Aaron Wherry asks one interesting question arising out of Diane Finley's signature turning up on a petition against OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino. But I'd see a couple more worth tossing into the mix.
Did the Cons somehow miss "signing petitions" on their list of actions which MPs can't take without the PMO's approval?
And if so, what's the over/under on the number of minutes after the CP story went public before that changed?
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Publicity hounding
Jane Taber's latest "hot and not" column rightly criticizes the Harper government for attempting to take sole credit for the provincial labour mobility agreement signed last week. But it's worth noting that the events of the first ministers' conference only scratch the surface of how Harper's attempt at branding the agreement conflicts with the reality of how it was reached:
As far back as 2006, Manitoba premier Gary Doer had been working on getting an interprovincial labour mobility agreement in place. In recent meetings, Jean Charest and Shawn Graham had joined Doer as the leading public backers of the move. And the signing this weekend merely involved formalizing terms which the provinces had agreed to in principle last July at a Council of the Federation meeting which (as best I can tell) didn't include federal participation.
In other words, the fact that Harper was even in attendance when the final agreement was signed can best be classified as a coincidence or a contrivance. But that apparently didn't stop Harper from trying to position himself to take sole public credit for the work the provinces had done.
All of which serves to highlight that once again, the Cons' main commitment is to perception rather than reality. And with Canada facing a recession which demands effective federal action, there's no reason to settle for a government whose sole plan is to take credit for others' accomplishments.
Mr. Harper's staff wanted their boss, and only their boss, to be in the spotlight for the photo op when an agreement on trade mobility was signed at the first ministers meeting yesterday. The PMO, according to sources, wanted the premiers to sign the agreement behind closed doors and then in public have the PM sign for the cameras. The premiers would stand behind him. Loud shouting ensued as the provincial officials pushed back. They won: The PM and premiers all sat together at a long table and smiled for the cameras.What Taber doesn't mention is that the process in question has been in the works for years - and with provinces rather than the federal government taking the lead at every step.
As far back as 2006, Manitoba premier Gary Doer had been working on getting an interprovincial labour mobility agreement in place. In recent meetings, Jean Charest and Shawn Graham had joined Doer as the leading public backers of the move. And the signing this weekend merely involved formalizing terms which the provinces had agreed to in principle last July at a Council of the Federation meeting which (as best I can tell) didn't include federal participation.
In other words, the fact that Harper was even in attendance when the final agreement was signed can best be classified as a coincidence or a contrivance. But that apparently didn't stop Harper from trying to position himself to take sole public credit for the work the provinces had done.
All of which serves to highlight that once again, the Cons' main commitment is to perception rather than reality. And with Canada facing a recession which demands effective federal action, there's no reason to settle for a government whose sole plan is to take credit for others' accomplishments.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Misplaced priorities
I've already pointed out one telling passage from Stephen Harper's interview with John Ivison. But let's note that in addition to representing no change at all from the Cons' habits over their past three years in power, Harper's plans apparently also place any desire for effective stimulus behind both ideological considerations and his personal desire to pander for votes:
First, Harper looks to be confirming the usual Con view that multi-party cooperation means other parties going along with their plans. Rather than presenting a message that he's looking to find common ground that's acceptable to two or more parties, Harper's frame of reference is "as a Conservative government" - with the implication being that he's more concerned with catering to his base by doing what Con governments normally do than he is with putting together a package which will be acceptable to anybody but his own party.
Which is of course exactly what got Harper into his current predicament in the first place, as he wrongly concluded that he was entitled to push typical Conservative attacks on pay equity and union rights into last fall's fiscal update without considering whether anybody else supported them. But evidently any lesson which Harper could have learned from that experience has been long forgotten or put aside - a fact which shouldn't be lost on the Libs in particular in assessing whether the Cons ought to be left with the levers of power.
Mind you, there's a strong case to be made that partisanship of any kind shouldn't be the main concern for a budget which is supposed to set out Harper's plan to deal with a recession over a period of several years. But the question of what policies are best designed to put Canada's economy back on track is a different one from what policies are most popular with the middle class or those who are "paying most of the freight".
Now, an actual leader would figure to be willing to make the case as to what policies will be most effective on their own to relieve the effects of the recession, and put some political capital into getting those who have less need for help to buy in based on the national interest. But Harper's answer states fairly clearly that he's committed to pandering to the latter groups by saying that any package should be conditional on their receiving some handouts as well - rather than to putting together the most effective set of policies possible.
Not surprisingly, Harper has already been rightly criticized by a number of economists for those types of plans which simply don't make sense from an economic perspective:
Harper: ...(M)ake no mistake, that as a Conservative government, we think it is very important that the middle class be part of a stimulus program. Yes, it is very important to help the vulnerable, struggling sectors and help people who are losing their jobs, but you can’t sustain economic activity without having stimulus for the middle class as well. That’s very important. Since the middle class is paying most of the freight, the middle class has to share in the stimulus program and we will be making sure that is the case.So what's wrong with that passage? From my standpoint, there are two glaring signs that Harper has something other than the best interests of Canada's economy at heart.
First, Harper looks to be confirming the usual Con view that multi-party cooperation means other parties going along with their plans. Rather than presenting a message that he's looking to find common ground that's acceptable to two or more parties, Harper's frame of reference is "as a Conservative government" - with the implication being that he's more concerned with catering to his base by doing what Con governments normally do than he is with putting together a package which will be acceptable to anybody but his own party.
Which is of course exactly what got Harper into his current predicament in the first place, as he wrongly concluded that he was entitled to push typical Conservative attacks on pay equity and union rights into last fall's fiscal update without considering whether anybody else supported them. But evidently any lesson which Harper could have learned from that experience has been long forgotten or put aside - a fact which shouldn't be lost on the Libs in particular in assessing whether the Cons ought to be left with the levers of power.
Mind you, there's a strong case to be made that partisanship of any kind shouldn't be the main concern for a budget which is supposed to set out Harper's plan to deal with a recession over a period of several years. But the question of what policies are best designed to put Canada's economy back on track is a different one from what policies are most popular with the middle class or those who are "paying most of the freight".
Now, an actual leader would figure to be willing to make the case as to what policies will be most effective on their own to relieve the effects of the recession, and put some political capital into getting those who have less need for help to buy in based on the national interest. But Harper's answer states fairly clearly that he's committed to pandering to the latter groups by saying that any package should be conditional on their receiving some handouts as well - rather than to putting together the most effective set of policies possible.
Not surprisingly, Harper has already been rightly criticized by a number of economists for those types of plans which simply don't make sense from an economic perspective:
(S)ome economic tools under consideration — including temporary tax cuts and other incentives to spend — could backfire, say a group of six high-profile economists. Such measures often don't result in extra spending by tight-fisted consumers during tough times. The budget should instead aim to fix employment insurance and other programs that protect the most vulnerable in a recession, they said.But while the economists quoted obviously can't do more than to point out the economic ineffectiveness of Harper's plans, the Libs hold the power to make sure that any stimulus is actually targeted toward ensuring Canada's prosperity rather than serving Harper's political goals. And hopefully they'll recognize that both they and the country at large will be best off if they take that opportunity.
"I'm dead against a temporary GST cut," said Warren Jestin, chief economist at Bank of Nova Scotia, one of the members of the economists' group, which met with The Globe and Mail's editorial board Friday before Mr. Harper emerged from the premiers meeting...
Don Drummond, chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank and a former Finance Department official, said there is still discussion about temporary cuts to the goods and services tax and other federal levies. Another idea being bandied about in Ottawa, Mr. Drummond said, is for vouchers in the range of $500 to $1,000 to induce consumers to make purchases at Canadian retailers within a given time frame.
He dismissed the notion, which he described as being akin to retailer gift cards, as ridiculous. "There's a compact between citizens under which citizens allow governments to take their money to respend on the public good," he said. "This is not a public good."
On other issues, the group of economists said:...
* Support for low-income Canadians may have a greater economic impact than measures for the whole population, because poor people spend more of their income.
On duress
In case there's any doubt how much (or how little) credence to give to the Cons' attempt to claim support from a number of premiers in the wake of this week's federal/provincial meeting, let's consider a simple question.
Does anybody think Stephen Harper is above threatening to withhold or delay stimulus funding to any premier who hurts his position vis-a-vis the coalition?
I'd think the answer is fairly obvious - particularly in light of the Cons' track record of allocating funding based on politics alone. So in the immediate aftermath of a conference where Harper had a captive audience with which to both promise gobs of money and threaten to pull it back, it's worth taking any declarations of support for continued Harper government with a heavy grain of salt.
Does anybody think Stephen Harper is above threatening to withhold or delay stimulus funding to any premier who hurts his position vis-a-vis the coalition?
I'd think the answer is fairly obvious - particularly in light of the Cons' track record of allocating funding based on politics alone. So in the immediate aftermath of a conference where Harper had a captive audience with which to both promise gobs of money and threaten to pull it back, it's worth taking any declarations of support for continued Harper government with a heavy grain of salt.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Still more of the same
Martin Mittlestaedt highlights yet another example of Stephen Harper's failing state, as yet another supposed Con priority has been stopped in its tracks without warning or explanation:
Fortunately, the decision as to whether or not the Cons can keep exercising power that way isn't in their hands. And the more the Cons keep up their combination of stonewalling and finger-pointing instead of doing anything useful, the more obvious the choice will be for all of the opposition parties to decide that it's time for some positive change.
The federal government made international headlines last year when it added bisphenol A to the country's toxic substances list, but it has quietly stopped issuing new reviews of hazardous chemicals under the program that highlighted the dangers of the plastic-making compound.And lest anybody hope for a straight answer on that or any of the Cons' other failures, those are no more likely now than they've ever been. After all, the Cons are too busy speaking from their all-politics script to acknowledge any of their own mistakes:
The initiative, known as the Chemicals Management Plan, was supposed to issue assessments during November and December of the effect on human health and the environment of about 50 possibly hazardous substances.
Among them are several that European regulators have flagged for their cancer-causing potential, and a group of substances, using silicone, that are widely added to cosmetics and other personal-care products.
Ottawa hasn't issued evaluations of any of them, stoking worries among public-health and environmental advocates that the government is cooling toward the plan...
Conservatives have been told to communicate the government's intention to run a deficit in the range of $20 billion to $30 billion.So once again, the Cons' actions have signalled their complete lack of fitness for office. But once again, they couldn't care less about actually following through on their supposed commitments, instead dedicating their efforts to drowning out that reality with spin.
Don't expect apologies for having projected surpluses just two short months ago or for inserting into the November economic update those provocative cuts to public financing for political parties or curbs to public servants' right to strike that sparked the opposition's threat to bring down the government.
And don't expect any acknowledgment that Conservative policies – such as relaxed rules around mortgage financing brought in by the government – exacerbated the economic situation.
Instead, the tone remains defiant.
Fortunately, the decision as to whether or not the Cons can keep exercising power that way isn't in their hands. And the more the Cons keep up their combination of stonewalling and finger-pointing instead of doing anything useful, the more obvious the choice will be for all of the opposition parties to decide that it's time for some positive change.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Nothing learned, nothing changed
With Stephen Harper's political career likely riding on the result of a single confidence vote, it isn't much surprise that he's once again putting on a media blitz. But even in the face of those high stakes, he apparently can't help giving away the fact that he doesn't plan on offering up anything more than his government's standard fare:
Which raises an important question: how would a budget along those lines be any different from what the Cons have been doing their entire time in office?
From the beginning, the Cons have coupled low-efficiency tax cuts intended to permanently weaken the federal government with just enough short-term spending to paper over their lack of interest in social issues. And it's that combination which has already pushed Canada into at least half a decade of deficits to come, while securing Harper's image as somebody who's more interested in using the public purse to pursue his ideological agenda than in governing responsibly.
In sum, anybody holding out hope that Harper would take advantage of a last chance to try to put together a budget that's designed for the public interest rather than the pursuit of a right-wing agenda is headed for yet another disappointment. Instead, Harper has again signalled that he only knows how to govern one way - and that the mere combination of a financial crisis facing the country and a coalition waiting to replace him isn't about to take precedence over conservative dogma.
Ivison: You’ve talked about the deficit being “very, very large”. I know you won’t put a figure on it but that has the potential to strangle the public finances down the road. Are you worried that the legacy of this will be you will have to cut back program spending dramatically or raise taxes?Note the conspicuous change of subject in the last answer. Invited to suggest that the stimulus package as a whole - tax cuts included - would be time-targeted to deal with the financial crisis, Harper apparently can't bring himself to put an end date on another round of tax slashing. But when it comes to any spending, Harper draws a line in the sand to the effect that his government has no interest in anything but temporary actions.
Harper: No...We have the financial situation that allows us to borrow money in the short term and spend that money, as long as most of that is time-limited spending. That’s what we’re going to be proposing — programs of one to two years duration for the most part. The key will be for us to resist calls that will be inevitable to extend some of those things indefinitely.
Ivison: So we don’t expect permanent tax cuts, for example?
Harper: I’m saying on the spending side, most of the actions we’ll be bringing forward are of a short-term nature, in terms of their financial impact. We do not have the intention of running a structural deficit or having a whole bunch of long-term spending initiatives.
Which raises an important question: how would a budget along those lines be any different from what the Cons have been doing their entire time in office?
From the beginning, the Cons have coupled low-efficiency tax cuts intended to permanently weaken the federal government with just enough short-term spending to paper over their lack of interest in social issues. And it's that combination which has already pushed Canada into at least half a decade of deficits to come, while securing Harper's image as somebody who's more interested in using the public purse to pursue his ideological agenda than in governing responsibly.
In sum, anybody holding out hope that Harper would take advantage of a last chance to try to put together a budget that's designed for the public interest rather than the pursuit of a right-wing agenda is headed for yet another disappointment. Instead, Harper has again signalled that he only knows how to govern one way - and that the mere combination of a financial crisis facing the country and a coalition waiting to replace him isn't about to take precedence over conservative dogma.
Words of warning
As I've noted before, it's for the best that the NDP is keeping up a positive message toward the coalition rather than threatening the obvious consequences if Michael Ignatieff chooses to match Stephane Dion's most crucial strategic mistake. But lest there be any fear that the Libs wouldn't receive any due warning about the effects of propping up Harper, Gilles Duceppe is rightly highlighting the dangers of propping up the Cons:
Indeed, the risks for Ignatieff in supporting the Cons' budget may be even greater than they were for Dion: unlike his predecessor, he has an obvious opening in Quebec which he'd stand to lose. And the Libs' decision on the budget may make the difference between their reaping the benefits of frustration with the Harper government where they most need to rebuild their electoral machine, or squandering their best chance to set themselves up for future electoral gains.
Le nouveau chef du Parti libéral du Canada, Michael Ignatieff, pourrait connaître le même sort que son prédécesseur Stéphane Dion et perdre en crédibilité s'il devait appuyer le budget conservateur, qui sera déposé le 27 janvier.It's worth noting that as pleased as the Libs are with their recent poll numbers, their largest gains have come in the province where the democratic coalition is particularly popular. And while riding that wave of approval to the government benches would give the Libs a chance to lock in and increase Ignatieff's level of support, it wouldn't take long for both the Bloc and the NDP to start eating away at the current numbers if the Libs signal that they're not interested in listening to Quebeckers' concerns about the Cons' fitness for government.
C'est la mise en garde qu'a faite hier le chef du Bloc Québécois, Gilles Duceppe, qui était à Québec dans le cadre d'une tournée du Québec avant la reprise des travaux parlementaires. «M. Ignatieff aura une décision à prendre, a-t-il affirmé. S'il accepte les propositions de M. Harper qui sont insatisfaisantes parce qu'il ne veut pas exercer le pouvoir ou qu'il ne veut pas d'élections, il fera la même chose que M. Dion.»
Indeed, the risks for Ignatieff in supporting the Cons' budget may be even greater than they were for Dion: unlike his predecessor, he has an obvious opening in Quebec which he'd stand to lose. And the Libs' decision on the budget may make the difference between their reaping the benefits of frustration with the Harper government where they most need to rebuild their electoral machine, or squandering their best chance to set themselves up for future electoral gains.
Sinking in
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
On non-stories
It's probably true that "MP Peter Stoffer at odds with mischaracterization of leader's position" wouldn't have quite the same ring to it. But that doesn't mean there's any excuse for this.
And it's worth wondering just how many enterprising questioners are calling out the one leader who actually has rejected suggestions before hearing them.
And it's worth wondering just how many enterprising questioners are calling out the one leader who actually has rejected suggestions before hearing them.
On legacies
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page confirms that just months after promising balanced budgets no matter what, Deficit Jim Flaherty has ensured that Canada's financial picture will match his moniker for "more than five years" to come. Which leads to the inevitable question: how much more of a monument to incompetence should the opposition parties want to let him build?
Edit: fixed wording & label.
Edit: fixed wording & label.
Positive steps
Just as the first musings emerged about the NDP being relatively quiet, both Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair sent a strong message about the coalition yesterday. And there's plenty to like about the general themes:
But equally importantly, that message isn't being conveyed adversarially. Instead, the NDP's focus for now is on Harper's well-known lack of trustworthiness and interest in effective government, coupled with a strong willingness to work with the Libs toward the shared goals of the coalition parties. And that positive message toward Ignatieff should contrast nicely with Harper's continued habit of reflexively bashing the opposition without even hearing its ideas when Ignatieff decides who the Libs should be working with in getting Canada's economy back on track.
"I think it's a happy marriage and we had a nice cup of coffee and a good discussion," Mr. Layton said of (a meeting with Michael Ignatieff) during an interview on CTV's On The Hill. "The coalition plan really is that bold plan that we need in this country right now."There are two important components worth pointing out. Not surprisingly, Layton and Mulcair are both emphasizing that the ramifications of the budget vote will go far beyond passing a single piece of legislation, implicitly raising the question of whether Ignatieff wants to go on the record saying that the country is better off with Harper in charge than with the coalition.
Mr. Layton said even if Mr. Harper embraces the opposition demand for measures that provide economic stimulus, Canadians have no reason to believe he will act upon them.
"I hope that the Liberals are going to look at the choice they are facing," said Mr. Mulcair. "It is very simply this one: either we leave the Conservatives there or we replace them. I greatly prefer by far, in the interests of the population, to replace them."
But equally importantly, that message isn't being conveyed adversarially. Instead, the NDP's focus for now is on Harper's well-known lack of trustworthiness and interest in effective government, coupled with a strong willingness to work with the Libs toward the shared goals of the coalition parties. And that positive message toward Ignatieff should contrast nicely with Harper's continued habit of reflexively bashing the opposition without even hearing its ideas when Ignatieff decides who the Libs should be working with in getting Canada's economy back on track.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
An ounce of prevention
Shorter John Baird:
In the interests of efficiency, we should focus on punishing environmental violations after the fact rather than spending any time preventing them from happening in the first place.
In the interests of efficiency, we should focus on punishing environmental violations after the fact rather than spending any time preventing them from happening in the first place.
What Greg said
On the Libs' options:
If Liberals allow the Harper budget to pass, they will hear forever, the words "Well, I am just following the budget that was passed with the help of the Liberal Party", whenever Harper is asked about anything to do with the state of the economy. Think about that for a while before abandoning the idea of a coalition. Either way your party is going to own the recession. You might as well be in the driver's seat instead of being tied up in the trunk.
Taking aim
NDP MP John Rafferty's announcement that he'll introduce a private member's bill to scrap the federal long-gun registry has received some comment from a policy perspective. But it's worth noting the political implications of the move as well.
Keep in mind that Harper's Cons have done everything they can to minimize the use of the registry as it now exists, adopting an amnesty policy which eliminates any consequences for not registering guns and thus ensures that the registry isn't current or comprehensive. So the actual utility of the registry is significantly lower than it would be if the current law was being enforced - and only gets reduced further with time as information in the registry gets further and further out of date.
Yet the Harper government has also conspicuously declined to do anything legislatively to deal with the registry - even during the period of time when the Libs were allowing the Cons to pass whatever legislation they wanted to. Which would send a strong signal that Harper wants to keep the issue on the table to keep rural ridings in his column as part of a push for a majority.
But what would happen if Rafferty's bill passed? Not only would the Cons lose their ability to hold the registry over its rural supporters, but they wouldn't even be able to take credit for the bill which changed the status quo. Which could only be bad news for the Cons' rural MPs who still rely on the registry as their main source of outrage against urban Canada and the other parties - and great news for the NDP in particular as it seeks to expand its own image and win back some ground in rural areas.
Of course, as long as the Cons stay in power they can at least try to take credit for any change by presenting a bill of their own before Rafferty's can work its way through Parliament. But all indications are that the Cons would prefer not to forfeit their feigned outrage over the gun registry if they can avoid it. And Rafferty's bill may thus serve a valuable purpose in forcing their hand.
Keep in mind that Harper's Cons have done everything they can to minimize the use of the registry as it now exists, adopting an amnesty policy which eliminates any consequences for not registering guns and thus ensures that the registry isn't current or comprehensive. So the actual utility of the registry is significantly lower than it would be if the current law was being enforced - and only gets reduced further with time as information in the registry gets further and further out of date.
Yet the Harper government has also conspicuously declined to do anything legislatively to deal with the registry - even during the period of time when the Libs were allowing the Cons to pass whatever legislation they wanted to. Which would send a strong signal that Harper wants to keep the issue on the table to keep rural ridings in his column as part of a push for a majority.
But what would happen if Rafferty's bill passed? Not only would the Cons lose their ability to hold the registry over its rural supporters, but they wouldn't even be able to take credit for the bill which changed the status quo. Which could only be bad news for the Cons' rural MPs who still rely on the registry as their main source of outrage against urban Canada and the other parties - and great news for the NDP in particular as it seeks to expand its own image and win back some ground in rural areas.
Of course, as long as the Cons stay in power they can at least try to take credit for any change by presenting a bill of their own before Rafferty's can work its way through Parliament. But all indications are that the Cons would prefer not to forfeit their feigned outrage over the gun registry if they can avoid it. And Rafferty's bill may thus serve a valuable purpose in forcing their hand.
Monday, January 12, 2009
On legitimacy
With even Con MPs forced to acknowledge that the democratic coalition is perfectly legitimate from a constitutional standpoint, the closest the Cons and their flacks have to an argument against the coalition has been limited to the claim that it lacks legitimacy as defined by popularity in a couple of public opinion polls.
Now, I don't subscribe to the view that the legitimacy of the actions of democratically elected officials is governed by the latest set of polls. But those who have relied on popular opinion as an argument against the coalition are now facing some strong evidence to undermine their position.
The latest support for the coalition:
But when more people want to see the coalition in power than the Cons, it would defy belief to try to make the argument that the Cons could have any more democratic legitimacy than the coalition would based on current levels of popular support. And to the extent anybody wants to play the national unity card, it can't escape mention that the greatest regional legitimacy issue would involve the Cons' lack of support in the one region which has actually seriously threatened to separate in the past.
All of which is to say that the number of serious arguments against the coalition is rapidly dwindling. And with any luck, public opinion will keep turning in the coalition's favour just in time for it to come into being.
(This post expands on a couple of comments made at Far and Wide.)
Now, I don't subscribe to the view that the legitimacy of the actions of democratically elected officials is governed by the latest set of polls. But those who have relied on popular opinion as an argument against the coalition are now facing some strong evidence to undermine their position.
The latest support for the coalition:
Overall: 42%And the latest support for the Cons:
Quebec - 62%
Ontario - 40%
Atlantic Canada - 40%
Western Canada - 29%
Overall: 33%Now, it's undoubtedly fair to say that the latest polls should be taken as reflecting only a portion of public opinion - as the previous ones should have been as well.
Western Canada - 44%
Ontario - 35%
Atlantic Canada - 28%
Quebec - 17%
But when more people want to see the coalition in power than the Cons, it would defy belief to try to make the argument that the Cons could have any more democratic legitimacy than the coalition would based on current levels of popular support. And to the extent anybody wants to play the national unity card, it can't escape mention that the greatest regional legitimacy issue would involve the Cons' lack of support in the one region which has actually seriously threatened to separate in the past.
All of which is to say that the number of serious arguments against the coalition is rapidly dwindling. And with any luck, public opinion will keep turning in the coalition's favour just in time for it to come into being.
(This post expands on a couple of comments made at Far and Wide.)
In his own image
Shorter Stephen Greene, one of Harper's impending appointees to the Senate, on the much-trumpeted "pledge" to step down if the Senate is reformed:
I'd like to see you try to hold me to it. Suckers.
Edit: added label.
I'd like to see you try to hold me to it. Suckers.
Edit: added label.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Ground rules
The Saskatchewan NDP leadership race still looks to be stuck in neutral at best, with some significant frustration starting to leak out from those of us who would like to see a genuine contest develop: see e.g. GPM's latest, as well as the most recent Babble discussion thread. But one of the largest problems with potential contenders waiting to get into the contest may have to do with the strategy decisions which might result.
For any underdog with an early start, the blueprint for success is fairly widely available in the form of the Obama model: upbeat messaging from a charismatic candidate, coupled with an organization designed to turn positive impressions into committed support. And the result worked out perfectly for Obama's party as well as for him personally: while a hard-fought primary helped Obama to develop a massive campaign apparatus which boosted his cause tremendously in the general election, the fact that he could win the nomination by building a machine based on his own positives rather than attacks on Hillary Clinton made it far easier for the party to unite behind him once the contest was over.
Unfortunately, it's not clear that the same road will be as open to Saskatchewan's challengers - and it becomes less and less so with every day that goes by without another candidate jumping into the race. With Dwain Lingenfelter enjoying both a significant head start and the bulk of institutional support within the party, it may be extremely difficult for any other candidate to put together a competitive campaign based on an organization-building strategy if Lingenfelter has done even a passable job of using the resources at his disposal.
As a result, the easier path to victory for any challenger might seem to be to bank on a negative strategy to turn current members and new sign-ups against Lingenfelter, rather than working to seek out new blood. But whatever the likelihood of actually winning through those means, the prize would figure to be seriously diminished regardless of who emerged on top. Either Lingenfelter could hold on in the face of a barrage but carry a damaging set of negatives into a general election, or the challenger could try to lead the party into 2011 with irate Link supporters choosing to stay on the sidelines.
Since that can hardly be a positive result for anybody involved other than the NDP's rivals, I'll once again encourage challengers to get into the race, but with an exhortation to run with an eye to the long term as well. The ultimate measure of any candidate in the leadership race will be how much good their policy vision and organizational skills can offer the party and the province - and as eager as many of us are for a competitive race, I for one won't hesitate to criticize any candidate (including the one already there) who decides to go negative rather than keeping those factors in mind.
For any underdog with an early start, the blueprint for success is fairly widely available in the form of the Obama model: upbeat messaging from a charismatic candidate, coupled with an organization designed to turn positive impressions into committed support. And the result worked out perfectly for Obama's party as well as for him personally: while a hard-fought primary helped Obama to develop a massive campaign apparatus which boosted his cause tremendously in the general election, the fact that he could win the nomination by building a machine based on his own positives rather than attacks on Hillary Clinton made it far easier for the party to unite behind him once the contest was over.
Unfortunately, it's not clear that the same road will be as open to Saskatchewan's challengers - and it becomes less and less so with every day that goes by without another candidate jumping into the race. With Dwain Lingenfelter enjoying both a significant head start and the bulk of institutional support within the party, it may be extremely difficult for any other candidate to put together a competitive campaign based on an organization-building strategy if Lingenfelter has done even a passable job of using the resources at his disposal.
As a result, the easier path to victory for any challenger might seem to be to bank on a negative strategy to turn current members and new sign-ups against Lingenfelter, rather than working to seek out new blood. But whatever the likelihood of actually winning through those means, the prize would figure to be seriously diminished regardless of who emerged on top. Either Lingenfelter could hold on in the face of a barrage but carry a damaging set of negatives into a general election, or the challenger could try to lead the party into 2011 with irate Link supporters choosing to stay on the sidelines.
Since that can hardly be a positive result for anybody involved other than the NDP's rivals, I'll once again encourage challengers to get into the race, but with an exhortation to run with an eye to the long term as well. The ultimate measure of any candidate in the leadership race will be how much good their policy vision and organizational skills can offer the party and the province - and as eager as many of us are for a competitive race, I for one won't hesitate to criticize any candidate (including the one already there) who decides to go negative rather than keeping those factors in mind.
On targeting
Following up on yesterday's post, let's turn to the possible downside to the NDP's moves on financial policy - which is that while an effort to reach out to the financial sector might be a plus on its face, it may also raise questions about what priorities the NDP is pursuing:
By way of comparison, remember that the Cons' near-complete lack of federal cabinet experience doesn't seem to have particularly affected them on taking office in 2006. And to the extent one takes into account governing experience at other levels, the NDP's crop of candidates - featuring former cabinet ministers from multiple provinces as well as a leader with experience on the council of Canada's largest city - similarly stacks up extremely well against the Cons' on taking office.
Once the "no experience" canard is dismissed, the more plausible conclusion is that the issue is one of political positioning: simply put, business will tend to be more receptive to a message which is perceived to maximize its potential profit without any associated social responsibilities. But that feeds into the bigger question, which is whether the NDP is best off committing its spare resources into impressing sectors which are likely to generally put their weight behind other parties regardless of what the NDP does, or into reaching out to Canadians who are more likely to become NDP members or supporters.
In that respect, I'd hope the NDP would have learned a lesson from the 2008 campaign. To my recollection, virtually every media commentary as to which party ran the best campaign pointed in the NDP's direction - suggesting that the corporate press which normally looks for reason to question the NDP was overcome by the party's effort just as some bank representatives seem to be now.
But that positive press didn't seem to do much to influence voters, even when the number of people theoretically open to voting NDP was similar to that for the other major parties. And the end result was a wave of pundits questioning whether the NDP can reach any more voters when it failed to do so while having earned the respect of the media.
Now, the above isn't to say that the NDP shouldn't be looking to improve its perceived and actual knowledge base on the economy (or any other issue), nor that it should want anything other than to be perceived as the best-managed party in Canadian politics. And it may be that the NDP has enough additional resources to pair some deeper internal financial research with a broader appeal to voters at large which has thus far flown under the radar - which wouldn't be a bad combination in making use of the product of an increased seat count.
But in the final analysis, any amount of demonstrated knowledge will be of limited use if it isn't accompanied by further increases in the party's vote and seat count. And I'd think the NDP would be best served countering any perceived gaps by proving its ability to bring in more first-choice voter support to increase the likelihood of its ideas being put into practice, rather than using too many of its resources to try to appeal to the last groups which are likely to ultimately support the party.
Party strategists say they can sometimes face a credibility gap when they engage with Conservatives, Liberals, and business groups over policies affecting the financial sector. They argue it is a difficult handicap to overcome as they have no record of serving in a federal Cabinet to point to, meaning they have to do far more homework to have the same impact as their counterparts.Let's start with the apparent concern about a "credibility gap". Whatever one's criteria for credibility, there's every reason to think that any gap is more a matter of perception (fueled by the other parties who have a vested interest in misrepresenting the NDP's level of knowledge) rather than any justification for treating the NDP with additional skepticism.
This political deficit came to the fore in early December when the Conservative government teetered on the brink of collapse and the NDP appeared to be hours from entering government in Ottawa for the first time.
Party strategists say that amid historic turbulence in financial markets, they made an effort to avoid fuelling uncertainty, making it clear the party was not seeking the finance portfolio and assuring the banking sector there would be a period of continuity in implementation of already-promised emergency measures to stabilize the financial system.
But during the interlude that has followed the suspension of parliament, the NDP caucus has been calling on external advisors and allocating more resources to strengthening its research on financial policy.
"There as been an effort to expand the capacity of the caucus," says an aide, who points to meetings with outside economists such as Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada.
The aide says the push reflects both a sense of "responsibility" that comes with the prospect of decision-making power and the wider need for policymakers to become more familiar with "microscopic" aspects of the banking system as they seek a way out of the financial crisis.
A party strategist said while efforts to sharpen the party's financial policy-making had gained pace, it was best viewed as part of a longer-range goal of "changing perceptions of the party over a protracted period of time."
By way of comparison, remember that the Cons' near-complete lack of federal cabinet experience doesn't seem to have particularly affected them on taking office in 2006. And to the extent one takes into account governing experience at other levels, the NDP's crop of candidates - featuring former cabinet ministers from multiple provinces as well as a leader with experience on the council of Canada's largest city - similarly stacks up extremely well against the Cons' on taking office.
Once the "no experience" canard is dismissed, the more plausible conclusion is that the issue is one of political positioning: simply put, business will tend to be more receptive to a message which is perceived to maximize its potential profit without any associated social responsibilities. But that feeds into the bigger question, which is whether the NDP is best off committing its spare resources into impressing sectors which are likely to generally put their weight behind other parties regardless of what the NDP does, or into reaching out to Canadians who are more likely to become NDP members or supporters.
In that respect, I'd hope the NDP would have learned a lesson from the 2008 campaign. To my recollection, virtually every media commentary as to which party ran the best campaign pointed in the NDP's direction - suggesting that the corporate press which normally looks for reason to question the NDP was overcome by the party's effort just as some bank representatives seem to be now.
But that positive press didn't seem to do much to influence voters, even when the number of people theoretically open to voting NDP was similar to that for the other major parties. And the end result was a wave of pundits questioning whether the NDP can reach any more voters when it failed to do so while having earned the respect of the media.
Now, the above isn't to say that the NDP shouldn't be looking to improve its perceived and actual knowledge base on the economy (or any other issue), nor that it should want anything other than to be perceived as the best-managed party in Canadian politics. And it may be that the NDP has enough additional resources to pair some deeper internal financial research with a broader appeal to voters at large which has thus far flown under the radar - which wouldn't be a bad combination in making use of the product of an increased seat count.
But in the final analysis, any amount of demonstrated knowledge will be of limited use if it isn't accompanied by further increases in the party's vote and seat count. And I'd think the NDP would be best served countering any perceived gaps by proving its ability to bring in more first-choice voter support to increase the likelihood of its ideas being put into practice, rather than using too many of its resources to try to appeal to the last groups which are likely to ultimately support the party.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Winning friends and influencing people
The National Post's story on how the NDP is working to strengthen its financial credentials is worth a look from a couple of different angles. For now, let's start with the plus side, as the party looks to be winning nothing but accolades for its moves to engage with financial issues.
Most notably, after three years of Con government which has ranged from useless to outright embarrassing abroad, one of the NDP's top figures seems to have had little trouble making a positive name for himself and for his party around the globe with a call for effective financial regulation:
Mind you, political effort to establish regulations undoubtedly has to be paired with internal knowledge of the industries to achieve the best possible effect. And it's noteworthy that even two out of the three bank lobbyists contacted by the Post had positive things to say about the NDP's engagement on financial issues:
Yet even in the course of publicly raising concerns about bank profits and ATM fees, the NDP has managed to present a reasonable enough case that representatives for the banks themselves appreciate the contribution.
Now, the article may raise a separate question as to where the NDP's efforts are best directed - and I'll deal with that issue in a future post. But for now, it's worth highlighting that the list of groups which the NDP has anaged to impress now extends beyond both international and ideological borders.
Most notably, after three years of Con government which has ranged from useless to outright embarrassing abroad, one of the NDP's top figures seems to have had little trouble making a positive name for himself and for his party around the globe with a call for effective financial regulation:
To his compatriots, Tom Mulcair might not have been the most obvious Canadian representative to (a) two-day gathering to discuss the new world that will emerge from the most profound financial and economic crises in decades.Of course, the message hasn't yet filtered through the Canadian political scene to the extent it seems to have been picked up internationally. But with such a strong consensus among Canada's allies, it only makes sense to recognize the common themes of lax regulation and enforcement which have led to the economic difficulties now sweeping across borders. And it has to be a plus for Mulcair to be able to lead the charge at home and abroad.
But the finance critic for the New Democratic Party was much in demand among guests including Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize winning economist, after making a strong impression during a presentation to the group the previous day, according to a French diplomat.
The participation of Mr. Mulcair reflects a quiet but determined effort by the social-democratic party to deepen its knowledge of the challenges facing the financial system and to strengthen its credentials in developing new policies that will impact the banking system, according to aides...
Mr. Mulcair, speaking from Paris, says the crisis in the banking system has made it imperative for policymakers and regulators to engage much more closely in the workings of financial institutions and markets.
He says this was one of the key points of consensus during the gathering in Paris, and was driven home forcefully by Mrs. Merkel.
"There is a fundamental agreement across borders on this," he says, adding: "The world has changed and we have to change with it."
"For too long we tolerated it when financial institutions told us 'not to worry our pretty little heads, that they knew what they were doing.' Well they didn't. They have shown that," he says.
Mind you, political effort to establish regulations undoubtedly has to be paired with internal knowledge of the industries to achieve the best possible effect. And it's noteworthy that even two out of the three bank lobbyists contacted by the Post had positive things to say about the NDP's engagement on financial issues:
(T)he NDP caucus has been calling on external advisors and allocating more resources to strengthening its research on financial policy.The latter quote looks to be a particularly strong statement in the NDP's favour. By way of contrast, even in the rare cases where they've deigned to talk with any of their preferred political targets, the Cons have seldom been seen to put any thought or effort into the interaction. (Mind you, the Cons apparently don't have much idea what they're doing in their perceived areas of strength either.)
"There as been an effort to expand the capacity of the caucus," says an aide, who points to meetings with outside economists such as Glen Hodgson, chief economist for the Conference Board of Canada...
One bank lobbyist remained highly skeptical of the party's contribution to the debate, and was disparaging about attempts at dialogue with the party.
But other current and former bank lobbyists say they have observed a gradual shift in the NDP's approach.
"I think you can see in Mulcair a fairly pragmatic approach to our issues. It is probably a more effective approach. I think he is on to something," says one bank lobbyist.
One former lobbyist still active on Bay Street says during meetings with senior party figures they had consistently shown themselves to be "thoughtful and backed up by good research, though we didn't always agree."
Yet even in the course of publicly raising concerns about bank profits and ATM fees, the NDP has managed to present a reasonable enough case that representatives for the banks themselves appreciate the contribution.
Now, the article may raise a separate question as to where the NDP's efforts are best directed - and I'll deal with that issue in a future post. But for now, it's worth highlighting that the list of groups which the NDP has anaged to impress now extends beyond both international and ideological borders.
Not yet silenced
Shorter (or at least more accurate) Gerry Ritz on the most recent set of Canadian Wheat Board directors' elections:
The farmers have spoken - despite our best illegal efforts to drown out their voices.
(H/t to Buckdog and 900 ft Jesus.)
The farmers have spoken - despite our best illegal efforts to drown out their voices.
(H/t to Buckdog and 900 ft Jesus.)
Friday, January 09, 2009
On baselines
It's been somewhat of a disappointment that the opposition parties haven't spent more time branding the Cons with the economic downturn and establishing a low set of base expectations which would enable a coalition to claim success from relatively modest results.
But it's worth noting for future reference that Jim Flaherty appears to be saving them the trouble. After all, the Cons would figure to have trouble throwing blame for future difficulties on any other party when even the Cons' finance minister is telling Canadians to expect a "very difficult year" featuring "substantial job losses" before anybody else has had a say in the country's direction.
But it's worth noting for future reference that Jim Flaherty appears to be saving them the trouble. After all, the Cons would figure to have trouble throwing blame for future difficulties on any other party when even the Cons' finance minister is telling Canadians to expect a "very difficult year" featuring "substantial job losses" before anybody else has had a say in the country's direction.
On available options
Yesterday, I discussed how a wait-and-see strategy from the Libs may lead to the best prospects for a coalition government. By way of followup, it may be worth taking some time to classify the options available to the Libs over the next month, and how they might be interpreted in divining the Libs' intentions.
As mentioned in the earlier post, the Libs' have generally demurred as to what they'd require to support a budget, or whether or not they plan on proceeding with the coalition. In effect, there would seem to be two possible reasons for that stance: either they genuinely don't know what they want to see done, or there's some reason to avoid making their demands public.
Now, it may not be entirely beyond the realm of possibility that the Libs are no more organized than Deficit Jim, and are thus avoiding any firm positions for lack of any decision as to what position to take.
But it would seem more likely that the Libs simply see some political advantage in not being wedded to any course of action. And it would seem that the end goal of installing the coalition is the one which is best served by declining to make any decisions for now - though it could be that the Libs instead want only to make Harper squirm and his party face some internal uncertainty before ultimately passing the budget.
So what other avenues are open to the Libs? If their main goal was to get particular policies passed through the budget, then the obvious step would be to put those front and centre - either with an ultimatum that their support for the budget depends on the inclusion of those policies, or as part of an invitation to the Cons to jointly formulate a policy direction for the budget.
Of course, the danger of that path is that the Cons won't hesitate to grab the most popular ideas, bastardize them and then take credit for the results. Or alternatively, there's the risk that an attempt to cooperate will be taken as weakness which leads the Cons to tempt fate with some more fiscal update-style surprises. Which probably explains why there hasn't been much indication that the Libs plan on putting much of a push behind any particular policy demands.
Now, that's not to say that the Libs haven't mentioned some general policies such as EI reform - and one might theorize that Ignatieff's "as Prime Minister, I would..." musings yesterday about tax cuts and infrastructure might be seen as a step down the policy-suggestion path. But I don't think there's much room for doubt that the Libs' message has been based on their planning to judge the Cons' budget when it's released, rather than on demanding the opportunity to shape it in detail beforehand.
The other obvious option available to the Libs would be to essentially ignore the Cons' budget process and put on a full-court press in favour of the coalition. Again, though, any such action would put Harper on notice that he faces a non-confidence vote from the Libs. And that could only make the nominally desired outcome all the more distant.
Which isn't to say there couldn't be some reason to pursue such a path, particularly if the Libs figured the damage done to Harper's image by another hyperpartisan overreach would be worth the resources from their end. But there wouldn't be any way for the coalition to actually take office unless Harper decided to let democracy run its course while facing a significant risk that it it would reduce him to the dustbin of history. And while that might be a positive enough backup plan, I'm sure the Libs know better than to bank on that end result.
In sum, the option of deferring judgment for now is likely both the best one available to the Libs, and the one most likely to lead to a coalition government in the near future. And while I'll certainly be watching closely for signs of another strategy, it looks to be the Libs' plan for the time being.
As mentioned in the earlier post, the Libs' have generally demurred as to what they'd require to support a budget, or whether or not they plan on proceeding with the coalition. In effect, there would seem to be two possible reasons for that stance: either they genuinely don't know what they want to see done, or there's some reason to avoid making their demands public.
Now, it may not be entirely beyond the realm of possibility that the Libs are no more organized than Deficit Jim, and are thus avoiding any firm positions for lack of any decision as to what position to take.
But it would seem more likely that the Libs simply see some political advantage in not being wedded to any course of action. And it would seem that the end goal of installing the coalition is the one which is best served by declining to make any decisions for now - though it could be that the Libs instead want only to make Harper squirm and his party face some internal uncertainty before ultimately passing the budget.
So what other avenues are open to the Libs? If their main goal was to get particular policies passed through the budget, then the obvious step would be to put those front and centre - either with an ultimatum that their support for the budget depends on the inclusion of those policies, or as part of an invitation to the Cons to jointly formulate a policy direction for the budget.
Of course, the danger of that path is that the Cons won't hesitate to grab the most popular ideas, bastardize them and then take credit for the results. Or alternatively, there's the risk that an attempt to cooperate will be taken as weakness which leads the Cons to tempt fate with some more fiscal update-style surprises. Which probably explains why there hasn't been much indication that the Libs plan on putting much of a push behind any particular policy demands.
Now, that's not to say that the Libs haven't mentioned some general policies such as EI reform - and one might theorize that Ignatieff's "as Prime Minister, I would..." musings yesterday about tax cuts and infrastructure might be seen as a step down the policy-suggestion path. But I don't think there's much room for doubt that the Libs' message has been based on their planning to judge the Cons' budget when it's released, rather than on demanding the opportunity to shape it in detail beforehand.
The other obvious option available to the Libs would be to essentially ignore the Cons' budget process and put on a full-court press in favour of the coalition. Again, though, any such action would put Harper on notice that he faces a non-confidence vote from the Libs. And that could only make the nominally desired outcome all the more distant.
Which isn't to say there couldn't be some reason to pursue such a path, particularly if the Libs figured the damage done to Harper's image by another hyperpartisan overreach would be worth the resources from their end. But there wouldn't be any way for the coalition to actually take office unless Harper decided to let democracy run its course while facing a significant risk that it it would reduce him to the dustbin of history. And while that might be a positive enough backup plan, I'm sure the Libs know better than to bank on that end result.
In sum, the option of deferring judgment for now is likely both the best one available to the Libs, and the one most likely to lead to a coalition government in the near future. And while I'll certainly be watching closely for signs of another strategy, it looks to be the Libs' plan for the time being.
On shared philosophies
Impolitical has been nicely chronicling the consistent stream of problems with Con senate appointee Patrick Brazeau.
But let's be fair to Brazeau in the wake of today's report that his organization suspended the membership of one of its provincial wings to prevent allegations about his misconduct from being made public. After all, within the Harper government, that kind of experience in suppressing the facts for political gain is more likely to make Brazeau a role model than a liability.
But let's be fair to Brazeau in the wake of today's report that his organization suspended the membership of one of its provincial wings to prevent allegations about his misconduct from being made public. After all, within the Harper government, that kind of experience in suppressing the facts for political gain is more likely to make Brazeau a role model than a liability.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Extraordinary times, ordinary incompetence
Congratulations to Deficit Jim for reaching the conclusion that he should try to get the upcoming budget right. But is there much reason for optimism about a finance minister who apparently saw no problem taking a mulligan on his fiscal update?
A simple choice
Paul Wells rightly points out that regardless of what happens on the impending budget vote, Harper is virtually certain to try to run the next federal election campaign as "a binary choice between Our Lot and That Lot". (Indeed, if I have any quibble with Wells' post, it's with his failure to acknowledge that Harper already spread the same message in the last federal campaign.)
Which raises the question: would the opposition parties prefer to be judged on Harper's puffin-poop-grade caricature of a hypothetical coalition, or on the real results of a cooperative government?
Update: More from Wells.
Which raises the question: would the opposition parties prefer to be judged on Harper's puffin-poop-grade caricature of a hypothetical coalition, or on the real results of a cooperative government?
Update: More from Wells.
Unprincipled
Shorter Deceivin' Stephen:
Sure, my reason for visiting the patronage trough will no longer apply in a few weeks. But as long as I'm there, I may as well keep gorging.
Sure, my reason for visiting the patronage trough will no longer apply in a few weeks. But as long as I'm there, I may as well keep gorging.
On openings
While Douglas Bell and Robert Silver have been in the midst of an argument over the NDP's position and perception, it's worth noting that perhaps the most important news comes from Bell's offhand comment as to where the Libs now stand:
After all, in the wake of a wave of commentary rightly bashing Harper's irresponsible hyperpartisanship, the Cons are obviously looking to shed that label by appearing to work with the Libs rather than looking for excuses to take as many gratuitous potshots as they normally would. Which means that as long as the Libs remain publicly open to the idea of working with Harper and supporting the budget, it'll be awfully tough for the Cons to mount a strong public campaign against the coalition.
And perhaps more importantly, Harper can hardly justify once again playing games with the timing of votes on the budget and throne speech if the Libs haven't indicated their intention to vote against them. As a result, a measure of uncertainty - and indeed some public optimism about the Cons' budget - may be the best way to avoid Harper's intention to cling to power at all costs.
In contrast, if Ignatieff's message were that he planned to go ahead with the coalition, then the Cons would undoubtedly come out with guns blazing once again. And it's far too likely that Harper would simply choose to shut down Parliament once again and resume ruling by fiat: having fled democratic non-confidence votes twice already, there's little reason to think he'll willingly face one now.
Mind you, the above isn't to say that the Libs couldn't stand to significantly refine their message. In particular, Ignatieff (like Layton) should be emphasizing that the Cons need to earn the trust of the opposition and the country regardless of what is or isn't included in their budget.
And of course it's entirely possible that Ignatieff's current equivocation is based on an attempt to avoid alienating coalition supporters before he ultimately sides with Harper. (Though as I've noted, the NDP should be in a great position to punish him for that result if it comes to pass.)
But at the very least, there's a strong case to be made that a strategy of saying now isn't the time to make final decisions may be the best way for the Libs to lay the groundwork for the democratic coalition. Which means that the next few weeks will best be spent making sure that Ignatieff takes the best of the options he's left open.
Ig, late and reluctant though he may have been, did sign on to The Deal along with every other Liberal MP. And while the Libs may well decide to back out (one of Ig's hench thingys told me Monday that "it is still way too early to make that call")...Now, I haven't made much secret of the fact that the decision for the Libs looks to be an obvious one. But it's worth noting that remaining noncommittal for the moment may ultimately make for the smoothest path to bring it to power.
After all, in the wake of a wave of commentary rightly bashing Harper's irresponsible hyperpartisanship, the Cons are obviously looking to shed that label by appearing to work with the Libs rather than looking for excuses to take as many gratuitous potshots as they normally would. Which means that as long as the Libs remain publicly open to the idea of working with Harper and supporting the budget, it'll be awfully tough for the Cons to mount a strong public campaign against the coalition.
And perhaps more importantly, Harper can hardly justify once again playing games with the timing of votes on the budget and throne speech if the Libs haven't indicated their intention to vote against them. As a result, a measure of uncertainty - and indeed some public optimism about the Cons' budget - may be the best way to avoid Harper's intention to cling to power at all costs.
In contrast, if Ignatieff's message were that he planned to go ahead with the coalition, then the Cons would undoubtedly come out with guns blazing once again. And it's far too likely that Harper would simply choose to shut down Parliament once again and resume ruling by fiat: having fled democratic non-confidence votes twice already, there's little reason to think he'll willingly face one now.
Mind you, the above isn't to say that the Libs couldn't stand to significantly refine their message. In particular, Ignatieff (like Layton) should be emphasizing that the Cons need to earn the trust of the opposition and the country regardless of what is or isn't included in their budget.
And of course it's entirely possible that Ignatieff's current equivocation is based on an attempt to avoid alienating coalition supporters before he ultimately sides with Harper. (Though as I've noted, the NDP should be in a great position to punish him for that result if it comes to pass.)
But at the very least, there's a strong case to be made that a strategy of saying now isn't the time to make final decisions may be the best way for the Libs to lay the groundwork for the democratic coalition. Which means that the next few weeks will best be spent making sure that Ignatieff takes the best of the options he's left open.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
No reason for confidence
In case the likelihood of the Cons abusing confidence motions once again if their budget passes wasn't obvious enough from this afternoon's post, the Cons are now explicitly declaring their refusal to close the door on a repeat of the move:
The official said the government "reserves the right" to determine what constitutes a confidence matter. But he indicated that the government's fate is unlikely to turn on "secondary" matters not directly related to the economy.Much like John Ivison's column mentioned in the earlier post, Joan Bryden's article attempts to paint the statement as evidence of the Cons not declaring frivolous confidence votes. But the official's statement can equally be interpreted to suggest that the Cons fully expect to make use of their same old tactics, with the Libs once again lacking the backbone to bring down Harper over "secondary" matters after giving in on the budget. And we're surely far past the point where the Cons could receive the benefit of any doubt as to their willingness to put political attacks first.
Canada's Single-Issue Government
Apparently in addition to being unable to find its own ass with a map and a flashlight, the Harper government also lacks the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time:
Conservative politicians turned aside questions about other issues, stressing that the upcoming budget was their top priority. Raitt, for example, was asked about an ongoing strategic review of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. That review was initiated nearly a year ago by her predecessor, Gary Lunn, with a view toward examining whether all or part of that Crown corporation should be privatized.Of course, there's little doubt that the budget figures to be important - for the country no less than for the Cons' political survival. But that's no excuse for apparently abandoning every other responsibility of government, particularly when Harper has obviously been able to find enough time to send his political cronies to the Senate (if perhaps not to properly vet them first). And the fact that the Cons seemingly can't deal with more than one task at once even with the entire governing apparatus in support should offer another reason to reduce their responsibility to that of the official opposition.
Raitt would only say that review will be dealt with in due course. "Right now, it's all about the budget," she said, noting that she's had 12 briefings since Dec. 8 focused on the economy.
Foreseeable risks
A couple of recent columns look to form a nice summary of the conventional wisdom as to what's supposed to happen on Parliament Hill over the next month. But even as pundits set out their expectation that a Con budget will pass, they're also offering plenty of reason for doubt that the result would be positive for anybody other than Harper and his party.
Let's start with John Ivison - but look behind his far-too-charitable interpretation of the Cons' current spin:
Moreover, even other Conservatives are left having to "hope" that Harper has somehow decided to change from his well-established track record of putting politics above good governance, rather than having any substantive reason for believing that to be the case. Which can hardly inspire any confidence for the rest of us whose jobs don't depend on feeding positive reviews of Harper's performance to the media.
All of which means there's ample reason for Chantal Hebert to be skeptical that any vote to prop up the Cons on their budget will actually buy political peace for any significant length of time:
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Let's start with John Ivison - but look behind his far-too-charitable interpretation of the Cons' current spin:
When asked whether the justice bills will still be treated as confidence measures, the Prime Minister’s Office seemed to suggest only money bills will be deemed confidence votes going forward. “The government is focused on the economy. At this time, other issues are secondary,” said Kory Teneyecke, director of communications.In other words, the Cons have at best hinted that "at this time", they're focused on the economy rather than on other issues. And even in the face of the Cons' complete lack of shame about breaking previous commitments, Corn Cob Kory won't bite on an opportunity to reassure the opposition and the public that Harper won't try to force a hard-right agenda through confidence votes this spring.
...
Rather, Conservatives say the Prime Minister is “reaching out” during the budget process, after being chastened by his near-political death experience before Christmas. The hope is that Mr. Harper will be more focused on the deteriorating economy than on inflicting political ill-health and penury on his opponents.
Moreover, even other Conservatives are left having to "hope" that Harper has somehow decided to change from his well-established track record of putting politics above good governance, rather than having any substantive reason for believing that to be the case. Which can hardly inspire any confidence for the rest of us whose jobs don't depend on feeding positive reviews of Harper's performance to the media.
All of which means there's ample reason for Chantal Hebert to be skeptical that any vote to prop up the Cons on their budget will actually buy political peace for any significant length of time:
Ironically, the prospect of a popular Conservative budget only acts as an accelerant on the election flames.Of course, Hebert considers that outcome as reason to expect that another election will be forced at some point in 2009, as the parties aside from the Libs find a theoretical "community of interest" in wanting to go to the polls before Michael Ignatieff settles in as the Libs' leader. But surely any Lib with an iota of foresight would anticipate the danger of ending up in that position - and recognize that there's a course of action which doesn't involve being forced into another election on Harper's chosen timing and terms.
That's because the opposition suspects the Conservatives are preparing for war even as they overtly seek peace, by crafting a budget designed to become the stepping stone to a spring campaign. Having consolidated their advantage in public opinion with a well-received budget, they would be free to engineer their defeat on an issue of their own choosing later in the session.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Promising signs
It remains to be seen whether the latest hints on Facebook will prove as illusory as the attempt to draft Andrew Thomson last fall. But with both a Deb Higgins Politician page and a "Deb Higgins for Sask NDP Leader" group popping up over the last week, there may be some signs of life in the Saskatchewan NDP leadership race yet.
Passing the buck
Shorter Con stimulus plan, as conceived by their new communications guru Moe Szyslak:
Can't somebody else do it?
Can't somebody else do it?
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Harper's Failing State
If Paul Wells was looking for more fodder to show that the Harper government isn't even competent enough to follow through on its own stated priorities or basic functions of the state (or indeed find its own ass with a map and a flashlight), today provides two worrisome new examples.
First, there's a promised set of vehicle emission standards which figure to be delayed a full year due to the Cons' missing their own deadline for the end of 2008:
First, there's a promised set of vehicle emission standards which figure to be delayed a full year due to the Cons' missing their own deadline for the end of 2008:
Almost a year ago, Lawrence Cannon, then federal transport minister, vowed to publish new fuel-efficiency standards by the end of 2008. Those standards, he said at the time, would take effect with the 2011 model year.For those wondering, the Cons responded with their usual openness and competence:
"We made a commitment to implement fuel-consumption regulations for the 2011 model year that are benchmarked against a stringent, dominant North American standard, and we are keeping our word," Cannon said on Jan. 17, 2008...
The Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which became law late in 2007 during the Conservatives' second year in office, requires the federal government to give auto companies three years' notice before any new standard comes into effect.
By failing to publish the new figure by the end of 2008, the earliest the government could force car companies to meet new fuel-efficient standards would be the 2012 model year, a year later than Cannon had promised.
After the October election, Cannon was replaced by John Baird, who moved over from the environment portfolio. A spokesman for Baird said Tuesday that Environment Canada was now the lead department on the file. Environment Minister Jim Prentice was not immediately available to comment.And then there's a government's basic obligation to protect its citizens abroad, where the Cons have similarly failed miserably by dragging their heels in working to bring Canadians home from Gaza:
Canada only asked Israel for help in getting its stranded citizens out of Gaza after hundreds of other foreign nationals were able to depart, and as a ground assault was preparing to roll in.And lest anybody think the Cons could be excused for not knowing any better:
More than 200 foreigners, including 39 Canadians, were to leave war-ravaged Gaza Monday, but the Israelis said security risks forced them to shut down access to the Erez Crossing into Israel. They said they would try again to get them out Tuesday.
It's unclear why Canada's officials did not ask sooner for Israeli assistance to get Canadians out – before the start of the ground war on Saturday that made travelling in Gaza far more dangerous.
Several countries clamoured last week for Israel to help their citizens leave Gaza, before an expected ground assault, prompting the Israelis to allow about 300, including Americans, Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans, to leave on Friday.
A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa, Rodney Moore, said that's the day that Canada sent a list of 36 Canadians who wanted to leave Gaza, and asked for Israeli assistance.
But Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israel government civil administration in the occupied territories, said Canadian officials only approached them for help the day after, on Saturday.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, Canadian officials were criticized for the slow pace of their efforts to evacuate about 13,000 citizens from Beirut, as they struggled to arrange safe passage for ships for days after the United States and several European countries began ferrying out their nationals.So to sum up, the Harper Cons have broken their own self-imposed deadline to do something about fuel efficiency by flat-out forgetting it existed, and left dozens of Canadians in danger due to their failure to learn anything from an equally well-publicized mistake two years ago. Which would seem to confirm that about the only thing Canadians can count on from Harper is continued incompetence - and offer all the more reason to hope to see some adults in charge at the earliest opportunity.
In this case, it's not clear why Canada did not ask for help sooner, before the situation on the ground in Gaza became dramatically more dangerous.
Between the lines
Perhaps the most significant development in the CP's report on the Libs' restructuring is one area which Michael Ignatieff isn't focusing on:
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Mr. Ignatieff has not yet put his stamp on the Liberal shadow cabinet and Ms. Fairbrother said there has been no discussion about the various roles caucus members will play. She said Mr. Ignatieff may choose to make no significant changes to the lineup of critics assigned by Mr. Dion.Given that the article describes wholesale organizational changes from the group which existed under Stephane Dion, it's highly improbable that Ignatieff's choice of shadow cabinets would be identical to his predecessor's. But wouldn't it make sense that Ignatieff might spend little time thinking about shadow critic assignments if he doesn't expect to be on the opposition side of the House for long?
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Equal time
As a counterpoint to Hassan Arif's column which I linked to yesterday, let's take a look at the strategic thinking behind the case for the Libs choosing to prop up Deceivin' Stephen once again. Here's Tom Kent:
And if the Cons once again go too far? Well, then the Libs can register their disagreement through the power of suggestion (maybe even going so far as to set down "markers" as to what policies they oppose?), while giving Stephen Harper what he wants whether or not it's in the best interest of the country.
Needless to say, it's a wonder nobody thought of this strategy sooner. If only Stephane Dion had that kind of foresight.
Let's give Kent this much: his column does perform a public service by highlighting just how thoroughly the Libs would have to disregard recent history in order to think they have anything to gain by propping up Harper at this point. But when it's made clear that a decision to pass the Cons' budget can only set the Libs up for even more embarrassment and irrelevance to come, it should be obvious how they should handle the budget vote.
Mr. Ignatieff can lay Liberal arrogance finally to rest. He can replace it by common sense. He has only to say, soon and firmly, that this is not the year for another election. We face prolonged uncertainty about jobs and incomes, about prices and savings. Adding political uncertainty to the mix could only worsen our economic troubles. A responsible opposition would recognize that, for the present, steadiness is more important than changing the government through the conflict of election campaigning.So in the name of "steadiness" and avoiding an election, the Libs would leave in place a government which regularly pulls the pin on live grenades just to watch its opponents squirm, rather than replacing it with a coalition which can produce at least a year and a half of stable government.
Such a statement would not give Mr. Harper a blank cheque. Further outrages would compel the coalition to defeat the government. But short of those, it should be held accountable not through daily debate and polling, but after enough time for the people to remake their electoral assessment. The Liberal Party, meanwhile, will probe, question, suggest; and if the government nevertheless introduces measures that Liberals cannot support, they will as a party abstain.
And if the Cons once again go too far? Well, then the Libs can register their disagreement through the power of suggestion (maybe even going so far as to set down "markers" as to what policies they oppose?), while giving Stephen Harper what he wants whether or not it's in the best interest of the country.
Needless to say, it's a wonder nobody thought of this strategy sooner. If only Stephane Dion had that kind of foresight.
Let's give Kent this much: his column does perform a public service by highlighting just how thoroughly the Libs would have to disregard recent history in order to think they have anything to gain by propping up Harper at this point. But when it's made clear that a decision to pass the Cons' budget can only set the Libs up for even more embarrassment and irrelevance to come, it should be obvious how they should handle the budget vote.
Spinners anonymous
Impolitical nicely dissects the Cons' latest sad attempt to humanize Deceivin' Stephen. But it's worth noting just how comical the effort is:
A Conservative official confirmed that the Prime Minister was deeply moved by the experience, particularly as he came to understand how the schools affected not only the former students, but their children.That's right: the Cons can't even roll out a PR campaign based on something supposedly "very heartfelt and...very personal" without delivering it through anonymous internal sources. But then, it might make sense that any person would be embarrassed to attach their name to a branding effort which is so obviously contrary to reality.
"He was clearly, personally, very moved by it," the official told The Globe and Mail. "As he learned more about what had gone on, [he] went through an evolution in his own thinking, and I think it was very heartfelt and it was very personal."
On finality
In trying to defend the appointment of two senators who have spent decades living outside the provinces they're supposed to represent, the Cons have repeatedly claimed that all that matters is whether the constitutional requirements are met by the time any new senators are sworn in. Which would strongly imply that the appointments themselves don't have any constitutional effect until that time either. After all, surely a senator-in-waiting can't have a confirmed right to a position at a time before one can properly assess whether the individual actually qualifies for the job.
Needless to say, that fact may be worth keeping in mind when it comes to deciding whether the cushiest patronage appointment in Canadian history should go to somebody under investigation for sexual harassment. And if the Cons managed to miss that kind of time bomb in even a high-profile appointee in their rush to stack the Senate, then it may be best for evreybody concerned if they hold off on finalizing anything until they've had time to do their homework.
Needless to say, that fact may be worth keeping in mind when it comes to deciding whether the cushiest patronage appointment in Canadian history should go to somebody under investigation for sexual harassment. And if the Cons managed to miss that kind of time bomb in even a high-profile appointee in their rush to stack the Senate, then it may be best for evreybody concerned if they hold off on finalizing anything until they've had time to do their homework.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Rumours of the coalition's death have been greatly exaggerated
There's still a long way to go to make up for a month of the media parroting Con spin about the democratic coalition. But ironically, the consistent refrain that the coalition is dead may only have softened some of the possible opposition. And now that the case for the coalition is beginning to find its way into the public eye, could it be that the tide will turn just in time for the coalition to become a reality?
Burning question
Is it possible to design a Con talking point so glaringly flawed that even Tim Powers would be ashamed to proclaim it a brilliant insight?
On high-risk strategies
There's been far too little mention in the press of the obvious dangers to Michael Ignatieff and his party if they decide that Stephane Dion's strategy of giving Harper everything he wants is somehow worth repeating. But Hassan Arif nicely sums up the options now facing Ignatieff:
Moreover, there's ample reason to think the Libs' current base will be less than happy with any move to keep propping up Harper. After all, Liberal voters have not only shown themselves to be strong supporters of the coalition, but have also expressed their willingness to switch their vote if it leads to a better chance to stop the Harper Cons. And if two Lib leaders in a row demonstrate that they're not up to the task, then the result can only be to strengthen the NDP's hand as the best available alternative.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
If the Liberals vote to support Harper's budget (or at the very least abstain) while the NDP votes against it, then Ignatieff's standing as leader could be severely damaged. For progressive-leaning Canadians, he will be seen as "collaborating with Harper" and "abdicating his role as Official opposition leader," both of which would gravely damage the Liberal Party among a crucial group of voters.Indeed, for those looking for the quickest possible path to Liberal destruction (which of course tends to be the Cons' fondest hope), it likely involves Ignatieff taking on for himself exactly the same mantle of weakness and ineffectiveness that sunk Dion. And that negative impression would almost certainly spill over onto the party's image as well: while the Libs could relatively easily paint Dion's mistakes as his own based on his seemingly accidental ascension to the leadership and limited ties to the party structure, they would have a much harder time shaking off Ignatieff's failures when the party has effectively chosen him by acclamation.
This would open the door for Jack Layton and the NDP to be the dominant voice of progressive Canadians.
The Coalition may not have caught on with the public at large, but it does enjoy a significant degree of popularity among progressive and left-leaning Canadians...
If Ignatieff can articulate a vision that inspires Canadians, and if he can rise to deal with the economic challenges of the current downturn, showing that he understands the problems of Canadians worried about their jobs and livelihoods, then he could be a successful leader.
This could be derailed in the eyes of many Canadians if he is seen as collaborating with Stephen Harper and selling out on progressive values. This is a prospect which Michael Ignatieff must be keenly aware of if he is to succeed.
Moreover, there's ample reason to think the Libs' current base will be less than happy with any move to keep propping up Harper. After all, Liberal voters have not only shown themselves to be strong supporters of the coalition, but have also expressed their willingness to switch their vote if it leads to a better chance to stop the Harper Cons. And if two Lib leaders in a row demonstrate that they're not up to the task, then the result can only be to strengthen the NDP's hand as the best available alternative.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Action and reaction
The Cons' unauthorized recording of an NDP caucus meeting may have taken a back seat to Harper's prorogation crisis last month. But it's good to see that the NDP is keeping the issue alive - and the latest reports may only hint at what's coming:
At this point, the only apparent obstacle to the NDP issuing a claim is that aside from John Duncan's role, it doesn't know for certain who bears responsibility for what.
There are a few ways around that problem. The apparent preferred option is to have the Cons supply that information, which would make it a relatively simple matter to include the relevant names within the original claim and serve it personally on the Cons involved.
Of course, the Cons don't figure to be eager to cooperate, as the list of names and descriptions of actions would have obvious political implications. But there is another equally viable option alluded to in Barrett's letter.
Some of the defendants can be identified only by their actions for now rather than names, so long as the NDP can show that the claim was properly served on those affected. Which is where the request to have Hamilton accept service on behalf of all Con members and employees becomes significant: if he agrees, then the NDP won't need to worry about the names for now, and can fill in the blanks based on information which the Cons would be required to provide as the litigation proceeds.
If the Cons aren't willing to cooperate even to that extent, then the final recourse would be to seek a court's approval to serve the unnamed defendants through another means. I'd have to think the Cons would think twice about going down that route, since the NDP could frame a request to involve putting public notices in newspapers about the Cons' wrongdoing at their own expense. But if the Cons are determined to obstruct as much as possible, that would be the fallback option.
Again, the important point is that the NDP looks to have everything in place for a claim against the Cons except a means of determining who it needs to serve and how. And the fact that the Cons have already tried to "address NDP concerns" in a likely attempt to minimize the eventual damages suggests that they fully expect the end result to be in the NDP's favour - meaning that there's every reason to look forward to what will happen with the claim.
The NDP wants the names of "any and all individuals" involved in the Conservative decision to record and distribute copies of a New Democrat caucus meeting – and it is threatening legal action to get them.Now, it's worth noting that the above paragraphs - especially the last one - suggest that the NDP is doing far more than simply maneuvering to get the names of the Cons involved. Indeed, any attempt to get the names now looks to be merely a means of setting a broader litigation process in motion to claim damages from the Cons for their wrongful taping and distribution.
A letter from NDP counsel presses the Conservatives for the information and strongly suggests litigation will follow unless the names are forthcoming.
"Our client will, if necessary, take appropriate measures to protect its interests," says the Dec. 23 letter from lawyer Steven Barrett to Arthur Hamilton, counsel retained by the Conservatives...
The letter from Barrett reveals a Dec. 3 conversation in which Hamilton is said to have told him the Conservatives would stop publicly referring to the recording, and that they were prepared to address NDP concerns.
The letter also notes the NDP's demand for the names of everyone who participated in the recording and distribution of the tape, as well as those involved in the decision.
"Please let us know how you would like this matter to unfold and provide us with the information we have been waiting for, or in the alternative, confirm that you are authorized to accept service on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada and its various members and employees of any legal proceedings my client may initiate."
At this point, the only apparent obstacle to the NDP issuing a claim is that aside from John Duncan's role, it doesn't know for certain who bears responsibility for what.
There are a few ways around that problem. The apparent preferred option is to have the Cons supply that information, which would make it a relatively simple matter to include the relevant names within the original claim and serve it personally on the Cons involved.
Of course, the Cons don't figure to be eager to cooperate, as the list of names and descriptions of actions would have obvious political implications. But there is another equally viable option alluded to in Barrett's letter.
Some of the defendants can be identified only by their actions for now rather than names, so long as the NDP can show that the claim was properly served on those affected. Which is where the request to have Hamilton accept service on behalf of all Con members and employees becomes significant: if he agrees, then the NDP won't need to worry about the names for now, and can fill in the blanks based on information which the Cons would be required to provide as the litigation proceeds.
If the Cons aren't willing to cooperate even to that extent, then the final recourse would be to seek a court's approval to serve the unnamed defendants through another means. I'd have to think the Cons would think twice about going down that route, since the NDP could frame a request to involve putting public notices in newspapers about the Cons' wrongdoing at their own expense. But if the Cons are determined to obstruct as much as possible, that would be the fallback option.
Again, the important point is that the NDP looks to have everything in place for a claim against the Cons except a means of determining who it needs to serve and how. And the fact that the Cons have already tried to "address NDP concerns" in a likely attempt to minimize the eventual damages suggests that they fully expect the end result to be in the NDP's favour - meaning that there's every reason to look forward to what will happen with the claim.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
The reviews are in
Paul Wells again with a panoply of amply descriptive phrases for the Harper government. Indeed, the biggest question is which one may be most worth highlighting to define the Cons' stay in office: "a failing state"? "No coherent government"? "Canada has become a more genteel Somalia"? Or the slightly longer option:
(I)t’s not hard for this government to do what it promised it would do. Or rather, it would not be hard if the current government, the one run by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, could find its own ass with a map and a flashlight.(Edit: fixed typo.)
Self-serving
Lorne Gunter is determined to bash Jack Layton for having the nerve to cooperate with anybody other than Deceivin' Stephen. But in so doing, he only offers up another stark reminder of the petty and destructive view of Canadian politics which still serves as the Cons' main governing focus:
Instead, Layton cooperated with the opposition parties to work out an agreement which would not only improve the NDP's standing on the federal scene, but also help to ensure that policies closer to its values would be put in place (both in dealing with the recession and in governing over the next year and a half). Needless to say, that earns Gunter's condemnation as "opportunism".
Ultimately, Gunter's column looks to be just another example of the Con base's warped attitude that Harper's goal of destroying the Libs matters more than anything. But the more the Cons and their flacks try to project the same pathology onto the NDP, the more clear they make it that there's only one party which truly puts a perceived political war above the good of the country. And the Libs should be careful to keep that distinction in mind in deciding whether they want to leave Harper in control.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
First, he had a chance to do the Liberals in and replace them as the default selection on the left had he gone along with the Tories' plan to end public funding to parties. Next to the Tories, the NDP have the best chance of replacing public handouts with private donations. Layton could have crippled the Liberals, instead he tried to vault himself into cabinet by riding into power as the Liberals' shotgun.So let's review how the above statements compare to each other. In Gunter's world, Layton ought to have lent his support to a fiscal update that was both antithetical to the NDP's policy vision and likely to hurt them as a party as well, all for the sole purpose of helping Harper to inflict a death blow on the Liberals. Which would apparently be considered a selfless act of principle.
With the revealing of the coalition, Layton was also exposed as a self-serving opportunist...
Instead, Layton cooperated with the opposition parties to work out an agreement which would not only improve the NDP's standing on the federal scene, but also help to ensure that policies closer to its values would be put in place (both in dealing with the recession and in governing over the next year and a half). Needless to say, that earns Gunter's condemnation as "opportunism".
Ultimately, Gunter's column looks to be just another example of the Con base's warped attitude that Harper's goal of destroying the Libs matters more than anything. But the more the Cons and their flacks try to project the same pathology onto the NDP, the more clear they make it that there's only one party which truly puts a perceived political war above the good of the country. And the Libs should be careful to keep that distinction in mind in deciding whether they want to leave Harper in control.
(Edit: fixed wording.)
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Historical parallels
Far too many retrospectives on 2008 have tried to paint the Cons' Afghanistan manipulations as a shining example of political cooperation to be emulated at budget time, rather than one of the most glaring cases of Harper arm-twisting and deception. So let's take some time to review exactly how it was that the Libs were pushed into giving Harper the extension he wanted - and how the result has turned out poorly for both the Libs and for Canadians in general.
Remember that in 2007, the opposition parties' position on Afghanistan was broadly in agreement to the effect that the combat mission shouldn't be extended past 2009. At the time, there was no actual vote in Parliament against an extension, as the parties couldn't agree on wording to take into account whether Canada's combat role should continue even until the existing end date. But the default position was that all three opposition parties would carry out the will of the general public by voting against any further extension.
That is, until Harper commissioned a clearly biased panel - featuring a single high-profile Lib to try to present the conclusions as "bipartisan" - to deliver an "expert" report on the mission. While it was obvious from the beginning that the report was aimed at doing little more than avoiding the actual will of Parliament, the Libs chose to keep their powder dry as to the legitimacy of the panel and to avoid making any strong noises against any extension.
Which meant that once the panel reported back with the inevitable conclusion in favour of an extension, the Libs claimed to have little choice but to go along with its conclusions.
Of course, the Libs claimed relative victory in the form of a 2011 end date and a few non-binding conditions which the Cons began ignoring within days. But one of the most potent issues against the Harper government was effectively taken off the table for the immediate future.
So where has that managed to get the Libs? Today, public opinion is still strongly against the elite-driven deal which the Libs got themselves roped into.
But while the public doesn't even want Canada to maintain its current Afghanistan mission for the length of time the Libs agreed to, the Cons are laying the groundwork to back out of the agreed mission end date of 2011. And as long as they're still in power to make the call, there's little reason to think they won't once again ignore what Canadians want.
In sum, the result of the supposed "compromise" is that the Cons got everything they wanted: not only were they able to maneuver the Libs into granting the extension, but they also managed to parlay their manipulations into an undeserved reputation for working across the aisle. And the Libs and their supporters are likely to wind up with absolutely nothing.
Having reviewed just what happened on the Afghanistan extension, let's turn to the obvious parallels to the current economic crisis. Once again, the Harper government is desperate to get somebody else to share the blame for its policies - and this time also fearful for its political survival.
As a result, the Cons have once again convened a panel hastily assembled to provide cover for the Cons' plans, and made noises about cooperation while refusing to even hint at relinquishing any control over the end result. And it's surely no surprise that once again, there's plenty of elite pressure on the Libs to give the Cons what they want and call it a compromise.
But fortunately, the budget vote will also present an obvious opportunity for the Libs to ensure that the Cons can't back out of the 2011 Afghanistan deadline, or otherwise continue to work contrary to Canadians' interests. And since all that will require is their follow-through on an actual cooperative agreement with other parties who don't carry the Cons' stench of bad-faith dealing, the choice should be clear as to what kind of cooperation is really best for both the Libs and the country at large.
Remember that in 2007, the opposition parties' position on Afghanistan was broadly in agreement to the effect that the combat mission shouldn't be extended past 2009. At the time, there was no actual vote in Parliament against an extension, as the parties couldn't agree on wording to take into account whether Canada's combat role should continue even until the existing end date. But the default position was that all three opposition parties would carry out the will of the general public by voting against any further extension.
That is, until Harper commissioned a clearly biased panel - featuring a single high-profile Lib to try to present the conclusions as "bipartisan" - to deliver an "expert" report on the mission. While it was obvious from the beginning that the report was aimed at doing little more than avoiding the actual will of Parliament, the Libs chose to keep their powder dry as to the legitimacy of the panel and to avoid making any strong noises against any extension.
Which meant that once the panel reported back with the inevitable conclusion in favour of an extension, the Libs claimed to have little choice but to go along with its conclusions.
Of course, the Libs claimed relative victory in the form of a 2011 end date and a few non-binding conditions which the Cons began ignoring within days. But one of the most potent issues against the Harper government was effectively taken off the table for the immediate future.
So where has that managed to get the Libs? Today, public opinion is still strongly against the elite-driven deal which the Libs got themselves roped into.
But while the public doesn't even want Canada to maintain its current Afghanistan mission for the length of time the Libs agreed to, the Cons are laying the groundwork to back out of the agreed mission end date of 2011. And as long as they're still in power to make the call, there's little reason to think they won't once again ignore what Canadians want.
In sum, the result of the supposed "compromise" is that the Cons got everything they wanted: not only were they able to maneuver the Libs into granting the extension, but they also managed to parlay their manipulations into an undeserved reputation for working across the aisle. And the Libs and their supporters are likely to wind up with absolutely nothing.
Having reviewed just what happened on the Afghanistan extension, let's turn to the obvious parallels to the current economic crisis. Once again, the Harper government is desperate to get somebody else to share the blame for its policies - and this time also fearful for its political survival.
As a result, the Cons have once again convened a panel hastily assembled to provide cover for the Cons' plans, and made noises about cooperation while refusing to even hint at relinquishing any control over the end result. And it's surely no surprise that once again, there's plenty of elite pressure on the Libs to give the Cons what they want and call it a compromise.
But fortunately, the budget vote will also present an obvious opportunity for the Libs to ensure that the Cons can't back out of the 2011 Afghanistan deadline, or otherwise continue to work contrary to Canadians' interests. And since all that will require is their follow-through on an actual cooperative agreement with other parties who don't carry the Cons' stench of bad-faith dealing, the choice should be clear as to what kind of cooperation is really best for both the Libs and the country at large.
Deep thought
If random tax cuts actually had any meaningful effect on consumer confidence, we wouldn't need a federal stimulus package in the first place.
Friday, January 02, 2009
A call to inaction
Red Tory is right to dismiss Lawrence Martin's musings about Stephen Harper leaving Canadian politics voluntarily within the next year. But the problem with Martin's theory goes far beyond mere wishful thinking.
Indeed, Harper could hardly ask for a greater gift than speculation like Martin's. After all, what better way to soften what should be a stark clash in values when Parliament reconvenes than by suggesting that if the opposition parties just leave Harper alone, he might get bored and wander off on his own?
The reality, of course, is that none of Harper's actions in power are those of somebody who's willing to exit gracefully. And one need not go back as far as RT does to find reason to doubt Martin's theory.
Surely nobody paying attention to Canadian politics has forgotten that Harper's main goal in the fiscal update was to cripple the opposition parties for the next election cycle, or that in the midst of the Harper-engineered prorogation crisis he and his party vowed to do whatever possible to cling to power.
Which should point to the more plausible conclusion that Harper will only leave 24 Sussex kicking and screaming. And given the damage he and his government continue to do while in power, there's no reason for the opposition parties to put off that result.
Indeed, Harper could hardly ask for a greater gift than speculation like Martin's. After all, what better way to soften what should be a stark clash in values when Parliament reconvenes than by suggesting that if the opposition parties just leave Harper alone, he might get bored and wander off on his own?
The reality, of course, is that none of Harper's actions in power are those of somebody who's willing to exit gracefully. And one need not go back as far as RT does to find reason to doubt Martin's theory.
Surely nobody paying attention to Canadian politics has forgotten that Harper's main goal in the fiscal update was to cripple the opposition parties for the next election cycle, or that in the midst of the Harper-engineered prorogation crisis he and his party vowed to do whatever possible to cling to power.
Which should point to the more plausible conclusion that Harper will only leave 24 Sussex kicking and screaming. And given the damage he and his government continue to do while in power, there's no reason for the opposition parties to put off that result.
On destructive choices
Jan and Scott have already highlighted Monte Solberg's column bashing Employment Insurance as a "government mandated pyramid scheme".
But the discussion so far seems to have missed the most important point, as Solberg is no ordinary Con MP or cabinet minister. Instead, Solberg was precisely the Con chosen by Stephen Harper to be responsible for Employment Insurance in his role as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. In that role, he both oversaw the process of putting a new board in charge of the EI's funding, and administered dozens of EI projects - all within what he apparently considered to be nothing more than a "pyramid scheme". Which seems to me to make for a strong statement on both Solberg's dedication to principle, and Harper's interest in having EI and other social measures run effectively.
And in case anybody wanted to theorize that Solberg's column might just be a one-off lapse in judgment, here's what else he had to say on the topic of EI recently:
(Edit: fixed link.)
But the discussion so far seems to have missed the most important point, as Solberg is no ordinary Con MP or cabinet minister. Instead, Solberg was precisely the Con chosen by Stephen Harper to be responsible for Employment Insurance in his role as the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. In that role, he both oversaw the process of putting a new board in charge of the EI's funding, and administered dozens of EI projects - all within what he apparently considered to be nothing more than a "pyramid scheme". Which seems to me to make for a strong statement on both Solberg's dedication to principle, and Harper's interest in having EI and other social measures run effectively.
And in case anybody wanted to theorize that Solberg's column might just be a one-off lapse in judgment, here's what else he had to say on the topic of EI recently:
I’ll go even further than that. Make me emperor for a day and Employment Insurance in it’s (sic) present soul destroying and hideous form would be violently and ironically tossed from the Peace Tower and smashed to bits on the steps below. I would then gather up the pieces, set them on fire in a way that would cause a large carbon footprint, and then toss the remains into into an improperly lined landfill site.Which may well make for the most apt description yet of how the Cons have treated federal infrastructure in general since they took power. But the fact that Harper happily put EI and other programs in the hands of a minister with such a destructive outlook surely serves as an indication that it's long past time for a federal government which isn't so focused on the prospect of trashing Ottawa.
(Edit: fixed link.)
Out of proportion
It's always worth pointing out that it takes only a matter of hours into the new year for Canada's CEOs to make more money than the average worker makes in a year. But perhaps the most interesting part of this year's article is the sidebar as to just how much executive compensation increased in 2007:
In 2007, GDP grew by 2.7%, wages by 4.9%, and corporate profits by 5.8%. And considering that the latter two numbers reflect both the work done by all other employees toward the same ends and the resulting corporate outcomes, it's particularly doubtful that executive pay could justifiably outpace both of these measures by as much as it did.
For the moment, it's an open question whether executive compensation will be reduced as much during the current recession as it was inflated during the earlier boom. But while the massive compensation increases would seem to offer an obvious place to start cutting back, the continued rise in income disparity leaves little reason for confidence.
• Average annual CEO earnings: $10,408,054Of course, the economic conditions of the time were far better than those today. But it's still striking how the percentage increase in executive pay dwarfed the rates of change in other seemingly related factors.
• Increase over previous year: 22 per cent
In 2007, GDP grew by 2.7%, wages by 4.9%, and corporate profits by 5.8%. And considering that the latter two numbers reflect both the work done by all other employees toward the same ends and the resulting corporate outcomes, it's particularly doubtful that executive pay could justifiably outpace both of these measures by as much as it did.
For the moment, it's an open question whether executive compensation will be reduced as much during the current recession as it was inflated during the earlier boom. But while the massive compensation increases would seem to offer an obvious place to start cutting back, the continued rise in income disparity leaves little reason for confidence.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Selective benefits
It shouldn't come as much surprise that at least some are looking to use the economic crisis as an excuse to funnel any effective benefits upward rather than to recognize the effect that a downturn can have on everybody. And the Sask Party has not surprisingly made its choice - with a stark, if thus far little-noticed, example to be found in its proposal (warning: PDF) to deal with pension funding obligations.
The starting point is the assumption that in defined-benefit pension plans, a market downturn which reduces the value of the assets held by a plan may lead to a significant increase in funding obligations just at a time when an employer is least able to assemble the cash required to provide the funding. Which reasonably enough gives rise to the two suggested courses of action to benefit employers - one to temporarily suspend the usual funding rules, the other to give employers more time to meet solvency requirements under the usual rules.
Assuming that an employer can reasonably be given some leeway in a downturn to temporarily trade off some measure of plan solvency for the immediate benefit of reduced funding obligations, then so far, so good. But then one arrives at the first condition which the province wants to impose as a requirement for any employer taking advantage of a relaxed funding requirement:
What's more, the balance of the proposal suggests that it's up for discussion as to whether the rule could be triggered by an employer request alone with no input from the plan members affected - and indeed this isn't suggested as one of the province's preferred conditions. Which would provide an obvious loophole for employers to reduce their longer-term funding obligations by artifically limiting pension benefits even if they're perfectly capable of funding a plan under the current rules.
Now, the proposal is up for comment until January 31, and hopefully the end result will contain at least some recognition of the interests of pension plan members. But it still speaks volumes that the Sask Party's first inclination is to make zero benefit to workers a condition of its proposed help for employers.
The starting point is the assumption that in defined-benefit pension plans, a market downturn which reduces the value of the assets held by a plan may lead to a significant increase in funding obligations just at a time when an employer is least able to assemble the cash required to provide the funding. Which reasonably enough gives rise to the two suggested courses of action to benefit employers - one to temporarily suspend the usual funding rules, the other to give employers more time to meet solvency requirements under the usual rules.
Assuming that an employer can reasonably be given some leeway in a downturn to temporarily trade off some measure of plan solvency for the immediate benefit of reduced funding obligations, then so far, so good. But then one arrives at the first condition which the province wants to impose as a requirement for any employer taking advantage of a relaxed funding requirement:
Although the relief may be subject to several requirements, there are three conditions that the SFSC would consider important:In other words, having reached the policy conclusion that the downturn may require relaxing the normal solvency rules for an employer's financial benefit, the province is simultaneously looking to prohibit any discussion of whether the same principle might apply when it comes to members - no matter how negatively any workers or retirees might be affected by the economic crisis.
1. The benefits provided by the plan cannot be improved on or after the date the notice of election has been filed with the Superintendent and during the course of the relief period, except where the benefit improvements have been previously established by contract or agreement. This condition is aimed at minimizing the risk of a plan worsening its solvency position during the course of the relief.
What's more, the balance of the proposal suggests that it's up for discussion as to whether the rule could be triggered by an employer request alone with no input from the plan members affected - and indeed this isn't suggested as one of the province's preferred conditions. Which would provide an obvious loophole for employers to reduce their longer-term funding obligations by artifically limiting pension benefits even if they're perfectly capable of funding a plan under the current rules.
Now, the proposal is up for comment until January 31, and hopefully the end result will contain at least some recognition of the interests of pension plan members. But it still speaks volumes that the Sask Party's first inclination is to make zero benefit to workers a condition of its proposed help for employers.
From order, chaos
Plenty of others have commented on Rona Ambrose's order requiring the union representing Ottawa transit workers to vote on an offer to capitulate. But while one expects the Cons to decide on the result most damaging to workers regardless of the merits, it's worth noting that the Ambrose's order looks to have been a complete and avoidable failure even on her own assumptions as to how the dispute should play out:
Instead, Ambrose apparently gave O'Brien the order he asked for without looking into how it would affect potential talks between the parties. Which led to O'Brien being able to summarily dismiss her public suggestion - and ensured that the city will have no motivation to work toward her supposedly preferred outcome (at least until after a vote takes place and rejects the offer).
Of course, it's difficult to tell whether Ambrose merely took a misleadingly soft public line while delivering the most employer-friendly result possible, or whether she was genuinely clueless about the likelihood that an order made without some conditions or assurances from the city would serve as an obstacle to further negotiations. But it surely can't be a good sign when the only explanations for a ministerial action are dishonesty or incompetence - which makes it a serious problem that the Cons are still leaving little room for any other conclusion.
Federal Labour Minister Rona Ambrose took an unprecedented step Wednesday and intervened in the city’s labour dispute with its striking transit union when she ordered a membership vote on the city’s last contract offer no later than Jan. 9.From the turn of events described, it would seem that Ambrose didn't bother going back to the city and even discussing whether it would be willing to talk to the union after she acceded to its request, or considering whether to set any conditions on a vote which might encourage talks in the meantime.
Ms. Ambrose made the order Wednesday at about 3:30 p.m. after the city requested that she do so...
In a statement, Ms. Ambrose said “the fastest way to resolve this matter is for the parties to get back to the table and reach an agreement,” but Mayor Larry O’Brien quashed that idea shortly after the minister made the order.
“I think now that the vote is on the table, there will be no bargaining,” he said...
Union officials said they didn’t take the city last two offers to a vote because the offers contained the same scheduling and route assignment demands by the city that were rejected by 98 per cent of their membership in vote a week before the strike began on Dec. 10.
Instead, Ambrose apparently gave O'Brien the order he asked for without looking into how it would affect potential talks between the parties. Which led to O'Brien being able to summarily dismiss her public suggestion - and ensured that the city will have no motivation to work toward her supposedly preferred outcome (at least until after a vote takes place and rejects the offer).
Of course, it's difficult to tell whether Ambrose merely took a misleadingly soft public line while delivering the most employer-friendly result possible, or whether she was genuinely clueless about the likelihood that an order made without some conditions or assurances from the city would serve as an obstacle to further negotiations. But it surely can't be a good sign when the only explanations for a ministerial action are dishonesty or incompetence - which makes it a serious problem that the Cons are still leaving little room for any other conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)