Shorter Cons on Haiti:
You think we'd even consider appointing a special envoy to ensure more effective aid to Haiti if it means somebody else gets to share in the photo-ops? Have you paid any attention to our previous four years in office?
Saturday, February 20, 2010
More like this
I'm not quite sure what's gotten into Gerald Caplan lately. But his latest features exactly the appropriate level of snark in response to CSIS' continued suppression of information about its efforts to spy on Tommy Douglas dating back to the 1930s:
We have learned from the powerful research of Professor Franz Kafka that if the state is after you, you must be guilty. If you're not guilty, the state would not be after you. What you are guilty of is purely irrelevant and often unknown. But you're guilty of something. There can be no question Tommy was guilty of something. Why else would the Mounties have spied on him for 50 years?
...
Fortunately for Canada, during his entire political career, from the moment he was still an unknown impoverished politically active Baptist preacher in Saskatchewan during the Depression, until his death in 1986, Tommy Douglas was spied on by the Mounties. As the repeatedly re-elected premier of Saskatchewan and then as national leader of the NDP, who had more power to undermine the very foundations of Canadian capitalism that the RCMP is sworn to protect by all means necessary?
From his thousands of speeches and many writings, they were able to collect invaluable secret information that was otherwise known only to the millions who heard him speak or who read his words. But only the Mounties had the resources to decipher the real message embedded deep within Douglas's deceptively sincere calls for a more just society for all Canadians. We now know this was one of the greatest hoaxes in Canadian history, equalled perhaps only by the notion that the Harper government is fit to govern.
...
Have no doubt: there are other Tommys out there, feigning patriotism and devotion to the betterment of Canadians, perhaps even hatching clandestine plans to promote such menacing proposals as a higher minimum wage or universal dental care. Some may even be preparing to criticize the government of Israel. But fear not. Our secret police are standing on guard for thee.
On limiting factors
Sask Party Finance Minister Rod Gantefoer sets what has to be the lowest standard I've ever heard for "good news" in explaining how it is that he's managed to overestimate Saskatchewan's potash revenues yet again:
Rod Gantefoer, who made the comments while speaking in Saskatoon on Thursday, said compared with the nearly $2 billion in revenue the province expected from potash at the beginning of the fiscal year, the final figure will seem like almost nothing.That's right: the Wall government is proudly spinning that its earlier failures were so massive that its later ones seem relatively unimportant in comparison. But if the only limit on its incompetence is the outer boundary of mathematical definition, that hardly offers reason for confidence in how the province is being governed.
"The good news is it's not decreasing by the exponential rates it used to -- when you're getting near zero, the numbers get smaller. But, it is less than $100 million," he said.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Vocabulary lesson of the day
Gavin M reminds us why one always reads the footnotes at Sadly, No! with what's sure to be a classic:
Clownsourcing is a method of processing information in order to promote foolishness and manipulate people into bad choices. Unlike the traditional method, in which propaganda is produced by hacks utilizing a certain measure of cleverness and guile, clownsourced information is fashioned to maximum message efficiency out of the very stupidity it is meant to produce.
In clownsourcing a message, the right’s email briefings and action alerts will geyser out allegations and counter-allegations, as they do, and the blogs will roar and fulminate, and the radio and TV talkers will pick it up, such that a mass of online wingnuts will be attracted by the base flattery offered by the message, as per the right’s spite- and self-pity-based messaging system, and will repeat it back and forth in an ecstasy of self-drama, competing to fill in context and details and to create the most emotionally stimulating presentation.
Other diagnostic signs of clownsourcing are an embedded sense that the right or one of its surrogate identities (‘parents,’ ‘the military,’ ‘Americans,’ etc.) is under some kind of unfair assault, but that a blow for victory has been struck; allegations that someone or something ‘equals bad’ (i.e. that Van Jones ‘is a communist’) absent any evidence of wrongdoing; and reports of controversies ‘erupting’ that involve any of the right’s usual idées fixes where the conflict is purely symbolic — i.e., where the disputed point ‘makes it seem’ or ’sends a message’ — and the solution is obscure or ever-receding (e.g., ‘making a stand against foreign extremism,’ ‘healing the rifts of the turbulent ’60s’).
Ah, the civility
Shorter BCL:
Sweet! Jack Layton's cancer is a sign of weakness which can help the Libs politically! Suck it, NDP!
Sweet! Jack Layton's cancer is a sign of weakness which can help the Libs politically! Suck it, NDP!
On short-term thinking
Shorter Matt Gurney:
As far as I'm concerned, we suffer from an excess of long-term planning which only distracts us from what's more important. Where, oh where, is the courageous leader willing to focus entirely on winning my approval in the next spin cycle rather than engaging in tedious analyses of what's expected to happen in decades to come?
As far as I'm concerned, we suffer from an excess of long-term planning which only distracts us from what's more important. Where, oh where, is the courageous leader willing to focus entirely on winning my approval in the next spin cycle rather than engaging in tedious analyses of what's expected to happen in decades to come?
On universal messages
I haven't yet commented on the NDP's policy proposals for the upcoming session of Parliament, in part because they should be relatively familiar and in part because I'd figured there would be at least a few more public fireworks between the federal parties to respond to. But I'll take a moment to highlight one aspect of the NDP's demands which seems to have been removed by the media filter.
Most coverage I've seen has included "pensions" as an NDP priority without putting into context the difference between the various parties. But while everybody's talking about pensions in at least some sense, there's a rather important distinction in what it is that each party wants to do.
As I've noted before, the Cons' main idea of pension reform seems to involve attacking public-sector retirement incomes to bring civil servants down to the same level of insecurity as many other Canadians, while the Libs' consists of a voluntary investment system which doesn't do anything for anybody already facing poverty in retirement. Which means that the key takeaway from the NDP's message isn't merely the concept of some change in the general area of pensions, but the phrase "ensuring retirement security for everyone".
Of course, there's exactly zero reason to expect that the Cons will actually meet the NDP's terms on that point. But that's all the more reason to make it clear that the NDP's vision goes beyond minor tinkering - lest the Cons try to pretend they've done something substantial while actually doing nothing of the sort. And for the longer term, it'll be to the advantage of both the NDP as a party and the cause of social justice to emphasize the values behind the NDP's ideas which aren't shared by its competitors.
Most coverage I've seen has included "pensions" as an NDP priority without putting into context the difference between the various parties. But while everybody's talking about pensions in at least some sense, there's a rather important distinction in what it is that each party wants to do.
As I've noted before, the Cons' main idea of pension reform seems to involve attacking public-sector retirement incomes to bring civil servants down to the same level of insecurity as many other Canadians, while the Libs' consists of a voluntary investment system which doesn't do anything for anybody already facing poverty in retirement. Which means that the key takeaway from the NDP's message isn't merely the concept of some change in the general area of pensions, but the phrase "ensuring retirement security for everyone".
Of course, there's exactly zero reason to expect that the Cons will actually meet the NDP's terms on that point. But that's all the more reason to make it clear that the NDP's vision goes beyond minor tinkering - lest the Cons try to pretend they've done something substantial while actually doing nothing of the sort. And for the longer term, it'll be to the advantage of both the NDP as a party and the cause of social justice to emphasize the values behind the NDP's ideas which aren't shared by its competitors.
On obstructionism
No, it shouldn't come as much surprise that the Cons plan to stand in the way of international agreement on a Tobin tax just as they have on greenhouse gas emissions. But it is noteworthy just how brazen they're being about their obstructionism this time out:
It remains to be seen how determined Gordon Brown is to seek out an international consensus on the issue. And in fact, if the issue manages to gain any sustained attention in Canada, I'd fully expect the Cons to pretend to open their minds on the issue once the audacity of their current stand becomes better known.
But based on the Cons' immediate response, there's little reason for the rest of the world to think Canada will be a good-faith negotiator on anything to do with financial regulation. And that could force the international community to work out the future rules of engagement in a forum where Harper can't stand in the way.
Canada will officially oppose international efforts to get the world’s major economies to impose a global bank tax, government sources tell the Financial Post.That's right: when it comes to limiting the harmful effects of financial speculation, the Cons aren't even pretending to be willing to listen to what the world has to say. Instead, they plan to use Canada's seat at the table for the sole purpose of preventing the rest of the world from building any disincentives to reckless risk-taking into the global financial market. And they're even willing to say up front that their only reason for doing so has to do with political branding rather than the merits of the policy.
This could potentially ignite a major divide among Group of 20 leaders at their summit meeting in Toronto this summer, and further thwart efforts to implement uniform financial regulations in the post-recession era.
...
“Canada is going to oppose any tax on financial transactions,” said one source, adding the tax runs counter to the Conservative government’s reputation for lower taxes. “The government wants it known that a deal on a bank tax isn’t going to happen.”
It remains to be seen how determined Gordon Brown is to seek out an international consensus on the issue. And in fact, if the issue manages to gain any sustained attention in Canada, I'd fully expect the Cons to pretend to open their minds on the issue once the audacity of their current stand becomes better known.
But based on the Cons' immediate response, there's little reason for the rest of the world to think Canada will be a good-faith negotiator on anything to do with financial regulation. And that could force the international community to work out the future rules of engagement in a forum where Harper can't stand in the way.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
A friendly reminder
Deep thought
Something like this might have been worth mentioning before the Cons blew through billions in infrastructure spending on anything they could find to take credit for.
On precedents
With both main parties already gearing up for Saskatchewan's 2011 election, one of the major questions has to be the baseline expectation for each in recruiting candidates and directing their efforts. From current polling numbers, one would expect the Sask Party to be on the offensive; from historical support, the NDP would look to have plenty of room for growth. So let's take a look at Saskatchewan's political past to see what factors figure to have the advantage.
Of Saskatchewan's 26 general elections, 2 followed a minority government, and 1 didn't start from an existing provincial legislature. That leaves 23 elections where a majority government has faced Saskatchewan voters.
Out of those 23 elections:
- Twice (1908, 1960) the governing party roughly treaded water, holding its seat total or proportion of the seat total plus or minus 3 seats;
- 6 times (1912, 1917, 1925, 1952, 1967, 1978) the governing party managed to increase its seat total by more than 3 seats; and
- 15 times the governing party lost 3 or more seats, including 7 elections resulting in a change in government.
What's more, half of the elections featuring a gain in government seats involved a see-saw in seats for the same Liberal government that held control over the province for the first six elections after the province came into being. That leaves three relatively modern examples of governing parties managing to improve their seat count. And there are some noteworthy similarities between them: all resulted from a moment of two-party polarization where the government and (new) official opposition gained substantial shares of the vote, while other established opposition parties dropped off.
Now, it's an open question as to whether the Libs and Greens have much of a vote share left to lose, not to mention how any splits will turn out. But if the Sask Party can't both drive their numbers down and pick up the bulk of those votes, the default pattern looks to be that a majority government will tend to lose seats - and indeed will lose power nearly as often as it manages to hold its ground.
And the trend in seat counts is even more clear when one focuses on the first election after a change in government. The elections representing the first for a majority government have led to the following seat changes for the governing party:
-12 (1938), -16 (1948), +3 (1967), -6 (1975), -17 (1986), -13 (1995)
That makes for a rough average of -10 seats each time out. Which, coincidentally, would be just enough of a swing to propel the NDP back to power if it's replicated in 2011.
Of course, the NDP's seat total today is a relatively high one for a new official opposition, which might make for reason to doubt that the exact numbers will apply in this case. But it still seems that the Sask Party will be fighting a strong historical current in 2011.
Interestingly enough, it looks like both parties will end up hearkening back to different points in the same era as their ideal outcome for 2011. While the NDP has made a concerted effort to replicate the party and policy development which helped it to win power in 1971, the Sask Party looks to have to point to 1967 as about the only Saskatchewan historical precedent for what it'll be trying to accomplish. And while Brad Wall's rhetoric may be disturbingly similar to that used by Ross Thatcher at that time, it remains to be seen whether the message still has any real resonance.
Of Saskatchewan's 26 general elections, 2 followed a minority government, and 1 didn't start from an existing provincial legislature. That leaves 23 elections where a majority government has faced Saskatchewan voters.
Out of those 23 elections:
- Twice (1908, 1960) the governing party roughly treaded water, holding its seat total or proportion of the seat total plus or minus 3 seats;
- 6 times (1912, 1917, 1925, 1952, 1967, 1978) the governing party managed to increase its seat total by more than 3 seats; and
- 15 times the governing party lost 3 or more seats, including 7 elections resulting in a change in government.
What's more, half of the elections featuring a gain in government seats involved a see-saw in seats for the same Liberal government that held control over the province for the first six elections after the province came into being. That leaves three relatively modern examples of governing parties managing to improve their seat count. And there are some noteworthy similarities between them: all resulted from a moment of two-party polarization where the government and (new) official opposition gained substantial shares of the vote, while other established opposition parties dropped off.
Now, it's an open question as to whether the Libs and Greens have much of a vote share left to lose, not to mention how any splits will turn out. But if the Sask Party can't both drive their numbers down and pick up the bulk of those votes, the default pattern looks to be that a majority government will tend to lose seats - and indeed will lose power nearly as often as it manages to hold its ground.
And the trend in seat counts is even more clear when one focuses on the first election after a change in government. The elections representing the first for a majority government have led to the following seat changes for the governing party:
-12 (1938), -16 (1948), +3 (1967), -6 (1975), -17 (1986), -13 (1995)
That makes for a rough average of -10 seats each time out. Which, coincidentally, would be just enough of a swing to propel the NDP back to power if it's replicated in 2011.
Of course, the NDP's seat total today is a relatively high one for a new official opposition, which might make for reason to doubt that the exact numbers will apply in this case. But it still seems that the Sask Party will be fighting a strong historical current in 2011.
Interestingly enough, it looks like both parties will end up hearkening back to different points in the same era as their ideal outcome for 2011. While the NDP has made a concerted effort to replicate the party and policy development which helped it to win power in 1971, the Sask Party looks to have to point to 1967 as about the only Saskatchewan historical precedent for what it'll be trying to accomplish. And while Brad Wall's rhetoric may be disturbingly similar to that used by Ross Thatcher at that time, it remains to be seen whether the message still has any real resonance.
On vote shares
I'm not sure there's ever much need for an extra reason to spend some time poring over the state of Canadian electoral politics at the Pundits' Guide. But for those who haven't been by in awhile, Alice's latest addition is definitely worth a visit, as the site now features riding-level data showing candidates' shares of the eligible vote as well as the actual vote. Which, in addition to offering some extra insight as to how seats might be won or lost, should serve as a nice reminder of just how many non-voters there are for Canada's political parties to try to reach.
WHEEEEEEE! It's HACKEY-SLASHEY TIME!!!!!!!
If Stockwell Day is less than sorry about making reckless federal budget cuts, Terence Corcoran is positively giddy about the prospect. But let's set aside how wary one should be about anybody who's been sitting in the corner for years lovingly stroking an axe in hopes of being offered the chance to play executioner.
Even ignoring that starting point, shouldn't the fact that Corcoran's #1 idea is to gut health care modernization serve as a rather stark signal that the idea may not be in line with the priorities of Canadians?
Even ignoring that starting point, shouldn't the fact that Corcoran's #1 idea is to gut health care modernization serve as a rather stark signal that the idea may not be in line with the priorities of Canadians?
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Suggested slogan
Brad Wall's Saskatchewan Party: trying to pass off potato chips as broccoli since 2009.
Memo from your corporate media overlords
Silence, Michael Bliss! Your betters will not stand for such insolence!
Update: You see what you've gone and started?
Update: You see what you've gone and started?
Regina Coronation Park - One More in the Mix
As noted in comments here, there's a third candidate to add to the NDP's list of contenders in Regina Coronation Park, as Fred Kress is also seeking the nomination.
Fred's name may be familiar based on his run for the federal NDP in 2008. As a late entrant in the Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre race (replacing Moe Kovatch who stepped down as the NDP's candidate), he came in a respectable second place behind Tom Lukiwski, and in fact increased the NDP's share of the vote in a riding which was targeted by a star Lib candidate in Monica Lysack.
That previous stint as a candidate gives Fred somewhat of a leg up on his competitors in terms of general election experience - and in a federal riding adjacent to Regina Coronation Park. But Fred himself notes that all three look to be strong contenders - and if he's right in suspecting that there are more candidates yet to come, then all the better for the NDP's enthusiasm level building up to the 2011 election.
Fred's name may be familiar based on his run for the federal NDP in 2008. As a late entrant in the Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre race (replacing Moe Kovatch who stepped down as the NDP's candidate), he came in a respectable second place behind Tom Lukiwski, and in fact increased the NDP's share of the vote in a riding which was targeted by a star Lib candidate in Monica Lysack.
That previous stint as a candidate gives Fred somewhat of a leg up on his competitors in terms of general election experience - and in a federal riding adjacent to Regina Coronation Park. But Fred himself notes that all three look to be strong contenders - and if he's right in suspecting that there are more candidates yet to come, then all the better for the NDP's enthusiasm level building up to the 2011 election.
On well-known rules
Shorter Stephen Harper's Rules for Political Staff Members:
Political manipulation of public servants is a sign of "exceptional skills", and will be rewarded with a vigorous defence by my party. I trust this leaves no doubt what is expected of you.
Political manipulation of public servants is a sign of "exceptional skills", and will be rewarded with a vigorous defence by my party. I trust this leaves no doubt what is expected of you.
Burning question
Has anyone taken a close look at what government news releases might have been snuck in during the Olympics' opening ceremonies? No, no particular reason for asking.
On stonewalling
This weekend's Winnipeg Free Press story about a complete refusal to allow Steven Fletcher's briefing books to see the light of day has received plenty of attention. But I'm not sure there's been any discussion yet about an aggressive strategy by the Cons which has apparently gone unchallenged.
Here's the explanation which was apparently given to the Free Press about the process under the Access to Information Act:
That's particularly so since there's no lack of case precedents where commissioner reviews and court proceedings have been held based on the disclosure of documents to the commissioner's office to assess the application of the "cabinet confidences" exemption. As a result, the decision to stonewall even the information commissioner's attempt to review a refusal to disclose documents in the face of a contested claim of cabinet confidence looks to be a radical step for the Cons in making government less accountable.
Fortunately, there's another way to seek access to information where there's reason to doubt whether the cabinet confidence exemption applies. To the extent Fletcher's office has made a decision to classify its briefing books as privileged, that decision can be challenged in the Federal Court - and it seems to reflect a disturbing acceptance of the Cons' secrecy that such an option isn't even mentioned in the article as a last resort.
Of course, it's worth telling the story as to how the Cons are gumming up the works to the extent possible - particularly since that now extends to withholding records even from an independent officer with a statutory obligation of confidentiality. But it's equally worth noting that the Cons' stubbornness isn't the last word in the matter - and hopefully the Free Press and others facing similar declarations will be willing to see their requests through in order to get to the truth.
Here's the explanation which was apparently given to the Free Press about the process under the Access to Information Act:
A complaint to the information commissioner was made in September. This week, the Free Press learned because the PCO denied the information as advice to cabinet, even the information commissioner cannot request to see the documents in order to determine if the refusal was appropriate.So what's wrong with this picture? To start with, it should be obvious enough that the information commissioner is able to request documentation from a government institution to support its denial of access. What it may not be able to do is to compel the PCO to hand over documents which are alleged to contain cabinet confidences - which looks like a rather important distinction from the message being sent to the Free Press.
All the commissioner's office can do is ask the PCO to change its mind. The PCO said it wouldn't reverse its decision.
That's particularly so since there's no lack of case precedents where commissioner reviews and court proceedings have been held based on the disclosure of documents to the commissioner's office to assess the application of the "cabinet confidences" exemption. As a result, the decision to stonewall even the information commissioner's attempt to review a refusal to disclose documents in the face of a contested claim of cabinet confidence looks to be a radical step for the Cons in making government less accountable.
Fortunately, there's another way to seek access to information where there's reason to doubt whether the cabinet confidence exemption applies. To the extent Fletcher's office has made a decision to classify its briefing books as privileged, that decision can be challenged in the Federal Court - and it seems to reflect a disturbing acceptance of the Cons' secrecy that such an option isn't even mentioned in the article as a last resort.
Of course, it's worth telling the story as to how the Cons are gumming up the works to the extent possible - particularly since that now extends to withholding records even from an independent officer with a statutory obligation of confidentiality. But it's equally worth noting that the Cons' stubbornness isn't the last word in the matter - and hopefully the Free Press and others facing similar declarations will be willing to see their requests through in order to get to the truth.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
What a coincidence
Shorter Ted Menzies:
Absolutely everybody our government talks to shares our passion for slashing and burning the public sector. Now could somebody please turn up the white noise machine to drown out the civil servants trying to get our attention?
Absolutely everybody our government talks to shares our passion for slashing and burning the public sector. Now could somebody please turn up the white noise machine to drown out the civil servants trying to get our attention?
We should have known
The full contents of the Buy American giveaway have now been released (warning: PDF). And for those worried that Canada may have done far too well in permanently trading away provincial procurement powers for 11 days' worth of access to U.S. stimulus funding, have no fear - because the Cons managed to get far less than that.
That's right: while the agreement was announced February 5, it doesn't actually take effect until today. Which means that it actually grants Canada partial access to a grand total of...one day of U.S. program funding.
That's right: while the agreement was announced February 5, it doesn't actually take effect until today. Which means that it actually grants Canada partial access to a grand total of...one day of U.S. program funding.
On secret votes
Rafe Mair offers up his own suggestion to empower MPs in Parliament. But it's worth noting the new difficulties which Mair seems willing to create in order to potentially change the culture of party discipline:
The more important point, though, is Mair's calculation as to the relative priorities of top-down and bottom-up influences on MPs. In his view, it's worth trading off the ability of Canadian voters to hold MPs accountable for their votes in Parliament if that means simultaneously removing the power of party leaders to do the same. And I can certainly see reason to wonder whether the net result would be an improvement on the status quo.
But it's worth asking just what that trade-off means. Have we really reached the point where we're better off sacrificing our own ability to make informed decisions about our MPs in the hope that they'll produce better results if they don't have to answer quite as directly to party leaders? And if so, then isn't there some serious need to change the party system for its effects both inside and outside of Parliament?
In addition, there are serious questions as well as to what results would come of secret-ballot voting in Parliament. Isn't it likely that such a system would make party leaders all the more controlling at the candidate nomination stage in an effort to ensure party loyalty when it comes time to vote? And wouldn't such a system be ripe for manipulation by candidates who could get elected promising to vote one way in order to put themselves in a position to secretly vote the opposite?
Fortunately, there are some means available to restrict party leaders' ability to impose discipline from on high without simultaneously eliminating any ability on the part of citizens to hold legislators to account for their votes. And I for one would much prefer to be able to reward any legislator who casts his or her vote in favour of such an effort - rather than having to wonder whether an MP's words on the campaign trail bear any resemblance to his or her votes in practice.
The easy (solution) is to give MPs the great protection that electors have -- a secret ballot. Now, that would put the cat amongst the pigeons. The rule would remain that the government would only be obliged to resign on a budget matter or one accepted as a "confidence" motion. And what's the argument against this again?Now, Mair's argument is itself somewhat inaccurate. Parliamentary votes are recorded regardless of whether or not a particular MP follows the party line, and there are circumstances where MPs do wind up voting contrary to orders. (Indeed, one of the best indicators as to how a party treats a plurality of views can be found in its handling of whipped votes.)
It has been pointed out that under this option, we won't know how our MPs voted. But we only know that under our present system because the MP must always vote as he is told.
If we, as a society, consider that regular people ought to be able to cast their votes free from outside pressure, promises of rewards, and penalties, why would we deny that same protection to those we elect to speak for us?
The more important point, though, is Mair's calculation as to the relative priorities of top-down and bottom-up influences on MPs. In his view, it's worth trading off the ability of Canadian voters to hold MPs accountable for their votes in Parliament if that means simultaneously removing the power of party leaders to do the same. And I can certainly see reason to wonder whether the net result would be an improvement on the status quo.
But it's worth asking just what that trade-off means. Have we really reached the point where we're better off sacrificing our own ability to make informed decisions about our MPs in the hope that they'll produce better results if they don't have to answer quite as directly to party leaders? And if so, then isn't there some serious need to change the party system for its effects both inside and outside of Parliament?
In addition, there are serious questions as well as to what results would come of secret-ballot voting in Parliament. Isn't it likely that such a system would make party leaders all the more controlling at the candidate nomination stage in an effort to ensure party loyalty when it comes time to vote? And wouldn't such a system be ripe for manipulation by candidates who could get elected promising to vote one way in order to put themselves in a position to secretly vote the opposite?
Fortunately, there are some means available to restrict party leaders' ability to impose discipline from on high without simultaneously eliminating any ability on the part of citizens to hold legislators to account for their votes. And I for one would much prefer to be able to reward any legislator who casts his or her vote in favour of such an effort - rather than having to wonder whether an MP's words on the campaign trail bear any resemblance to his or her votes in practice.
On open government
The Ottawa Citizen discusses one noteworthy Harper-proofing proposal in the form of limits on how political staffers give directions to civil servants. But notwithstanding the fact that the issue comes up in the context of an issue of denial of information (which can be dealt with in other ways), I'd have to wonder if this may be one area where openness will do more than prohibitions.
After all, it would seem to be a simple enough work-around for staffers to give orders which are nominally signed off on by the minister responsible - and there would be no less deniability for that type of process than there already is when staffers exercise delegated authority. So there's relatively little to be gained by simply requiring that orders formally originate with the minister.
With that in mind, rather than merely providing that staffers never give orders, why not instead create a general rule that political orders - whether originating with ministers or staffers - are binding on our public servants only if they're made open to the public to begin with through a registry of ministerial instructions?
This wouldn't necessarily result in anything more being made public than should already happen now. But rather than requiring researchers to request access to records reflecting instructions after the fact, such a system would ensure that the directions given to the civil service are made known up front, giving Canadians a far better idea what priorities are being set by the political branches of government.
Of course, there would be some circumstances where secrecy might be justified. But the Access to Information Act already provides a model as to how to weigh the relative interests of confidentiality and openness in government operations. And aside from somewhat more of a presumption that the orders themselves should be open, there's no reason why a similar policing process couldn't be applied to the disclosure of orders.
It's worth noting that some of the other ideas suggested by the Citizen's sources - including a more professional view of a political staffer's role - are certainly deserving of some consideration as well. But the simplest step to limit political abuses of Canada's civil service would seem to be to pull back the curtain on what political orders are actually being given. And if the result isn't to actually improve the performance of a government like the Cons', then at the very least such a system would expose exactly how our public institutions are being manipulated.
After all, it would seem to be a simple enough work-around for staffers to give orders which are nominally signed off on by the minister responsible - and there would be no less deniability for that type of process than there already is when staffers exercise delegated authority. So there's relatively little to be gained by simply requiring that orders formally originate with the minister.
With that in mind, rather than merely providing that staffers never give orders, why not instead create a general rule that political orders - whether originating with ministers or staffers - are binding on our public servants only if they're made open to the public to begin with through a registry of ministerial instructions?
This wouldn't necessarily result in anything more being made public than should already happen now. But rather than requiring researchers to request access to records reflecting instructions after the fact, such a system would ensure that the directions given to the civil service are made known up front, giving Canadians a far better idea what priorities are being set by the political branches of government.
Of course, there would be some circumstances where secrecy might be justified. But the Access to Information Act already provides a model as to how to weigh the relative interests of confidentiality and openness in government operations. And aside from somewhat more of a presumption that the orders themselves should be open, there's no reason why a similar policing process couldn't be applied to the disclosure of orders.
It's worth noting that some of the other ideas suggested by the Citizen's sources - including a more professional view of a political staffer's role - are certainly deserving of some consideration as well. But the simplest step to limit political abuses of Canada's civil service would seem to be to pull back the curtain on what political orders are actually being given. And if the result isn't to actually improve the performance of a government like the Cons', then at the very least such a system would expose exactly how our public institutions are being manipulated.
On personalization
While plenty of commentators have noticed the latest Nanos leadership numbers, there hasn't been much discussion as to why it is that Jack Layton has managed to pass Michael Ignatieff by every measure. So let's take a look at what seems to be behind the numbers.
Keep in mind that at the time of the poll, Ignatieff and his party had been in the news constantly for a series of public forums which have generally been well-received among the country's pundit class. And in principle, a concerted effort to work with policy issues might have figured to be an effective way to reverse Ignatieff's earlier decline caused by a focus on seeking an election at all costs. But instead, Ignatieff's personal standing managed to drop.
Meanwhile, Layton had been in the news less often than Ignatieff since prorogation. (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that he's had less to say, only that he hasn't received the same constant coverage given to the Libs' series of Ottawa hearings.) But that changed the first day the poll was in the field - which is when Layton revealed that he was fighting prostate cancer.
As I noted at that time, the result was (for the most part) an outpouring of sympathy and best wishes from across party lines. And from Nanos' numbers, the same effect may well have played out through the public as well. With Layton having appeared in the headlines on a personal level, suddenly his impressions compared to both Harper and Ignatieff received a substantial boost - even as Ignatieff had been largely driving Canada's political agenda since the last leadership poll.
Lest there be any doubt, the above isn't to suggest that party leaders should be looking to trumpet personal health issues or other obstacles in order to try to win public sympathy. And indeed, a competition to that effect might well manage to make Canadians even more cynical about their politicians than they already seem to be.
But the respective public images of Layton and Ignatieff may offer some indication that respondents have long since seen through the presentation of leaders as photo-op props - such that it only takes a small amount of identification on a human level to set a leader apart from his peers. And if the result is to encourage more authentic interaction between political leaders and the general public, then that might well prove a plus for all concerned.
Keep in mind that at the time of the poll, Ignatieff and his party had been in the news constantly for a series of public forums which have generally been well-received among the country's pundit class. And in principle, a concerted effort to work with policy issues might have figured to be an effective way to reverse Ignatieff's earlier decline caused by a focus on seeking an election at all costs. But instead, Ignatieff's personal standing managed to drop.
Meanwhile, Layton had been in the news less often than Ignatieff since prorogation. (Which of course doesn't necessarily mean that he's had less to say, only that he hasn't received the same constant coverage given to the Libs' series of Ottawa hearings.) But that changed the first day the poll was in the field - which is when Layton revealed that he was fighting prostate cancer.
As I noted at that time, the result was (for the most part) an outpouring of sympathy and best wishes from across party lines. And from Nanos' numbers, the same effect may well have played out through the public as well. With Layton having appeared in the headlines on a personal level, suddenly his impressions compared to both Harper and Ignatieff received a substantial boost - even as Ignatieff had been largely driving Canada's political agenda since the last leadership poll.
Lest there be any doubt, the above isn't to suggest that party leaders should be looking to trumpet personal health issues or other obstacles in order to try to win public sympathy. And indeed, a competition to that effect might well manage to make Canadians even more cynical about their politicians than they already seem to be.
But the respective public images of Layton and Ignatieff may offer some indication that respondents have long since seen through the presentation of leaders as photo-op props - such that it only takes a small amount of identification on a human level to set a leader apart from his peers. And if the result is to encourage more authentic interaction between political leaders and the general public, then that might well prove a plus for all concerned.
Monday, February 15, 2010
On unrealistic hopes
If there's any good news in the Libs' strategy for the upcoming session of Parliament, it's that Michael Ignatieff finally seems to have figured out that there's a better chance of getting results in a Parliamentary committee where his party can cooperate with the NDP and Bloc than in a two-party meeting where Pierre Poilievre holds a veto. But shouldn't he also have noticed over the past year-plus that counting on "good faith" from the Cons (rather than getting any positive steps in writing) is a sucker's bet?
Check the Source
Can we get a coroner's ruling as to when irony was finally bludgeoned to death? Because I'd have to think that the Fraser Institute criticizing "agenda-driven research" had to have been at least a significant blow.
Connect the dots
The opening ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics proceeded on the concept that francophones should be seen but not heard.
Stephen Harper lavished effusive praise on the opening ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics.
Therefore, Stephen Harper has lavished effusive praise on the concept that francophones should be seen but not heard.
Stephen Harper lavished effusive praise on the opening ceremonies at the Vancouver Olympics.
Therefore, Stephen Harper has lavished effusive praise on the concept that francophones should be seen but not heard.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
All politics are local
There's been plenty of coverage of the Cons' efforts to trample on their grassroots in order to protect Rob Anders. But since many commentators have linked Stephen Harper's actions and the Libs' track record under Jean Chretien in an effort to create a narrative of "they all do it", let's note that there's at least one national party making a concerted effort to strengthen its riding associations:
First, there's the incentives themselves which will reflect a direct investment in riding associations by the national party. And while it might seem surprising to see the NDP funding a direct benefit for its riding associations at a time when the Cons are trying to slash party-level funding, the NDP may be able to expect an immediate electoral payoff as well as a party-building opportunity out of the expense.
After all, there's an important flip side to the NDP's observation that candidates who spent at or near the limit for a riding have tended to succeed at the polls. While the party as a whole spent close to the limit for its national campaign, NDP candidates used up only a small part of their available spending room in 2008 - presumably due less to a conscious choice than the fact that the NDP's riding structures hadn't yet caught up to the national party's development.
As a result of that gap, even a relatively small proportion of the money actually spent at the national level could make a huge incremental difference in what individual candidates can do to improve their chances of winning. And the fact that election reimbursements are greater at the candidate level than the national level provides an extra reason to work on being able to spend more on local campaigns.
As an added bonus, the NDP's challenge will also include a concerted effort to share fund-raising expertise between ridings. Which should help ensure that the campaign will help to build organizational capacity in the longer term as well as raising money in the short term - in addition to reflecting the NDP's recognition that it's a plus for riding associations to act on ideas of their own.
In sum, the Local Victories Challenge signals that at least one national party recognizes the importance of having effective riding-level organizations rather than looking to centralize its operations at every opportunity. And anybody wondering whether their riding-level contributions - financial or otherwise - are actually valued should be glad to see the NDP not only speaking up about the importance of local organizations, but also putting its money where its mouth is.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Last election, virtually every New Democrat candidate who spent the local legal limit won, and almost every candidate who nearly spent the legal limit, nearly won.While many of the details haven't yet been released, the NDP's plan looks to include a couple of noteworthy components.
To help build your local break through and grow the number of local campaigns that can spend the legal maximum, the Party has launched a new fundraising incentive program – the Local Victories Challenge.
First, there's the incentives themselves which will reflect a direct investment in riding associations by the national party. And while it might seem surprising to see the NDP funding a direct benefit for its riding associations at a time when the Cons are trying to slash party-level funding, the NDP may be able to expect an immediate electoral payoff as well as a party-building opportunity out of the expense.
After all, there's an important flip side to the NDP's observation that candidates who spent at or near the limit for a riding have tended to succeed at the polls. While the party as a whole spent close to the limit for its national campaign, NDP candidates used up only a small part of their available spending room in 2008 - presumably due less to a conscious choice than the fact that the NDP's riding structures hadn't yet caught up to the national party's development.
As a result of that gap, even a relatively small proportion of the money actually spent at the national level could make a huge incremental difference in what individual candidates can do to improve their chances of winning. And the fact that election reimbursements are greater at the candidate level than the national level provides an extra reason to work on being able to spend more on local campaigns.
As an added bonus, the NDP's challenge will also include a concerted effort to share fund-raising expertise between ridings. Which should help ensure that the campaign will help to build organizational capacity in the longer term as well as raising money in the short term - in addition to reflecting the NDP's recognition that it's a plus for riding associations to act on ideas of their own.
In sum, the Local Victories Challenge signals that at least one national party recognizes the importance of having effective riding-level organizations rather than looking to centralize its operations at every opportunity. And anybody wondering whether their riding-level contributions - financial or otherwise - are actually valued should be glad to see the NDP not only speaking up about the importance of local organizations, but also putting its money where its mouth is.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Regina Coronation Park - The Race is On
I've already posted about Tamara Harder's entry into the NDP's Regina Coronation Park nomination race - which has so far been extremely well-received, with her 80+ fans including the likes of Pat Atkinson, Ryan Meili and Noah Evanchuk. And I'll be among the supporters joining Tamara's campaign.
But it's always a plus to see an active contest as well, and it looks like Tamara is facing another well-organized contender. Jaime Garcia has already put up his own website and assembled over 110 fans, signalling that there will be at least two strong candidates competing to succeed Kim Trew. And whether it's Tamara, Jaime or somebody else who emerges with the nomination in Regina Coronation Park, the apparent enthusiasm level for the nomination race has to bode well for the NDP's chances of energizing its supporters when the 2011 general election rolls around.
But it's always a plus to see an active contest as well, and it looks like Tamara is facing another well-organized contender. Jaime Garcia has already put up his own website and assembled over 110 fans, signalling that there will be at least two strong candidates competing to succeed Kim Trew. And whether it's Tamara, Jaime or somebody else who emerges with the nomination in Regina Coronation Park, the apparent enthusiasm level for the nomination race has to bode well for the NDP's chances of energizing its supporters when the 2011 general election rolls around.
Burning question
Why is it that during the course of their Harper Holiday, the only Ottawa-based function which Con MPs can still find time for is to keep signing off on their perpetual blizzard of ten-percenters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)