one which the NDP should be happy to take.
On crisis management
JimBobby is right to point out that the global food crisis deserves more attention than it's getting. So let's note a couple of facets of the story which seem to have passed largely without comment so far.
First of all, from the Globe and Mail story pointed out by JimBobby, it's worth pointing out just what it took for the U.N. to take note of the need for action:
Even once it's acknowledged that there's some need for action, of course, it still falls to individual countries to determine - if at all - they plan to improve matters. And the indications from Canada don't look promising at this point, as only the NDP appears willing to discuss whether proposed regulations on ethanol might make matters worse:
But even Lib David McGuinty responded by trying to shout down any discussion of whether the impact of biofuels on food supplies should be considered. And given the Cons' connections to the industry group which pushed for an ethanol plan based on foods rather than other inputs, there's little prospect that Canada's possible role in contributing to the diversion of food will receive the attention it deserves.
First of all, from the Globe and Mail story pointed out by JimBobby, it's worth pointing out just what it took for the U.N. to take note of the need for action:
The United Nations plans to establish a task force to tackle the global food crisis to avert "social unrest on an unprecedented scale," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday.Obviously the anticipated increase in starvation may make the stakes higher than usual. But as JimBobby notes, the pre-crisis situation already involved 24,000 deaths every day due to starvation. And given that that number apparently wasn't seen as deserving of special attention, it seems that the possibility of "social unrest" is serving as a greater motivator than any agreement that hunger should be tackled in general.
Mr. Ban, who will lead the task force, said its first priority will be to meet the $755-million (U.S.) shortfall in funding for the World Food Program.
"Without full funding of these emergency requirements, we risk again the spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale," he told reporters in the Swiss capital, Bern, where the UN agency chiefs have been meeting.
Even once it's acknowledged that there's some need for action, of course, it still falls to individual countries to determine - if at all - they plan to improve matters. And the indications from Canada don't look promising at this point, as only the NDP appears willing to discuss whether proposed regulations on ethanol might make matters worse:
Concerned about the widening food shortage, the NDP has introduced an amendment seeking to have Bill C-33 sent back to committee where issues such as food scarcity, and whether or not ethanol is helping the environment, can be considered before the law is passed.Which would seem to be an eminently sensible suggestion as to one means not to make the problems worse - particularly if coupled with discussion about contributions to the World Food Program and other ways to help.
"We need to take a breath here and think about this," said Nathan Cullen, NDP environment critic. "Politicians need a little humility, and sometimes they need to say that it's time to think before we act, especially in light of recent events."
But even Lib David McGuinty responded by trying to shout down any discussion of whether the impact of biofuels on food supplies should be considered. And given the Cons' connections to the industry group which pushed for an ethanol plan based on foods rather than other inputs, there's little prospect that Canada's possible role in contributing to the diversion of food will receive the attention it deserves.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Excuses, excuses
Shorter Pierre Poilievre, delivering the Cons' latest pathetic attempt to justify Conadscam:
If somebody once wrote that Canada's election laws were ineffectual, then that means we can safely ignore them.
If somebody once wrote that Canada's election laws were ineffectual, then that means we can safely ignore them.
Time to change course
The CP notes that the Cons' economic management figures to be a serious issue in any federal election campaign in the near future. But it's worth noting that it isn't just the Cons' probable "stay the course" response to the economic downturn that figures to come under fire.
Instead, the more important issue is the Cons' role in exacerbating the downturn to begin with. Even having come into power just as the U.S. economy was starting to collapse under the weight of corporatism and irresponsible tax slashing, Deceivin' Stephen's government has done nothing but to try to replicate that pattern in Canada. And whether or not it was possible to outright avoid the effects of the U.S.' downturn, it should be obvious that following the same flawed blueprint would only make matters worse for Canada.
Which means that regardless of how the Cons actually respond to any downturn, they and their governing philosophy can't escape blame for its arrival in the first place. And that should be the more important factor in any decision as to whether or not the Cons are fit to manage Canada's economy.
Instead, the more important issue is the Cons' role in exacerbating the downturn to begin with. Even having come into power just as the U.S. economy was starting to collapse under the weight of corporatism and irresponsible tax slashing, Deceivin' Stephen's government has done nothing but to try to replicate that pattern in Canada. And whether or not it was possible to outright avoid the effects of the U.S.' downturn, it should be obvious that following the same flawed blueprint would only make matters worse for Canada.
Which means that regardless of how the Cons actually respond to any downturn, they and their governing philosophy can't escape blame for its arrival in the first place. And that should be the more important factor in any decision as to whether or not the Cons are fit to manage Canada's economy.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The future is wide open
Following up on this morning's post, Bruce Campion-Smith's article today nicely discusses how the NDP has offered the true opposition to Deceivin' Stephen and the Cons. But while the choice of message may be somewhat of a gimme in positioning the NDP in the wake of the Libs' dereliction of duty, it's particularly worth noting the NDP's willingness to open up some of the information which the other federal parties would generally keep close to the vest:
But particularly in the face of Harper's culture of secrecy, it's more significant that the NDP taking at least some tentative steps toward a more open form of politics by going public with these internal details in the first place.
When it comes to membership numbers, my quick attempt at research for a post last year didn't turn up anything approaching current totals for Canada's federal political parties. While the NDP's base numbers still aren't clear, it's still interesting to see what type of recruitment can be expected - particularly during what looks to have been a relatively quiet period for the party. And if the NDP is indeed accelerating its membership growth after having already been equal with the Libs last year, then that can only bode well for its long-term prospects.
And it's even more significant that the NDP has made public fund-raising numbers associated with a particular campaign, rather than limiting its disclosure to what's required in quarterly reports to Elections Canada. I've argued before that any political party should be looking at the effectiveness of fund-raising appeals to see what issues best motivate its base. But the NDP has gone a step further by both allowing at least some public insight into how money is normally raised, and what message has been most successful in boosting that number lately.
What's more, the NDP's willingness to put more information in the hands of the public comes at the same time as Elizabeth May's top-down control over the Greens has boiled over again. Given that the Libs have fought accountability tooth and nail and the Cons well known for Harper's micromanagement and secrecy covering virtually everything done within their party and government (not to mention being called out for lies by Canada's leading accountability watchdog), the NDP has a prime opportunity to push to be identified as the only party which values accountability and public information for itself as well as for others.
Now, there's undoubtedly a question to be raised as to whether the NDP plans to do more of the same and indeed expand its range of disclosure in the future, or whether the current openness is based solely on wanting to highlight some immediate good news. And I'll be disappointed if it turns out to be the latter.
But the door is open for the NDP to set itself apart from the top-down, unaccountable style of the other parties. And if it can take that mantle along with the "true opposition" title as its main themes heading into the next federal election, then the NDP's recent gains in the polls and in the eyes of the media should be just the beginning.
Federal New Democrats are enjoying a bump in membership, a rise in fundraising and a spring in their step these days. And they're quietly giving thanks to Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.Now, my initial reaction is that the numbers themselves are relatively moderate. While the NDP obviously has to be happy to be adding members and discovering a message which seems to offer a fund-raising boost, there's little indication that membership numbers in three digits or financial contributions in five will substantially affect the NDP's position.
Dion's decisions to abstain on key Commons votes on immigration changes, climate change and the Tory's big tax cuts have given New Democrats political room to declare they are Parliament's "progressive" party...
The Liberals have been careful in recent months not to oppose the government on key issues, which could force an election they don't want. And while the evidence is anecdotal, the New Democrats seem to be reaping the fallout.
An NDP fundraising appeal that asked, "Who will stand up to Stephen Harper's agenda?" proved a winner for the party.
"We'll stand in our places and vote against him – and face him in an election if we have to," the email read.
That effort won the party donations that totalled five figures, twice as much as other recent fundraising missives.
The party is seeing an uptick in membership, too. In the first quarter of 2008, the NDP added 504 new members – more than double the 180 who joined the ranks last year.
"People are coming and talking to us and appreciating that we're standing up... . I've noticed a difference," Layton said.
But particularly in the face of Harper's culture of secrecy, it's more significant that the NDP taking at least some tentative steps toward a more open form of politics by going public with these internal details in the first place.
When it comes to membership numbers, my quick attempt at research for a post last year didn't turn up anything approaching current totals for Canada's federal political parties. While the NDP's base numbers still aren't clear, it's still interesting to see what type of recruitment can be expected - particularly during what looks to have been a relatively quiet period for the party. And if the NDP is indeed accelerating its membership growth after having already been equal with the Libs last year, then that can only bode well for its long-term prospects.
And it's even more significant that the NDP has made public fund-raising numbers associated with a particular campaign, rather than limiting its disclosure to what's required in quarterly reports to Elections Canada. I've argued before that any political party should be looking at the effectiveness of fund-raising appeals to see what issues best motivate its base. But the NDP has gone a step further by both allowing at least some public insight into how money is normally raised, and what message has been most successful in boosting that number lately.
What's more, the NDP's willingness to put more information in the hands of the public comes at the same time as Elizabeth May's top-down control over the Greens has boiled over again. Given that the Libs have fought accountability tooth and nail and the Cons well known for Harper's micromanagement and secrecy covering virtually everything done within their party and government (not to mention being called out for lies by Canada's leading accountability watchdog), the NDP has a prime opportunity to push to be identified as the only party which values accountability and public information for itself as well as for others.
Now, there's undoubtedly a question to be raised as to whether the NDP plans to do more of the same and indeed expand its range of disclosure in the future, or whether the current openness is based solely on wanting to highlight some immediate good news. And I'll be disappointed if it turns out to be the latter.
But the door is open for the NDP to set itself apart from the top-down, unaccountable style of the other parties. And if it can take that mantle along with the "true opposition" title as its main themes heading into the next federal election, then the NDP's recent gains in the polls and in the eyes of the media should be just the beginning.
Signs of progress
Without much public fanfare, this past week looks to have been a highly positive one for the federal NDP. Two of the party's rising stars have won accolades in the media: Peter Julian from Political Bytes for positioning himself as Canada's leading political voice against the SPP, and Nathan Cullen from Susan Riley as one of the "hidden heroes" of Canadian politics.
And it isn't just the press finding something to like, as the latest Angus Reid poll suggests that the NDP is the only federal party in Parliament to have increased its popularity since the 2006 election. (Now if only the latest leadership polling had included Jack Layton to help draw a contrast against the lead weights currently dragging down the Cons and Libs.)
Most importantly, though, there are signs in another article today that the NDP's current strategy looks to be one which can keep up that momentum. But more about that later.
And it isn't just the press finding something to like, as the latest Angus Reid poll suggests that the NDP is the only federal party in Parliament to have increased its popularity since the 2006 election. (Now if only the latest leadership polling had included Jack Layton to help draw a contrast against the lead weights currently dragging down the Cons and Libs.)
Most importantly, though, there are signs in another article today that the NDP's current strategy looks to be one which can keep up that momentum. But more about that later.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Your daily Conadscam reading
For those who haven't yet seen them yet, a couple of must-reads on Conadscam came out today.
In the blogosphere, LKO boils down the scandal about as well as I've seen done so far.
And in the media, the Globe and Mail puts a human face on the riding impact by profiling Con candidate Joe Goudie, featuring two points of particular note.
First, as in seemingly every other case, the Cons' national office apparently didn't have the slightest interest in listening to how Goudie's campaign manager actually wanted to spend the money.
And second, it looks like Goudie and his campaign manager and official agent have joined many other Con candidates and campaign managers on the "them" side of the Cons' choice of battle lines. Which only figures to make the Cons' attempts to add any new supporters to their camp all the more difficuly - as when even those who were willing (however unfortunately) to tie their fortunes to Deceivin' Stephen's are being thrown overboard in an effort to feed Con anger, there's no reason for anybody else to believe the Cons won't do the same to them at a moment's notice.
In the blogosphere, LKO boils down the scandal about as well as I've seen done so far.
And in the media, the Globe and Mail puts a human face on the riding impact by profiling Con candidate Joe Goudie, featuring two points of particular note.
First, as in seemingly every other case, the Cons' national office apparently didn't have the slightest interest in listening to how Goudie's campaign manager actually wanted to spend the money.
And second, it looks like Goudie and his campaign manager and official agent have joined many other Con candidates and campaign managers on the "them" side of the Cons' choice of battle lines. Which only figures to make the Cons' attempts to add any new supporters to their camp all the more difficuly - as when even those who were willing (however unfortunately) to tie their fortunes to Deceivin' Stephen's are being thrown overboard in an effort to feed Con anger, there's no reason for anybody else to believe the Cons won't do the same to them at a moment's notice.
On significant risks
Shorter Con policy on corporate data breaches which affect personal information:
The good news is that corporations will be held to a higher standard of transparency than our government. After all, we're not outright ordering them to cover anything up.
The good news is that corporations will be held to a higher standard of transparency than our government. After all, we're not outright ordering them to cover anything up.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
On victims
There's plenty of discussion today - both in the media and the blogosphere - about the Cons' attempt to paint themselves as victims in Conadscam. But it's worth noting that the effort not only seems doomed to fail and and of itself, but also looks to run contrary to the wider image the Cons have tried to build for themselves.
Let's start by considering just what would be necessary for the Cons to successfully claim victimhood. Any such argument would presumably have to be based on the premise that Elections Canada had gone after the Cons aggressively despite the Cons having reacted reasonably to the initial investigation. And particularly in the case of a party which is claiming innocence, that would require that the Cons actually cooperate with Elections Canada's efforts to get at the truth of the matter.
Of course, the Cons say that they've done so (normally with a conveniently narrow claim along the lines of having provided the documents requested by Elections Canada). But that's at best a self-serving statement if not backed up by enough public disclosure to show just what was requested and provided.
Needless to say, the Cons haven't backed up even their own choice of assertions with evidence. Morover, the public record shows that the Cons ordered its candidates and agents not to talk to Elections Canada. And that kind of coverup makes it awfully difficult for the Cons to claim that Elections Canada could get the information it needed through any other means - or that the truth would reflect well on the Cons.
Perhaps more importantly than the lack of cooperation with Elections Canada, though, are the Cons' own obvious manipulations surrounding Conadscam. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a party who's in the right generally doesn't attempt to selectively leak information, then find itself in the position of running out back exits and hiding behind closed doors trying to avoid revealing facts which it's willing to share with its preferred media conduits. And that goes doubly so for a helpless victim.
As a result, anybody who pays any attention to information from sources other than the Cons themselves should be able to see through the Cons' claim to victimhood in a hurry. But even if the Cons were successful in playing the victim card, it would seem to run counter to the public perception they're generally trying to foster.
After all, the Cons have eagerly built up the narrative of Deceivin' Stephen as a chessmaster, moving with ruthless efficiency to rearrange Canada's political scene to set himself up to win a majority government. But it's implicit in that narrative that Harper would have the ability to observe where the other pieces on the board are headed, and avoid being taken by surprise by an unforeseen move.
In the case of the RCMP raid, there's little reason to think the Cons actually wouldn't have anticipated it at at least some extent. Elections Canada's investigation has been no secret for quite some time, and presumably even the Cons wouldn't be quite so self-deluded as to think that their stonewalling would be perceived as cooperation.
But by feigning shock at the raid, the Cons are ultimately only undermining their own claim to having enough foresight or strategy to accomplish what they've set out to do. And for a party which has plainly shifted its focus from wanting to clean up government to rewarding its supporters with federal largesse, that may be just as damaging as any fallout from the investigation itself.
Let's start by considering just what would be necessary for the Cons to successfully claim victimhood. Any such argument would presumably have to be based on the premise that Elections Canada had gone after the Cons aggressively despite the Cons having reacted reasonably to the initial investigation. And particularly in the case of a party which is claiming innocence, that would require that the Cons actually cooperate with Elections Canada's efforts to get at the truth of the matter.
Of course, the Cons say that they've done so (normally with a conveniently narrow claim along the lines of having provided the documents requested by Elections Canada). But that's at best a self-serving statement if not backed up by enough public disclosure to show just what was requested and provided.
Needless to say, the Cons haven't backed up even their own choice of assertions with evidence. Morover, the public record shows that the Cons ordered its candidates and agents not to talk to Elections Canada. And that kind of coverup makes it awfully difficult for the Cons to claim that Elections Canada could get the information it needed through any other means - or that the truth would reflect well on the Cons.
Perhaps more importantly than the lack of cooperation with Elections Canada, though, are the Cons' own obvious manipulations surrounding Conadscam. As has been pointed out elsewhere, a party who's in the right generally doesn't attempt to selectively leak information, then find itself in the position of running out back exits and hiding behind closed doors trying to avoid revealing facts which it's willing to share with its preferred media conduits. And that goes doubly so for a helpless victim.
As a result, anybody who pays any attention to information from sources other than the Cons themselves should be able to see through the Cons' claim to victimhood in a hurry. But even if the Cons were successful in playing the victim card, it would seem to run counter to the public perception they're generally trying to foster.
After all, the Cons have eagerly built up the narrative of Deceivin' Stephen as a chessmaster, moving with ruthless efficiency to rearrange Canada's political scene to set himself up to win a majority government. But it's implicit in that narrative that Harper would have the ability to observe where the other pieces on the board are headed, and avoid being taken by surprise by an unforeseen move.
In the case of the RCMP raid, there's little reason to think the Cons actually wouldn't have anticipated it at at least some extent. Elections Canada's investigation has been no secret for quite some time, and presumably even the Cons wouldn't be quite so self-deluded as to think that their stonewalling would be perceived as cooperation.
But by feigning shock at the raid, the Cons are ultimately only undermining their own claim to having enough foresight or strategy to accomplish what they've set out to do. And for a party which has plainly shifted its focus from wanting to clean up government to rewarding its supporters with federal largesse, that may be just as damaging as any fallout from the investigation itself.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Out of its shell
It apparently took Brad Wall just half a year in office before deciding to drop any pretense of moderation or responsible government. This week, the Sask Party decided to gratuitously cut social benefits for no apparent reason, claiming that low-income workers can blindly rely on "the economy" to provide benefits with without a shred of reason to believe that to be realistic.
That would be bad enough if it was merely a matter of artificial spending restraint. But in case there was any hope that the Wall government was going to be the least bit fiscally responsible, it's also seeking the power to dole out over a third of a million dollars at a time, with any public notice delayed until the following year's budget. And that early-year reporting date would conveniently ensure that the Sask Party could freely throw money around for nearly a year before its newly-fixed election date without any public knowledge.
It shouldn't come as much surprise that Wall's government is following the right-wing trend of shifting public spending from actual citizen needs to hidden pork-barrel politics. And there's no indication yet that the Sask Party cares enough about being seen to govern reasonably to pay attention to public pressure. But it's still worth pointing out how clearly any change under Wall has been for the worse - and with any luck, the type of hubris the Sask Party is showing now will ensure that it's booted from office in 2011.
That would be bad enough if it was merely a matter of artificial spending restraint. But in case there was any hope that the Wall government was going to be the least bit fiscally responsible, it's also seeking the power to dole out over a third of a million dollars at a time, with any public notice delayed until the following year's budget. And that early-year reporting date would conveniently ensure that the Sask Party could freely throw money around for nearly a year before its newly-fixed election date without any public knowledge.
It shouldn't come as much surprise that Wall's government is following the right-wing trend of shifting public spending from actual citizen needs to hidden pork-barrel politics. And there's no indication yet that the Sask Party cares enough about being seen to govern reasonably to pay attention to public pressure. But it's still worth pointing out how clearly any change under Wall has been for the worse - and with any luck, the type of hubris the Sask Party is showing now will ensure that it's booted from office in 2011.
On tangled webs
The Cons haven't made any secret of their intention to make use of the Conadscam scheme again in the next federal election unless a court tells them they can't (and regardless of whether Elections Canada or anybody else points out that it's against the law). But let's note that it isn't only the central party which is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that it's in legal jeopardy, as the Cons' Calgary foundation is also showing signs of rot:
In case there was any doubt, the new, "independent" recipient of Barry Cooper's largesse would be the same Frontier Centre for Public Policy which was hand-picked by the Cons for a six-figure federal contract to consult about electoral reform - despite the group's acknowledged lack of expertise in the area, and a clear bias against electoral reform in what little material it had disseminated on the topic. Naturally, it didn't take long for the group to be embarrassed when one of its subcontractors decided to put together its focus groups based on word of mouth rather than any process which could possibly lead to a diverse set of viewpoints. And the Frontier Centre was also called on to speak for the Cons' position on the farcical Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite.
In other words, after being caught wrongly interfering with the 2006 election, the Friends of Science have simply pivoted from direct political intervention to taking on a role funding a different part of the Cons' right-wing noise machine. Which can only make it clear just how little claim any of the groups involved can have to anything approaching independence - and how little plausibility the Cons themselves having in trying to deny links to or among the groups involved.
Although the University of Calgary has severed all ties with the Friends of Science and shut down the accounts which were set up in 2004 by political science professor Barry Cooper, the anti-Kyoto group is still using the same charity, the Calgary Foundation, to collect money and issue tax deductible receipts for anonymous donors.Of course, it's worth pointing out one glaring flaw in the article's discussion.
The money is now going through an independent think tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in Winnipeg, which has received at least $50,000 since last fall, according to a document released by the Calgary Foundation. The Frontier Centre has indicated that it wants to produce a climate change video for children in schools.
In case there was any doubt, the new, "independent" recipient of Barry Cooper's largesse would be the same Frontier Centre for Public Policy which was hand-picked by the Cons for a six-figure federal contract to consult about electoral reform - despite the group's acknowledged lack of expertise in the area, and a clear bias against electoral reform in what little material it had disseminated on the topic. Naturally, it didn't take long for the group to be embarrassed when one of its subcontractors decided to put together its focus groups based on word of mouth rather than any process which could possibly lead to a diverse set of viewpoints. And the Frontier Centre was also called on to speak for the Cons' position on the farcical Canadian Wheat Board barley plebiscite.
In other words, after being caught wrongly interfering with the 2006 election, the Friends of Science have simply pivoted from direct political intervention to taking on a role funding a different part of the Cons' right-wing noise machine. Which can only make it clear just how little claim any of the groups involved can have to anything approaching independence - and how little plausibility the Cons themselves having in trying to deny links to or among the groups involved.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Standing up against Canada
Shorter Deceivin' Stephen:
Canada stands to be better off if NAFTA gets opened up for renegotiation. And in keeping with my personal allegiances, I have no intention of letting that happen.
Canada stands to be better off if NAFTA gets opened up for renegotiation. And in keeping with my personal allegiances, I have no intention of letting that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)