As Scott has already noted, Saskatchewan NDP's Swift Current leadership debate included plenty of familar themes:
And indeed, one of the more interesting issues facing both the candidates and the debate organizers is how to account for the difference between an audience which may be seeing the candidates for the first time, and the relationship between the contestants themselves based on regular responses to the same questions. My preference would be to ensure that the candidates face a wider range of questions during the course of the campaign, meaning that the pattern of maybe 2 new questions at each debate falls short of what would be ideal - but there are certainly sound arguments to be made in both directions.
That said, even with the questions largely echoing the previous debates there were once again a few relatively new developments worth pointing out - which I'll cover in a quick candidate-by-candidate review.
Cam Broten's performance wasn't quite as effective in the Swift Current debate as in some of the previous ones - which may be explained in part by his having to carry out double duty between the Legislative Assembly and the debate. But the most noteworthy part of his answers on a couple of questions (those related to revenue and free trade agreements) was a tendency to emphasize an undefined concept of "balance" first, then only afterward point out some of the problems with the Sask Party's current direction.
Of course, few candidates will want to argue for imbalance in those policy areas (nor indeed in any other). But it may be telling that Broten's instinct is to triangulate rather than emphasizing contrasts on issues where there's a strong case to be made that we're a long way from balance by any reasonable measure.
The most noteworthy development in Ryan Meili's performance was his most direct audition yet for the role of leading off question period against Brad Wall. Meili identified an issue of substantial ambiguity in Cam Broten's Saskatoon answer on uranium refining, and pressed Broten to explain why he would treat refining differently from reactor construction (which all candidates have ruled out altogether).
But Meili's style still looks to have some way to go: he's speaking more clearly and effectively in his opening and closing statements, but reverting to a softer, faster pace when answering questions (and still regularly running out of time in his responses). And future debates should tell us whether he'll be able to develop the same habits in speaking off the cuff that he's working on in his prepared speeches.
Erin Weir received the most significant gift of the debate in the form of a question from Trent Wotherspoon. So far, I've found Weir's strategy somewhat surprising: he hasn't entirely pivoted away from lumping all three of his opponents together in order to criticize a lack of focus on short-term costing and legislative priorities, leaving me to question how he'd expect to make up ground in later ballots.
But Wotherspoon positively invited Weir to speak in terms of broader principles rather than short-term proposals - which looks to me to be exactly what his campaign has all too often glossed over. And while Weir's follow-up response drifted back into policy detail, he'll be well served to focus on being able to demonstrate to other candidates' supporters that he can be as effective as anybody in motivating citizens to deal with the underlying principles that have mostly been endorsed by all sides.
Finally, Wotherspoon's own performance was somewhat improved from earlier debates. He was once again tripped up by relatively simple questions of policy detail - one from Weir asking him to choose how to pay for feed-in tariffs, and one from Meili on rural land ownership. But in each case the issue was more tied to a failure to choose among options than difficulty recognizing the choice presented to him. And in general the repetition of questions looks to have assisted Wotherspoon in developing more detailed answers as the debates have progressed.
In closing, I do disagree with Scott's view that the candidates "have all hit their strides", as each looks to me to have room to grow as the campaign continues. But all have certainly built from the first debate to the fourth - and there's ample reason for optimism that the result will be a strong set of choices for NDP members.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Frances Russell discusses how the Harper Cons have capitalized on the general public's lack of familiarity with how our parliamentary system is supposed to work - and the conventional checks and balances which have been overridden at every turn by a governing party which isn't interested in preserving a functional system of accountability:
- And finally, Greg Weston, Jenny Uechi and Andrew Nikiforuk all criticize the Cons' nonsensical explanation for approving CNOOC's takeover of Nexen.
- Frances Russell discusses how the Harper Cons have capitalized on the general public's lack of familiarity with how our parliamentary system is supposed to work - and the conventional checks and balances which have been overridden at every turn by a governing party which isn't interested in preserving a functional system of accountability:
Paul Thomas, professor emeritus of politics at the University of Manitoba, calls the debasement of Canada’s Parliament under the Harper Conservatives “stark.” He cites such recent developments as: the government forcing committees to meet in secret and muzzling opposition MPs from revealing anything that occurred to protect the government; drafting 400-page omnibus budget bills and ramming them through Parliament in marathon sittings allowing little or no debate; compelling opposition MPs to appear before committee to be interrogated because they offended the government; and controlling and managing the parliamentary press gallery.- Meanwhile, Jordan Brennan points to corporate control as another source of conflict between citizens' interests and the actions of Canadian governments:
Our system is based on the assumption that prime ministers and cabinets will respect constitutional traditions and unwritten conventions — not to mention democratic norms — and agree to be bound by them, Thomas said.
“So there’s always a presumption of a certain amount of restraint on the part of the prime minister. He has, not all the power, but most of the power, and he can make a lot of things happen and prevent other things from happening and if he’s bound and determined like Harper is, then you get someone who is more systematic, sweeping and more consistently controlling.”
Thomas said the government is determined to dominate the agenda, to engage in news management and to prevent unforeseen events from arising through Parliament. “It’s more systematic and across the board. They don’t see Parliament as a useful part of the governing process. They see it as a nuisance.”
It turns out that there is a stunning historical relationship between relative firm size (corporate concentration) and the income share of the richest Canadians (inequality). In 1950, an average firm within the top 60 was five times larger than an average firm on the TSX. This ratio would slowly decline to three by 1977 and then, just as the Canadian state began to embrace ‘Chicago School’ principles, gradually rise to six by 1989 before surging to 23 in 2008 (see enclosed figure). What’s more, the pattern of this ratio is closely shadowed by the income share of the richest 0.1 per cent of Canadians.- Andrew Coyne discusses the Cons' F-35 abuses as a prominent example of the breakdown of democratic accountability.
The reasons for the growing concentration of income and corporate power aren’t hard to discern. After all, Adam Smith grounded his advocacy for laissez-faire in two counteracting principles: self-interest and competition. His ‘system of perfect liberty’ would optimize social welfare and enlarge human freedom so long as self-interest was always kept in check by the disciplining effects of intense competition between many small firms. Smith also believed that laissez-faire would entail a ‘perfectly equal’ distribution of income or conditions ‘continually trending to equality’.
...
Other effects of growing corporate concentration can be inferred, if we care to look. Despite extreme inequality, three decades of wage stagnation and a two decade-long decline in union density, politicians at all levels of government — cheered on by corporations — are attacking unions. Unions give a voice to ordinary people in the workplace and, historically, have strengthened middle class formation by ensuring that gains from growth are widely shared among lower income brackets. Their erosion is closely tied to the concentration of corporate power and increasing income inequality.
What does this have to do with democracy? Detractors will answer ‘nothing’ on the basis that the governing party is subject to elections. But as Josiah Ober — the Stanford professor of classics — makes clear, for the ancient Athenians who invented it democracy did not mean majority rule, nor did it hinge on elections. Democracy meant a regime of empowered citizens with the ability to effect change in the public realm. It was centred on the capacity of an ordinary citizen to do good things in the life of the community.
This means that democracy is not a condition Canadians have realized, it is an ideal we pursue. Democracy is weakened when important decisions about our collective future are removed from the public realm and put in the hands of the few. It is severely impaired when a small faction in the polity, in this case corporate Canada, exercises control over the levers of the state.
- And finally, Greg Weston, Jenny Uechi and Andrew Nikiforuk all criticize the Cons' nonsensical explanation for approving CNOOC's takeover of Nexen.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Steven Hoffman highlights the Cons' utter refusal to recognize that foreign aid - as defined by global treaties - doesn't mean the same thing as corporate giveaways:
- pogge highlights a few more sad examples of the Cons' government by ill-fated improvisation, while Michael den Tandt reports on the most glaring example as the F-35 debacle is apparently wound down. And the Cons are still trying to cover up everything they do - with the latest example being their stonewalling against Kevin Page's request to see shipbuilding contracts in order to be able to assess them.
- But while Bob Hepburn may be right in his assessment of MPs when it comes to most of the Cons as being enemies of democracy, we should be careful not to tar all of our elected representatives with the same brush. After all, an unduly sweeping, "they all do it" message (in contrast to recognition where MPs represent their constituents properly) will only make it easier for the worst offenders to avoid answering for their wrongs.
- Steven Hoffman highlights the Cons' utter refusal to recognize that foreign aid - as defined by global treaties - doesn't mean the same thing as corporate giveaways:
Reports and commentary on Canada’s new foreign aid policy reveal the extent to which international development means different things to different people. Some see it as public charity, others as the way a country projects its values to the world. Still others, including International Co-operation Minister Julian Fantino, argue that it’s “a part of Canadian foreign policy” and the fulfilment of “a duty and a responsibility to ensure that Canadian interests are promoted.”- Which means Tim Harper may only be understating matters in arguing that the Cons are gutting Canadian foreign policy alone, rather than trying to attack basic international principles.
These are all valid perspectives – international development can be any one or all of these things combined. But, unfortunately, official development assistance, to which we have made international commitments, can’t. This system, in effect since 1969, defines aid as official financial flows that are concessional in character and intended to promote the development and well-being of developing countries. Excluded are grants intended to advance donor countries’ interests, including admirable objectives such as economic growth or security from terrorism. Grants to private for-profit companies are also excluded because, by law, they primarily serve commercial objectives.
Donor countries such as Canada can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, despite skill or best intentions. Our government’s new foreign aid focus on private-sector partnerships and self-interest – which, in Mr. Fantino’s words, is for “Canadian values, Canadian business, the Canadian economy, benefits for Canada” – deserves reconsideration. It unwittingly represents a dramatic departure from the established global development system and brings Canada out of sync with the rest of the world.
- pogge highlights a few more sad examples of the Cons' government by ill-fated improvisation, while Michael den Tandt reports on the most glaring example as the F-35 debacle is apparently wound down. And the Cons are still trying to cover up everything they do - with the latest example being their stonewalling against Kevin Page's request to see shipbuilding contracts in order to be able to assess them.
- But while Bob Hepburn may be right in his assessment of MPs when it comes to most of the Cons as being enemies of democracy, we should be careful not to tar all of our elected representatives with the same brush. After all, an unduly sweeping, "they all do it" message (in contrast to recognition where MPs represent their constituents properly) will only make it easier for the worst offenders to avoid answering for their wrongs.
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Thursday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Pat Atkinson discusses the need to make sure that Saskatchewan's boom-time spending actually sets us up for long-term prosperity, rather than fiscal disaster:
- Trish Hennessy notes that Tim Hudak's ideological drive to privatize liquor sales in Ontario isn't based on any reason to think the province will do anything but lose out in the process. And of course, the same applies here in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, while Jason Warick's report on the disturbingly cozy relationship between the uranium industry and the community of Pinehouse has received some attention, this looks to me to be the most worrisome aspect of how future interests are being sold out for a modest amount of immediate funding:
- Pat Atkinson discusses the need to make sure that Saskatchewan's boom-time spending actually sets us up for long-term prosperity, rather than fiscal disaster:
Even though the OECD report, the burgeoning federal government deficit, China's economic slowdown and America's political deadlock all advise us that now is the time for caution, the Wall government is trapped. Its political image is completely dependent upon constant economic growth or the appearance of it.
It is so cemented in its own message of a New Saskatchewan, that any deviation from it is unlikely.
From its first day in office, the Sask. Party oversold its product and cannot now risk voter wrath if the public is suddenly (and unexpectedly) informed of the government's deteriorating fiscal climate.- Meanwhile, Barbara Yaffe highlights the absurdity of the Harper Cons raiding tens of millions of public dollars for War of 1812 jingoism while cutting desperately-needed public programs.
It is time our government started planning for tougher times, if only for the simple reason to err on the side of caution.
The Wall government and Krawetz seem equipped to ride the wave, but are ill-prepared to manage in challenging times. When the government starts believing its own hype, we're all in trouble.
- Trish Hennessy notes that Tim Hudak's ideological drive to privatize liquor sales in Ontario isn't based on any reason to think the province will do anything but lose out in the process. And of course, the same applies here in Saskatchewan.
- Finally, while Jason Warick's report on the disturbingly cozy relationship between the uranium industry and the community of Pinehouse has received some attention, this looks to me to be the most worrisome aspect of how future interests are being sold out for a modest amount of immediate funding:
Highlights of the draft agreement between Pinehouse, Cameco Corp. and Areva:
Pinehouse agrees to not make any future financial requests or claims against the companies.Now, normally restrictions on future liability are treated with skepticism by the courts, and I'd hope this particular one would be limited to the types of claims or requests already involved in the agreement. But how short-sighted would an agreement look if it managed to get a mining operation off the hook for a future nuclear disaster?
On culture wars
No, I don't think Peter Van Loan's finger-wagging merits the response it received - as talk of nearly every other issue ground to a halt yesterday in response to an incident of little substantive importance. But I do think it's worth making a couple of points as to how we should respond to it - and how best to minimize the effect of similar stunts in the future.
To start with, there's always a danger in responding to behaviour like Van Loan's as primarily an attack on one's own party. Again, that's where the Libs look to me to have lost the plot on the Cons' past contempt of Parliament: they took as a given that voters would see "they're being mean to us!" as worthy of outrage which would then operate in their favour, and proved wrong on at least the latter count. (The NDP responded somewhat better by pointing to a need for more respect for Parliament generally - but even that allowed the Cons' stunt to deflect from more substantive issues.)
But it's also worth noting how the outsized visibility of party leaders might play into incidents like yesterday's - and how a party might seek to counter that effect.
While I'll presume Van Loan's attack on the NDP was spontaneous absent evidence to the contrary, it's far from unheard-of for opponents to try to set up negative photo-ops for their competitors' leaders. And that makes for a rational if cynical calculation in a political culture where those leaders are seen as the sole faces and decision-makers for their parties.
Indeed, given the incentives at play I'm surprised the Cons don't (so far as I know) have staffers or volunteers dedicated solely to harassing competing leaders at every opportunity - with the primary goal of luring them into gaffes, and the secondary "benefit" of making it difficult to think and act without interruption. (And given the asymmetry in security and planning capacity between the government apparatus and an opposition party, it would be rather difficult for anybody to respond in kind.)
In that vein, even a calculated effort to try to provoke opposition leaders in the House of Commons might make sense as a Con public relations exercise - both by diminishing the institution to the advantage of an anti-government party, and by attaching some negative impression to an opposition leader (while the balance goes to some less-recognized government member rather than Stephen Harper personally).
Now, one way around such traps is for an opposition leader to be a saint who avoids responding to any provocation whatsoever, and develops enough positive impressions to overcome the negativity imposed by the governing party.
But while that might seem like the easiest option for an individual leader to control, there's another path available: working on rejecting the leader-centred framework which both favours an incumbent who can afford to stay above the fray, and creates incentives favouring attacks on one's own leader. Instead, better to emphasize that the actions of MPs and staffers on all sides reflect an institutional culture - and that votes involve a choice among parties and their respective cultures, not merely the selection of a single leader.
Of course, it'll be no easy task to develop that alternative framework. But success in shifting toward a greater recognition of party brands and cultures will make it far more likely that actions by other Cons besides the heavily-insulated Harper can be tied together as a matter of public impression - which will work wonders in making the case for change.
To start with, there's always a danger in responding to behaviour like Van Loan's as primarily an attack on one's own party. Again, that's where the Libs look to me to have lost the plot on the Cons' past contempt of Parliament: they took as a given that voters would see "they're being mean to us!" as worthy of outrage which would then operate in their favour, and proved wrong on at least the latter count. (The NDP responded somewhat better by pointing to a need for more respect for Parliament generally - but even that allowed the Cons' stunt to deflect from more substantive issues.)
But it's also worth noting how the outsized visibility of party leaders might play into incidents like yesterday's - and how a party might seek to counter that effect.
While I'll presume Van Loan's attack on the NDP was spontaneous absent evidence to the contrary, it's far from unheard-of for opponents to try to set up negative photo-ops for their competitors' leaders. And that makes for a rational if cynical calculation in a political culture where those leaders are seen as the sole faces and decision-makers for their parties.
Indeed, given the incentives at play I'm surprised the Cons don't (so far as I know) have staffers or volunteers dedicated solely to harassing competing leaders at every opportunity - with the primary goal of luring them into gaffes, and the secondary "benefit" of making it difficult to think and act without interruption. (And given the asymmetry in security and planning capacity between the government apparatus and an opposition party, it would be rather difficult for anybody to respond in kind.)
In that vein, even a calculated effort to try to provoke opposition leaders in the House of Commons might make sense as a Con public relations exercise - both by diminishing the institution to the advantage of an anti-government party, and by attaching some negative impression to an opposition leader (while the balance goes to some less-recognized government member rather than Stephen Harper personally).
Now, one way around such traps is for an opposition leader to be a saint who avoids responding to any provocation whatsoever, and develops enough positive impressions to overcome the negativity imposed by the governing party.
But while that might seem like the easiest option for an individual leader to control, there's another path available: working on rejecting the leader-centred framework which both favours an incumbent who can afford to stay above the fray, and creates incentives favouring attacks on one's own leader. Instead, better to emphasize that the actions of MPs and staffers on all sides reflect an institutional culture - and that votes involve a choice among parties and their respective cultures, not merely the selection of a single leader.
Of course, it'll be no easy task to develop that alternative framework. But success in shifting toward a greater recognition of party brands and cultures will make it far more likely that actions by other Cons besides the heavily-insulated Harper can be tied together as a matter of public impression - which will work wonders in making the case for change.
New column day
Here, on how Saskatchewan's existing list of unremediated and orphaned oil and gas wells should remind nus of the need to make sure resource developers account for the social cost of their operations.
For further reading...
- The most recent Provincial Auditor's report highlighting the orphaned well issue is here (PDF - see Chapter 31, page 239).
- My comment about the two-year lag in any climate change action is based on the province's climate change information page, which shows no new developments since February 2011 and no indication when relevant legislation will be proclaimed in force.
- Finally, Thomas Walkom worries that climate change has utterly fallen off the radar, while Barbara Yaffe notes that the Harper Cons seem perfectly happy to stick Canada with the long-term bill for unknown adaptation costs rather than doing anything to minimize the damage in the first place.
For further reading...
- The most recent Provincial Auditor's report highlighting the orphaned well issue is here (PDF - see Chapter 31, page 239).
- My comment about the two-year lag in any climate change action is based on the province's climate change information page, which shows no new developments since February 2011 and no indication when relevant legislation will be proclaimed in force.
- Finally, Thomas Walkom worries that climate change has utterly fallen off the radar, while Barbara Yaffe notes that the Harper Cons seem perfectly happy to stick Canada with the long-term bill for unknown adaptation costs rather than doing anything to minimize the damage in the first place.
Wednesday, December 05, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Martin Kirk discusses the role governments play in allowing and facilitating the extraction of a substantial portion of the world's wealth to tax havens (h/t to thwap):
- Meanwhile, the Cons are doing their best to prove Cutler right in considering them the most corrupt and ineffective government yet. The latest hits include their cover-up of internal communications as to how to respond to concerns about muzzling scientists, the revelation that the Cons are pushing a bill to sweep torture and its consequences under the rug, and the news that Canada's minister responsible for foreign aid has absolutely no clue what foreign aid is supposed to accomplish.
- Finally, Bill Tieleman makes the case as to why we shouldn't lump the NDP, Libs and Greens together under a single anti-Conservative banner. And Jamey Heath's counterargument for a pre-electoral pact doesn't go far beyond "we must do something, this is something, ergo we must do this!".
- Martin Kirk discusses the role governments play in allowing and facilitating the extraction of a substantial portion of the world's wealth to tax havens (h/t to thwap):
Tax theft is endemic all over the world. It is organised through an intricate system of tax havens; the PR around it is astonishingly good, as evidenced by the fact that most people have no idea of its scale and can get distracted by the misdeeds of a few bad apples rather than seeing the barrel they came in; and one of the most vibrant and important hubs – the City of London - is sitting right under the noses of the British politicians who are today decrying the corporations who use it.- Michael Harris talks to Allan Cutler about secrecy and corruption in the federal government - and the one-time Con candidate has some sharp words for the party which recruited him:
Tax havens exist solely to help the rich avoid national taxes. They give them a way to opt out of the social contract. Multinationals happily extract profits from countries and then team up with tax havens to avoid paying their share of taxes that make the countries profitable for them in the first place. Without things like the rule of law, and economic and political stability, the market for most products would flounder. All these things cost, and when people steal taxes they are essentially saying, everyone but us should pay.
The scale of the theft is staggering. Somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden behind the vast walls of tax haven secrecy. That’s the equivalent of one third of all global annual income. Somewhere between 60 and 70% of all international trade flows through them so that profits can be siphoned off untaxed.
The scale alone means tax havens have a material impact on levels of global inequality and poverty. But more insidious is what they actively facilitate. Tax havens are in the background of practically every instance of large-scale corruption and economic crime of the last thirty years. Every corrupt leader, every major arms dealer and drug cartel, as well as most multinational corporations rely on their ‘discretion’ to do business. It’s a morality-blind service industry for the ultra-rich. Forget the 1% - this industry exists largely for the pleasure and benefit of the 0.02%; the 10 million people who ‘own’ the bulk of the $21trillion hidden.
Years after a nondescript public servant wouldn’t play ball with institutional sleaze (and became a national hero in the process), Allan Cutler still has Canada on his mind. He is as troubled now as ever he was when Jean Chretien had his name embossed on golf balls to keep Quebec in Canada.
“I had hoped after Gomery that things would change. If anything, it has gotten worse. We have an epidemic of corruption at the federal level. Whistleblowers are even more unwelcome now than they were then.”
...
“In the end, it didn’t matter. Even if I had won the election, I would have been an independent in a few months. And I would have lost the next election.”
After his defeat, Cutler eventually was offered a “six figure” salary to work for John Baird as a policy advisor. There was, however, a condition: Allan Cutler, a man of the people behind the scenes, had to agree not to advocate for anyone in public. He turned the job down.
...
“I think things are actually worse now than they were back then. I have seen evidence of decisions on billion dollar contracts that were decided at meetings where no minutes were kept. I have seen evidence of helicopter maintenance contracts that were moved all around North America to increase the costs.
“In any organization there will always be corrupt people. But the system still protects them and that is wrong. Deputy ministers have a legal obligation to report to the Privy Council when a minister interferes in their departments. They never do. And even if they did, there is no penalty for such interference.”
- Meanwhile, the Cons are doing their best to prove Cutler right in considering them the most corrupt and ineffective government yet. The latest hits include their cover-up of internal communications as to how to respond to concerns about muzzling scientists, the revelation that the Cons are pushing a bill to sweep torture and its consequences under the rug, and the news that Canada's minister responsible for foreign aid has absolutely no clue what foreign aid is supposed to accomplish.
- Finally, Bill Tieleman makes the case as to why we shouldn't lump the NDP, Libs and Greens together under a single anti-Conservative banner. And Jamey Heath's counterargument for a pre-electoral pact doesn't go far beyond "we must do something, this is something, ergo we must do this!".
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- George Monbiot all too accurately describes the current state of politics around much of the developed world:
- Mind you, at least "hateful, xenophobic nutbars" will be glad to know their values are seen as entirely acceptable to Jason Kenney and the Cons.
- Finally, Pat Garofalo points out the growing gap between higher corporate profits and lower wages in the U.S. - which only figures to get worse as both parties seem willing to prioritize lower corporate tax rates over improved social policy.
- George Monbiot all too accurately describes the current state of politics around much of the developed world:
Humankind's greatest crisis coincides with the rise of an ideology that makes it impossible to address. By the late 1980s, when it became clear that man-made climate change endangered the living planet and its people, the world was in the grip of an extreme political doctrine whose tenets forbid the kind of intervention required to arrest it.- And in case there was any doubt, Frank Graves writes that the relentless shift toward corporatist policy-making under the Libs and Cons has nothing to do with the values of Canadians:
Neoliberalism, also known as market fundamentalism or laissez-faire economics, purports to liberate the market from political interference. The state, it asserts, should do little but defend the realm, protect private property and remove barriers to business. In practice it looks nothing like this. What neoliberal theorists call shrinking the state looks more like shrinking democracy: reducing the means by which citizens can restrain the power of the elite. What they call "the market" looks more like the interests of corporations and the ultra-rich. Neoliberalism appears to be little more than a justification for plutocracy.
...
Neoliberalism is not the root of the problem: it is the ideology used, often retrospectively, to justify a global grab of power, public assets and natural resources by an unrestrained elite. But the problem cannot be addressed until the doctrine is challenged by effective political alternatives.
In other words, the struggle against climate change – and all the crises that now beset both human beings and the natural world – cannot be won without a wider political fight: a democratic mobilisation against plutocracy. This should start with an effort to reform campaign finance – the means by which corporations and the very rich buy policies and politicians. Some of us will be launching a petition in the UK in the next few weeks, and I hope you will sign it.
But this is scarcely a beginning. We must start to articulate a new politics, one that sees intervention as legitimate, that contains a higher purpose than corporate emancipation disguised as market freedom, that puts the survival of people and the living world above the survival of a few favoured industries. In other words, a politics that belongs to us, not just the super-rich.
As affluence and power have shifted westward, so has national attachment and confidence in national direction.- But then, the Cons themselves are rather flexible in their interest in what any reasonable person would consider to be "family values". And indeed, about all that's lacking from Murray Mandryk's comment on the failure of the Cons' moral compass is that the issue is far from new - with any interest in family unification and sustainable social development long since replaced by a view of immigrants and Canadians alike as bare dollar values.
Overall, however, the new national outlook is heavily affected by a growing fear that progress is no longer an inevitable byproduct of effort and skill. As Canadians look forward they are fearful of relative decline in a new global economic order. They also are increasingly resentful about a new class order which seems to allocate the lion’s share of the meager growth the economy is generating to an extremely narrow cadre of privileged Canadians.
...
When looking at values overall we are struck by their level of stability. This is to be expected and welcomed; values constitute the moral charter for societies and it would be a very bewildering and unstable world where values were shifting rapidly. But within this placid world of normative stability there are some conspicuous exceptions. All of the values which are demonstrating downward trends are conservative values.
Respect for authority and traditional family values, still very important in older and conservative Canada, hold no resonance in younger and university-educated Canada. The overall trajectory in all portions of society is downward for these and related conservative values such as minimal government and security. Not only are these trendlines significantly downward but this decline in subscription to conservative values is even more pronounced in younger Canada, metropolitan Canada, university-educated Canada and among women.
- Mind you, at least "hateful, xenophobic nutbars" will be glad to know their values are seen as entirely acceptable to Jason Kenney and the Cons.
- Finally, Pat Garofalo points out the growing gap between higher corporate profits and lower wages in the U.S. - which only figures to get worse as both parties seem willing to prioritize lower corporate tax rates over improved social policy.
#skndpldr - Saskatoon Debate Notes
I'll continue my look at the Saskatchewan NDP leadership debates with a review of the first Saskatoon forum:
And I see a few interesting developments beyond those mentioned in Scott's detailed series of posts.
To start with, as I pointed out when the federal NDP introduced candidate-to-candidate questions as part of its federal campaign, the opportunity to ask questions of one's competitors figures to be an ideal opportunity for a leadership contestant to handle one of the key roles of an opposition leader. But Trent Wotherspoon looks to be using the question periods for a rather different purpose.
Instead, his questions and follow-up points through the debates available online have consisted of relative softballs lobbed toward Cam Broten and Ryan Meili. Which does nothing to address questions about Wotherspoon's sparring skills - but might well be effective in getting supporters of other candidates to see him in a positive light.
One might expect to see that choice by Wotherspoon to try to stay above the fray paired with sharp questions directed toward him - which was the pattern faced by Thomas Mulcair as the presumptive front-runner in the federal party's leadership campaign. But even in the wake of his difficulty with a relatively simple question about his own policies in the second debate, Wotherspoon didn't face any significant test from his fellow candidates.
That might speak to some disagreement between the candidates as to whether Wotherspoon is in fact ahead of the pack, with Wotherspoon adopting a front-runner's strategy even as the other candidates see Broten and Meili as the more important opponents. (Or it could simply reflect a choice to challenge Wotherspoon more closely once the campaign is drawing more public attention.) But it could easily work to Wotherspoon's advantage if he's able to appear more positive on both sides of each question period as a result.
Meanwhile, each of the other candidates engaged in some more direct clash - and each came away with mixed results.
The most interesting exchanges were those between Cam Broten and Ryan Meili. In response to an audience question, Broten did well to point to inequality as the main challenge arising out of Saskatchewan's current economic situation. But when pressed by Meili, he was light on specifics as to what he'd do to address that inequality - leaving an obvious need to address the gap between intentions and associated policies, but also an opening to develop those policies as the campaign progresses.
Meanwhile, Broten's question to Meili about his intentions if he didn't win the leadership led to the most noteworthy single answer of the night. I don't recall Meili often speaking publicly about not being welcome among the party's inner circle after the 2009 leadership campaign, but he was remarkably candid in making that point. And Meili's response looks to turn any question about the aftermath of the previous campaign back on Broten (or any other candidate) who would prefer not to have to defend Dwain Lingenfelter's tenure as leader.
However, Meili fell into somewhat of a trap of his own in trying to bring Erin Weir into the discussion. While his direct question on team-building gave rise to a productive conversation, his policy challenge to Weir's child care plan fell flat - mixing a nebulous "made in Saskatchewan" message with an easily-answered concern about the assumptions underlying Weir's costing. And not surprisingly, Weir was ready with a strong response defending his own plan - though in refuting a couple of Meili's points, he missed the chance to discuss the economic benefits of freeing parents to choose whether to participate in the workforce.
All of which is to say that for all the common content from one debate to the next, we may be seeing some strategic choices which will significantly shape the balance of the leadership campaign - as well as some lessons which the candidates are still learning as the debates continue. And since the debates look like the best opportunity to see how the candidates see themselves in relation to each other, I'll keep reviewing them closely as they become available.
And I see a few interesting developments beyond those mentioned in Scott's detailed series of posts.
To start with, as I pointed out when the federal NDP introduced candidate-to-candidate questions as part of its federal campaign, the opportunity to ask questions of one's competitors figures to be an ideal opportunity for a leadership contestant to handle one of the key roles of an opposition leader. But Trent Wotherspoon looks to be using the question periods for a rather different purpose.
Instead, his questions and follow-up points through the debates available online have consisted of relative softballs lobbed toward Cam Broten and Ryan Meili. Which does nothing to address questions about Wotherspoon's sparring skills - but might well be effective in getting supporters of other candidates to see him in a positive light.
One might expect to see that choice by Wotherspoon to try to stay above the fray paired with sharp questions directed toward him - which was the pattern faced by Thomas Mulcair as the presumptive front-runner in the federal party's leadership campaign. But even in the wake of his difficulty with a relatively simple question about his own policies in the second debate, Wotherspoon didn't face any significant test from his fellow candidates.
That might speak to some disagreement between the candidates as to whether Wotherspoon is in fact ahead of the pack, with Wotherspoon adopting a front-runner's strategy even as the other candidates see Broten and Meili as the more important opponents. (Or it could simply reflect a choice to challenge Wotherspoon more closely once the campaign is drawing more public attention.) But it could easily work to Wotherspoon's advantage if he's able to appear more positive on both sides of each question period as a result.
Meanwhile, each of the other candidates engaged in some more direct clash - and each came away with mixed results.
The most interesting exchanges were those between Cam Broten and Ryan Meili. In response to an audience question, Broten did well to point to inequality as the main challenge arising out of Saskatchewan's current economic situation. But when pressed by Meili, he was light on specifics as to what he'd do to address that inequality - leaving an obvious need to address the gap between intentions and associated policies, but also an opening to develop those policies as the campaign progresses.
Meanwhile, Broten's question to Meili about his intentions if he didn't win the leadership led to the most noteworthy single answer of the night. I don't recall Meili often speaking publicly about not being welcome among the party's inner circle after the 2009 leadership campaign, but he was remarkably candid in making that point. And Meili's response looks to turn any question about the aftermath of the previous campaign back on Broten (or any other candidate) who would prefer not to have to defend Dwain Lingenfelter's tenure as leader.
However, Meili fell into somewhat of a trap of his own in trying to bring Erin Weir into the discussion. While his direct question on team-building gave rise to a productive conversation, his policy challenge to Weir's child care plan fell flat - mixing a nebulous "made in Saskatchewan" message with an easily-answered concern about the assumptions underlying Weir's costing. And not surprisingly, Weir was ready with a strong response defending his own plan - though in refuting a couple of Meili's points, he missed the chance to discuss the economic benefits of freeing parents to choose whether to participate in the workforce.
All of which is to say that for all the common content from one debate to the next, we may be seeing some strategic choices which will significantly shape the balance of the leadership campaign - as well as some lessons which the candidates are still learning as the debates continue. And since the debates look like the best opportunity to see how the candidates see themselves in relation to each other, I'll keep reviewing them closely as they become available.
Monday, December 03, 2012
Monday Morning Links
Assorted content to start your week.
- Susan Delacourt comments on what's often lacking from Canadian political coverage - and the challenge facing journalists looking to stop relying excessively on horse-race numbers which may miss what ultimately motivates voters:
- Gerald Caplan weighs in on the Cons' inhumane and immoral choice to deprive developing countries of needed AIDS medication:
- Finally, Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the progressive side can easily win an argument on the need for sufficient tax revenue to fund a viable social democracy - but that we can't afford to shy away from the conversation.
- Susan Delacourt comments on what's often lacking from Canadian political coverage - and the challenge facing journalists looking to stop relying excessively on horse-race numbers which may miss what ultimately motivates voters:
Political journalists don’t have to stop covering the horse-race numbers or the big opinion trends — they’re still important, he said. But they have to stop pretending that the big picture is the only picture, that the campaign is being decided on the basis of what people see on television or on the artificial stage sets crafted by the politicians.- Lawrence Martin and Andrew Coyne both use the last set of by-elections to try to push an electoral non-compete pact among opposition parties. Aaron Wherry responds to Coyne with just a few questions.
“Fundamentally, good political coverage needs to acknowledge that we cannot write with (any) sort of confidence about the entirety of the enterprise,” he said. “We need to be respectful enough of our readers to acknowledge how much of this is out of our reach and find a new knowledge of campaigns to engage that doubt.”
So there’s the challenge. If we want to repair the rift between polling and journalism, first we have to tell our audiences what we don’t know — what those horse-race numbers aren’t telling us. A five-point rise or fall in the polls may be far less important, in other words, than the data informing us what is motivating (or turning off) voters at the individual level.
Next we should start trying to find a way to know and report more on this micro-data.
We have nearly three years to go before the next federal election in Canada. That’s enough time, you’d think, to put journalism back in touch with the polling numbers that really count.
- Gerald Caplan weighs in on the Cons' inhumane and immoral choice to deprive developing countries of needed AIDS medication:
The Canadian government had the opportunity this week to help hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of AIDS sufferers in poor countries and deliberately chose not to do so. What should we think about such a decision? When are citizens allowed to ask the unthinkable: If a government knowingly allows hundreds of thousands of people to die unnecessarily, what is its responsibility? How much less culpable is indirect guilt, or guilt by omission, than direct guilt or guilt by commission?- But as Tim Harper points out, we shouldn't expect the Cons to answer for any of their choices, as they continue to view accountability as a punishment to be inflicted solely on their enemies rather than a value to be pursued as a matter of good governance.
These are fraught questions which many outraged Canadians are asking right now. They arise because a private member’s bill in Parliament has just been defeated by the Harper government by a mere 7 votes. Bill C-398 would have enabled Canada’s generic drug manufacturers to provide inexpensive life-saving medicines to Africans suffering from AIDS and other curable diseases who can’t afford brand-name medicines. Many believe the government has betrayed these people. African AIDS activists, with whom many Canadians have close contact, feel betrayed.
Can this really be the end of this story? Do the Africans who will die unnecessarily in these years – and there will be huge numbers – merely get forgotten? Too bad, so sad? Another day at the office?
...
What plausibly accounts for the government’s decision? Bill C-398 seemed like a win-win for all. It was a surefire way to save countless lives at no cost to ourselves. It had strong support from Canadians in every walk of life. Instead of being bystanders to needless death and suffering, Canadians could have been part of the solution. It was a perfect fit with the government’s vaunted maternal health initiative. Canadian generic manufacturers would do well by doing good. In more hard-bitten terms, Big Pharma, a major influence on Conservative decisions, seemed to be on board, while international legal experts found the bill consistent with Canada’s treaty obligations.
Some wonder if the government’s decision reflected its concern for the many trade and investment deals it’s negotiating, which routinely call for ever-greater patent protection for the giant brand name drug companies. The government may be wary of demonstrating the slightest sympathy for their generic rivals. There’s suspicion that, behind the scenes, Big Pharma was actually encouraging the (government) to deep-six the bill.
- Finally, Murray Dobbin rightly notes that the progressive side can easily win an argument on the need for sufficient tax revenue to fund a viable social democracy - but that we can't afford to shy away from the conversation.
Sunday, December 02, 2012
#skndpldr Roundup
Once again, Saskatchewan's NDP leadership campaign has focused largely on recent debates and other candidate forums (and I'll be discussing those individually as I get a chance to view them). And for those interested in immediate coverage of those, Tracey Mitchell has been offering just that. But here are a few other recent developments which I haven't yet discussed...
- Having already written that few endorsements figure to change the direction of the leadership campaign, I'll note that one recent statement of support at least looks to distinguish the current campaign from 2009: UFCW 1400's endorsement of Ryan Meili offers a level of organized labour support beyond that which Meili won in the previous campaign. And while Trent Wotherspoon still looks to a slight edge in labour support so far, the key takeway looks to be that no one candidate will be able to lay claim to an overwhelming edge in trade union backing (as was the case for Dwain Lingenfelter in 2009).
- Erin Weir wrote to the Southwest Booster to point out how the Sask Party's privatization schemes stand to lose the province millions of dollars every year, while also earning a writeup in the Moose Jaw Times Herald on the need for fiscal plans to accompany social policies. But I do wonder whether Weir is missing a chance to group those issues together under a general campaign theme along the lines of "returns on public resources" (or even the familiar "common wealth" philosophy) - whether the resources in question consist of oil, minerals or Crown investments.
- Finally, after playing a key role in the Saskatchewan Party's grudging choice to reverse course on funding refugee health benefit, Cam Broten is now pushing the Wall government to similarly recognize its underfunding of HIV/AIDS awareness.
- Having already written that few endorsements figure to change the direction of the leadership campaign, I'll note that one recent statement of support at least looks to distinguish the current campaign from 2009: UFCW 1400's endorsement of Ryan Meili offers a level of organized labour support beyond that which Meili won in the previous campaign. And while Trent Wotherspoon still looks to a slight edge in labour support so far, the key takeway looks to be that no one candidate will be able to lay claim to an overwhelming edge in trade union backing (as was the case for Dwain Lingenfelter in 2009).
- Erin Weir wrote to the Southwest Booster to point out how the Sask Party's privatization schemes stand to lose the province millions of dollars every year, while also earning a writeup in the Moose Jaw Times Herald on the need for fiscal plans to accompany social policies. But I do wonder whether Weir is missing a chance to group those issues together under a general campaign theme along the lines of "returns on public resources" (or even the familiar "common wealth" philosophy) - whether the resources in question consist of oil, minerals or Crown investments.
- Finally, after playing a key role in the Saskatchewan Party's grudging choice to reverse course on funding refugee health benefit, Cam Broten is now pushing the Wall government to similarly recognize its underfunding of HIV/AIDS awareness.
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Louise Story reports on tax goodies and direct giveaways to businesses at the local level (which of course seldom deliver the promised economic return). That said, it's worth noting that we're desperately lacking for any movement to counteract the inter-jurisdictional competition for jobs that feeds such corporate handouts - and that we might all be better off spending less time negotiating free trade deals which leave government no way to influence development other than through cash giveaways, and more time establishing standards for corporate tax policies which preclude a race to the bottom.
- Tzeporah Berman recognizes that tar sands development can be much cleaner if it's carried out within a reasonable regulatory environment. But we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for that action from a government which has not only ignored advice from Canada's public servants about what regulations are needed to protect the environment, but muzzled scientists who dare to share facts with the public. Which means that Megan Leslie is entirely right to critique of the Harper Cons' Orwellian language.
- Speaking of which, the ultimate example of the Cons' combination of mismanagement and self-parody may be playing out at the still-unopened Canadian Museum of Human Rights - which is not only denying past and present employees the freedom of speech, but viewing its mandate as being to declare that our human rights rations have been increased over last month regardless of whether that claim has a basis in fact:
- Louise Story reports on tax goodies and direct giveaways to businesses at the local level (which of course seldom deliver the promised economic return). That said, it's worth noting that we're desperately lacking for any movement to counteract the inter-jurisdictional competition for jobs that feeds such corporate handouts - and that we might all be better off spending less time negotiating free trade deals which leave government no way to influence development other than through cash giveaways, and more time establishing standards for corporate tax policies which preclude a race to the bottom.
- Tzeporah Berman recognizes that tar sands development can be much cleaner if it's carried out within a reasonable regulatory environment. But we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for that action from a government which has not only ignored advice from Canada's public servants about what regulations are needed to protect the environment, but muzzled scientists who dare to share facts with the public. Which means that Megan Leslie is entirely right to critique of the Harper Cons' Orwellian language.
- Speaking of which, the ultimate example of the Cons' combination of mismanagement and self-parody may be playing out at the still-unopened Canadian Museum of Human Rights - which is not only denying past and present employees the freedom of speech, but viewing its mandate as being to declare that our human rights rations have been increased over last month regardless of whether that claim has a basis in fact:
Eberts's comments echo the concerns of many current and former employees contacted by CBC News.- Finally, Alice highlights the role that fund-raising may play in the federal Libs' leadership campaign. But I'll add that the gap between Justin Trudeau and his competitors may manifest itself in an additional way: while some candidates may be left out of the race for all intents and purposes due to their outright inability to fund a meaningful campaign, even the relatively close challengers may be at a serious disadvantage if they need to put in significantly more time and effort to bring in enough money to compete.
They said government and corporate interests may be having an impact on what will ultimately be included in the museum. Staff also said they have been told to include more "positive stories," and to curtail criticisms of issues touching on current government policy.
Saturday, December 01, 2012
#skndpldr - Humboldt Debate Notes
Scott has already pointed out that the Saskatchewan NDP is making its leadership debate videos available online, and commented somewhat on the second debate in Humboldt. But having had a chance to view it for the first time today, I'll add a few observations.
While there were plenty of consistent themes between the Humboldt debate and the previous Regina debate, the main difference was found in the first opportunity for candidates to ask questions of each other. And that led to a few noteworthy developments.
First, the candidate question-and-answer format provided a test for Trent Wotherspoon in what's been identified as a possible weakness from the outset of the campaign. And while he held his own in most of his exchanges, he also had significant difficulty dealing with what should have been a relatively simple set of queries from Erin Weir - questioning why his platform includes a study into lowering the voting age to 16 (rather than simply proposing that the age be lowered), as well as what information he'd consider relevant in assessing the outcome of such a study.
Facing a request only that he explain his own policy proposal, Wotherspoon wasn't comfortable discussing either why the study would be required (with a reference to the NDP's party development processes serving as a non sequitur in explaining a study would take place outside that structure), or what findings might lead him to question whether a lower voting age is in fact a good idea. And with the degree of difficulty and the scrutiny from fellow candidates and the media alike figuring to increase as the debates develop, Wotherspoon looks to have some ways yet to go in addressing unanticipated questions.
In another exchange, Cam Broten offered a similarly surprising challenge to Ryan Meili on his first-debate suggestion that MLAs be seated alphabetically rather than by party in the legislature. There, however, Meili followed a halting start as to the value of discussing a wide range of ideas in a leadership campaign with a reasonable explanation both as to where the proposal has been applied elsewhere, and how it might fit into an effort to make the legislature more collegial and productive.
Finally, the questions also offered a hint as to who the other candidates wanted to test. And while Broten, Meili and Wotherspoon were each on the receiving end of several questions, Weir didn't answer a single one - a point that he noted slightly peevishly in posing the last question of the debate.
That said, it's not hard to see how that pattern might repeat itself regularly unless the format mandates who will be on the receiving end of questions. After all, the other candidates might quite logically figure both that there are more soft supporters and later-ballot votes to be persuaded by challenging the other candidates, and that Weir's sharp responses might make them more likely to lose face in directing questions his way.
Other than the candidate questions, I'll largely concur with Scott's observation that there wasn't a lot of change from the first debate. All of the candidates were broadly effective both in delivering their own prepared speeches and dealing with audience questions - meaning that the decision facing actual and potential NDP members only figures to be getting more difficult as the campaign progresses.
While there were plenty of consistent themes between the Humboldt debate and the previous Regina debate, the main difference was found in the first opportunity for candidates to ask questions of each other. And that led to a few noteworthy developments.
First, the candidate question-and-answer format provided a test for Trent Wotherspoon in what's been identified as a possible weakness from the outset of the campaign. And while he held his own in most of his exchanges, he also had significant difficulty dealing with what should have been a relatively simple set of queries from Erin Weir - questioning why his platform includes a study into lowering the voting age to 16 (rather than simply proposing that the age be lowered), as well as what information he'd consider relevant in assessing the outcome of such a study.
Facing a request only that he explain his own policy proposal, Wotherspoon wasn't comfortable discussing either why the study would be required (with a reference to the NDP's party development processes serving as a non sequitur in explaining a study would take place outside that structure), or what findings might lead him to question whether a lower voting age is in fact a good idea. And with the degree of difficulty and the scrutiny from fellow candidates and the media alike figuring to increase as the debates develop, Wotherspoon looks to have some ways yet to go in addressing unanticipated questions.
In another exchange, Cam Broten offered a similarly surprising challenge to Ryan Meili on his first-debate suggestion that MLAs be seated alphabetically rather than by party in the legislature. There, however, Meili followed a halting start as to the value of discussing a wide range of ideas in a leadership campaign with a reasonable explanation both as to where the proposal has been applied elsewhere, and how it might fit into an effort to make the legislature more collegial and productive.
Finally, the questions also offered a hint as to who the other candidates wanted to test. And while Broten, Meili and Wotherspoon were each on the receiving end of several questions, Weir didn't answer a single one - a point that he noted slightly peevishly in posing the last question of the debate.
That said, it's not hard to see how that pattern might repeat itself regularly unless the format mandates who will be on the receiving end of questions. After all, the other candidates might quite logically figure both that there are more soft supporters and later-ballot votes to be persuaded by challenging the other candidates, and that Weir's sharp responses might make them more likely to lose face in directing questions his way.
Other than the candidate questions, I'll largely concur with Scott's observation that there wasn't a lot of change from the first debate. All of the candidates were broadly effective both in delivering their own prepared speeches and dealing with audience questions - meaning that the decision facing actual and potential NDP members only figures to be getting more difficult as the campaign progresses.
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Chrystia Freeland discusses the developing view that inequality can serve to stifle growth and development, while more equitable tax systems and social supports can encourage them:
- Finally, the Star nicely sums up how the Cons' latest round of international belligerence (this time trying to bully the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing its since-approved application for observer state status at the UN) is only marginalizing Canada on the world stage.
- Chrystia Freeland discusses the developing view that inequality can serve to stifle growth and development, while more equitable tax systems and social supports can encourage them:
Set aside any moral or political concerns you may have about rising income inequality – worries about poverty, justice, undue political influence or even social mobility. According to Mr. Dervis, a growing number of economists suspect that once inequality passes a certain point, it may jeopardize economic stability and economic growth.- And Paul Krugman rightly paints the U.S.' recent election as a well-defined class clash - and one where the public interest won out:
As his book argues, “rebalancing of the distribution of income may play a role in unlocking the U.S. economy’s growth potential in a sustainable way.”
Now that is a truly radical thought, and it brings us back to Mr. Milanovic’s earlier view that income inequality was a forbidden subject in the United States.
Worrying about the poor is one thing. To contend that equality is necessary for growth is an altogether different and more radical idea. Three decades later, trickle-down economics has met its antithesis. We are set for one of the great battles of ideas of our time.
(T)he disappointed plutocrats weren’t wrong about who was on their side. This was very much an election pitting the interests of the very rich against those of the middle class and the poor.- Stephen Maher and Glen McGregor dig into the details of Elections Canada's continued investigation into Robocon - including complaints in 56 separate ridings. And Sixth Estate puts the latest news into context, wondering why it's taken this long to start seeking even basic contact information for the parties responsible.
And the Obama campaign won largely by disregarding the warnings of squeamish “centrists” and embracing that reality, stressing the class-war aspect of the confrontation. This ensured not only that President Obama won by huge margins among lower-income voters, but that those voters turned out in large numbers, sealing his victory.The important thing to understand now is that while the election is over, the class war isn’t. The same people who bet big on Mr. Romney, and lost, are now trying to win by stealth — in the name of fiscal responsibility — the ground they failed to gain in an open election.
- Finally, the Star nicely sums up how the Cons' latest round of international belligerence (this time trying to bully the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing its since-approved application for observer state status at the UN) is only marginalizing Canada on the world stage.
Friday, November 30, 2012
#skndpldr - Endorsement Notes
As I've noted before, I tend to see leadership endorsements as involving diminishing returns: once a candidate has enough support to be seen as a viable contender, additional names on a list of endorsers are unlikely to have any substantial impact unless they play significantly against some widely-known expectation. And since I see all of the candidates as having met that initial threshold, I haven't been tracking endorsements all that closely in the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership race.
But while the list of names may not be so important, the content of endorsements may be somewhat more worthy of discussion - particularly to the extent supporters may make points outside a candidate's own message track. So let's take a quick look at examples of each candidate's announced endorsements on that front.
Cam Broten's endorsements include this from Ken Crush, discussing the fact that Broten's interest and involvement in building the NDP's rural presence is far from new:
In contrast to Broten's focus on the NDP as it stands, Ryan Meili's featured endorsements deal largely with the party as it might be - with U of S professor Alexander Irving's message of support particularly standing out as a strong statement of values which extend beyond party lines and provincial borders:
But while the list of names may not be so important, the content of endorsements may be somewhat more worthy of discussion - particularly to the extent supporters may make points outside a candidate's own message track. So let's take a quick look at examples of each candidate's announced endorsements on that front.
Cam Broten's endorsements include this from Ken Crush, discussing the fact that Broten's interest and involvement in building the NDP's rural presence is far from new:
Cam has been our buddy MLA for the last 5 years and has consistently served our constituency well. He is well respected by the small town media and often sought after by the local papers for his input on various provincial issues. He has also been an influential leader in our party over the last few years chairing and co-chairing many committees, including our party's policy review process where members of our party and the public participated in policy development. Cam is interested in what matters to people. He has a unique ability to listen, understand and act on issues whether they are raised by seniors, students, farmers, immigrants, workers or business people.While the latter portion of Crush's endorsement could be taken directly from a campaign bio, the first two sentences in particular draw a noteworthy link between Broten's work in Biggar and some of the most important roles of a leader.
In contrast to Broten's focus on the NDP as it stands, Ryan Meili's featured endorsements deal largely with the party as it might be - with U of S professor Alexander Irving's message of support particularly standing out as a strong statement of values which extend beyond party lines and provincial borders:
Ryan is the best chance, here, for us to return to the social democratic vision that the province, country, and world need so badly. There is no doubt that Ryan cares deeply about people, Mother Earth, and society – he has 'walked that walk' as a healer many times. He will work best with social movements not neo-liberal corporations.Interestingly, Erin Weir's endorsements look to be the ones most patterned on his campaign messages - and indeed his "party activist" list is limited to names alone. But Dick Proctor's offering includes some addition insight into Weir's past experience and effectiveness as a candidate:
Erin and I shared a campaign office in Regina during the 2004 federal election, when he ran in Wascana against Ralph Goodale. Although that was a difficult election for New Democrats in Saskatchewan and Erin was up against the Minister of Finance, he put together an effective team and campaigned energetically. I have seen up close his work ethic and ability to collaborate with others. These qualities would serve him well as the next Saskatchewan NDP leader.Finally, while a leadership campaign inevitably tests a candidate's presentation as a speaker, Trent Wotherspoon's personal endorsements largely focus on his listening ability - with Marion Hewitt Pollock's comment serving as an example:
When you're speaking, you know Trent is listening. It doesn't matter how crowded the room, or busy the moment, he is engaging and thoughtful. He is the kind of community-minded innovator that our province needs. I know Trent is going to include and value all of our voices in his leadership bid and beyond.Overall, Meili's highlighted endorsements stand out as reflecting more personal statements than those of the other candidates - which allows for the possibility that a wider range of potential voters may find something in his endorsements as a basis for either agreement or disagreement. And it will bear watching whether the other candidates or (particularly) outside parties try to drive wedges between candidates and supporters by focusing on the latter.
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Thomas Walkom discusses what the Cons' attack on unions through bill C-377 is ultimately designed to do:
- Meanwhile, the latest in Con cartoon villainy saw the governing party vote down a bill to make drugs available to the developing world at no cost to the public - when even big pharma didn't have any concern with the bill. Which leads to Stephen Lewis' well-deserved response:
- Thomas Walkom discusses what the Cons' attack on unions through bill C-377 is ultimately designed to do:
Finance department figures show that the tax exemption for union and professional dues does indeed cost the federal treasury $795 million in lost revenue annually. How much is attributed to unionists and how much to others unaffected by this bill, such as doctors and lawyers, is not stated.- But Priya Sarin notes that the right's reactionary moves to attack labour rights through legislation can be answered at least in part by successful court challenges.
But the same figures show plenty of other revenue losses attributable to tax breaks. High rollers paid in stock options cost the treasury $725 million. Those claiming capital gains deductions cost $3.7 billion. So-called carrying-cost deductions reduce federal revenues by $1 billion.
Yet neither Hiebert nor any other Conservative is demanding a public accounting of how these taxpayer-subsidized moneys are spent.
Why focus on unions?...
The point of Hiebert’s bill is not just to strangle unions and their locals with red tape. Nor is it simply to limit their political activity. Beyond all of this, as REAL Women acknowledged, is compulsory check-off.
The unstated aim of this bill is to provide ammunition to politicians, like Ontario Tory Leader Tim Hudak, who would scrap the Rand formula and introduce U.S.-style right-to-work laws designed to sap unions.
- Meanwhile, the latest in Con cartoon villainy saw the governing party vote down a bill to make drugs available to the developing world at no cost to the public - when even big pharma didn't have any concern with the bill. Which leads to Stephen Lewis' well-deserved response:
“It’s that they just don’t want to be seen to be supporting generics when they are spending so much time negotiating extended protection for pharmaceutical patents,” said Mr. Lewis. “So in the great choice in life, they have chosen patent protection over the lives of children. And that’s about as perfidious as you can get as a government.”- Which is particularly noteworthy since, as Andrew Coyne points out, drug patent giveaways look to be the biggest problem with the CETA in the form the Cons have chosen to develop it:
I said earlier the concessions we are asked to make at the negotiating table are “almost always” not concessions at all. But there is one exception that comes to mind: Europe’s demand that Canada accept longer patent protection for the pharmaceutical sector. That would make drugs more expensive in this country, at much cost to provincial drug plans. It might be worth standing firm on this one, then, or at least using it to extract concessions from the Europeans.- Finally, the CCPA has released an Environics poll showing broad-based support for upper-income and corporate tax increases, as well as significant public willingness to pay more personally in order to support a wide range of social priorities.
So it’s fascinating to learn the government’s actual strategy. “The leaked EU memo says Ottawa [is] preparing to at least partially concede on drug patents,” CP reports, “in order to protect supply management.”
Thursday, November 29, 2012
New column day
Here, giving credit to the Saskatchewan Party for eventually doing the right thing in funding refugee health expenses - but questioning their selective and PR-motivated claim to compassion.
For further reading...
The timeline on the issue of refugee health expenses which led to no response from Brad Wall and his government includes the Cons' initial announcement and subsequent excuses for letting refugee claimants fend for themselves; their partial backtrack on the initial announcement; Manitoba's decision to pick up the slack for refugee claimants; and Cam Broten's challenge to Kelly Block's anti-immigrant fund-raising. And in recent days, we've learned the Cons aren't done, but are instead looking to push the costs of refugee settlement onto non-profit organizations.
I'll also particularly highlight Carol Goar's examples already known as a matter of public record - and apparently ignored by the Saskatchewan Party in deciding on its own response to the Cons' cuts:
For further reading...
The timeline on the issue of refugee health expenses which led to no response from Brad Wall and his government includes the Cons' initial announcement and subsequent excuses for letting refugee claimants fend for themselves; their partial backtrack on the initial announcement; Manitoba's decision to pick up the slack for refugee claimants; and Cam Broten's challenge to Kelly Block's anti-immigrant fund-raising. And in recent days, we've learned the Cons aren't done, but are instead looking to push the costs of refugee settlement onto non-profit organizations.
I'll also particularly highlight Carol Goar's examples already known as a matter of public record - and apparently ignored by the Saskatchewan Party in deciding on its own response to the Cons' cuts:
(R)eports already are coming in: a 7-year-old epileptic boy in Hamilton was hospitalized for a severe seizure because he could not get medicine; a woman who had endured multiple rapes after she was sold into the sex trade couldn’t get an ultrasound for the fetus she was carrying; a Colombian man is desperately fundraising to pay Toronto General Hospital for life-saving abdominal surgery; two refugee claimants in Ottawa — one Peruvian, the other El Salvadoran — have stopped taking their post-traumatic stress medications.All of which would seem to cry out for explanation as to how it took this long to recognize the need for action - not merely a declaration that at least Wall isn't quite as stubborn as Stephen Harper in eliminating assistance for those in need.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- There's always been reason for skepticism about the pundit-class theory that the 2011 federal election should simply be deleted from the history books as an aberration. But Abacus provides a compelling example as to why the relative position of the NDP and Libs looks to be a longer-term phenomenon, as the NDP has broken the four-party impasse in support among younger voters which existed until the 2011 election.
- Of course, that leads nicely into Adam Radwanski's interview with Sasha Issenberg as to how to bring new voters into our democratic system:
- Finally, Pat Atkinson comments on the Saskatchewan Party's moves toward privatizing nearly everything the province's Crown corporations actually do:
- There's always been reason for skepticism about the pundit-class theory that the 2011 federal election should simply be deleted from the history books as an aberration. But Abacus provides a compelling example as to why the relative position of the NDP and Libs looks to be a longer-term phenomenon, as the NDP has broken the four-party impasse in support among younger voters which existed until the 2011 election.
- Of course, that leads nicely into Adam Radwanski's interview with Sasha Issenberg as to how to bring new voters into our democratic system:
Should we be looking at those as positive developments, in that they’re helping create a more engaged electorate?- Meanwhile, personal connections also figure to be the best antidote against high-volume misinformation campaigns - and the Cons' pollster of choice has been censured for contributing to just that against Irwin Cotler.
There’s this instinct that people have when they see individuals reduced to data sets to think that it’s dehumanizing. In fact, the reality has been precisely the opposite. The reason turnout has gone up is that campaigns are making significant new investments in field work, often volunteer driven, that looks to talk to voters one-on-one.
We now have this body of experiments that shows person-to-person contact does something to turn a non-voter into a voter that no television ad can. Smart campaigns, and Barack Obama’s is the best example of this, are making the investments to create these types of interactions.
- Finally, Pat Atkinson comments on the Saskatchewan Party's moves toward privatizing nearly everything the province's Crown corporations actually do:
The most disconcerting part of this steady transfer of functions and assets away from these publicly owned companies is what is happening when it comes to disclosure to the legislature of the list of payees for each of the Crowns. For competitive reasons Crowns don't have to disclose contracts with private-sector businesses. These payee contracts are excluded from public reporting.
...
This brings me back to ISC. While it is true there hasn't been an outright sale of any of the Crowns referred to in the legislation, there has been a steady erosion of these publicly owned companies. A number of functions that were once performed by the Crown sector have been transferred to private companies and a good bit of "our money" is leaving the province. Privatization is indeed underway, despite what the Wall government says.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Ed Broadbent comments on both the growing problem of inequality, and the one institution which can do something about it:
- Which isn't to say we should be anything but horrified by the Cons' economic strategy of "resource boom forever!". And Geoff Dembicki rightly points out just one more counterproductive result of that focus - as we're losing out on a rapidly-expanding global market for clean technology due to a government which insists on pushing dirty alternatives.
- Finally, while I'm skeptical of Chris Turner's take on future electoral cooperation schemes, I'll heartily endorse his argument as to why Calgary Centre is the last riding anybody should be pointing to in calling for them.
- Ed Broadbent comments on both the growing problem of inequality, and the one institution which can do something about it:
Canada is not doing better. From 1982 until 2004, almost all growth in family income went to the top 20 per cent, with much of that going to the top 1 per cent, while the bottom 60 per cent saw no growth at all. The increase in inequality in Canada since the mid-1990s has been the fourth highest in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.- And there's at least some evidence that voters will choose the party which recognizes inequality as a problem, as Eric Boehlert discusses how the Republicans' closed information system and associated disdain for mere working Americans led to massive election losses:
But does this matter? Yes, the evidence is in, and the conclusion is clear: Inequality does matter. In terms of social outcomes, more equal societies do better for everyone, not just for the poor, in almost every respect: health outcomes, life expectancy, level of trust in society, equality of opportunity and upward social mobility. A recent study showed that if Americans want to experience the American Dream of upward mobility, they should pack up and move to Sweden. They would have to leave the most unequal democracy and move to the most equal.
Contrary to the mythology propagated by so many, the actual degree of inequality in advanced democracies has little to do with the so-called forces of globalization or shifts related to technological change. It’s largely the result of government action or inaction. Globalization affects all countries. But, from the mid-1970s, the share of income of the top 1 per cent in Canada, the U.S. and Britain rose rapidly, while there was little change in France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. As recently highlighted by the World Bank, Brazil and other Latin American countries have become significantly more equal over the past decade.
Once again, the evidence is clear: Whether countries become more or less equal depends largely on government policies. Government can reduce or exacerbate the market trends producing inequality.
Republicans won't because they're intimidated by the right-wing media's power. That's why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie quickly got on the phone with Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch after Murdoch tweeted that Christie, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and his bipartisan appearances with Obama, needed to re-endorse Romney or "take the blame" for the president's re-election.- Of course, part of avoiding that type of destructive closed loop involves a willingness to look at policy on something other than a wholly tribal basis. And on that front, I'll note that while the Cons' announcement that they're following the U.S.' lead in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is only a minor gain, it's certainly better than the alternative of Canada serving as a dumping ground for the least efficient vehicles being manufactured for the North American market - which would be the case if our standards dropped substantially below the U.S.'. And opponents of the Cons' general neglect for the environmental will do nothing but damage by echoing and reinforcing the still-farcical "tax on everything" message in response.
Murdoch: Jump! Republicans: How high?
That unhealthy relationship is the reason why, when it comes to the simple question of whether America is divided between "makers and takers," and if the 62 million Americans who voted for Obama represent a decaying nation of moochers in search of handouts, there's a wide gulf within the conservative movement. The right-wing media consider the claim to be a central tenet, while Republican leaders think saying it out loud is completely batty and a prescription for an electoral losing streak.
So yes, those are conspicuous handcuffs the GOP is wearing: Fox News has hijacked the party's communications apparatus and is pushing the type of paranoid, blame-the-voter rhetoric that loses elections, and the type of rhetoric Romney's now being blamed for. But the GOP can't turn it off. In fact, most Republicans can't even work up enough courage to ask Fox News to turn down the volume.
- Which isn't to say we should be anything but horrified by the Cons' economic strategy of "resource boom forever!". And Geoff Dembicki rightly points out just one more counterproductive result of that focus - as we're losing out on a rapidly-expanding global market for clean technology due to a government which insists on pushing dirty alternatives.
- Finally, while I'm skeptical of Chris Turner's take on future electoral cooperation schemes, I'll heartily endorse his argument as to why Calgary Centre is the last riding anybody should be pointing to in calling for them.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Paul Boothe discusses the dangers of giving in to resource-boom hype rather than planning for sustainable development:
- Paul Wells summarizes the massive scope of the latest draft version of the CETA, while Heather Scoffield focuses on the EU's demand that investors take precedence over health, safety, the environment and all other considerations.
- Michael Wolfson takes aim at the lack of social mobility in Canada, along with the Fraser Institute's sad attempt to pretend there's no issues to be dealt with:
- Paul Boothe discusses the dangers of giving in to resource-boom hype rather than planning for sustainable development:
The resource roller coaster and the crazy things it causes us to do are not new. Remember the federal government's 1980 National Energy Program? It grew out of a forecast that Alberta's oil royalties were likely to grow so large that they would fatally destabilize the Canadian federation. Remember Alberta's 1992 deficit that reached almost one-quarter of total revenues? It resulted from a forecast that natural gas prices would rise and bring on another royalty bonanza.- Naturally, the obvious merit to a broader view explains why the Cons' strategy is to "lie and lie again" to distract from their reckless gamble on resource prices - and Craig McInnes is just the latest columnist to call them out on their deliberate and brazen dishonesty.
Resource economies grow faster on average, so what is wrong with riding the boom-and-bust roller coaster? Economists happily assume that workers can glide costlessly from one place to another in search of their next job. The reality is quite different.
Boom-and-bust economies are enormously disruptive to families and destructive of social capital. Travelling back and forth across the country searching for work means more children raised by single parents, fewer people checking in on the stay-at-home elderly, fewer minor hockey and soccer coaches. These things are the glue that binds our communities together.
Are there ways of avoiding repeating the boom-and-bust errors of the past? Yes. We can choose not to put all of our economic eggs in the natural resource basket. We can stop listening to those who proclaim the promise of the current boom and ignore the volatility that is part and parcel of staking our future primarily on natural resources. Developing our natural resources in an environmentally and socially sustainable way makes good sense. Betting the farm on them does not.
- Paul Wells summarizes the massive scope of the latest draft version of the CETA, while Heather Scoffield focuses on the EU's demand that investors take precedence over health, safety, the environment and all other considerations.
- Michael Wolfson takes aim at the lack of social mobility in Canada, along with the Fraser Institute's sad attempt to pretend there's no issues to be dealt with:
If the analysis had been done fairly, looking at relative mobility as it claims, it would have used income groups for the specific population being studied – younger earners. Then, for every person moving up a relative position on the income ladder (e.g. from the the bottom 20 per cent to the top 20 per cent, as in the Fraser analysis), someone else must have moved down, there being a fixed number of rungs (or 20 per cent income groups in this case).- Finally, Errol Mendes wonders whatever happened to the Stephen Harper who once fought against omnibus bills and top-down control.
Fortunately, there is an analysis of the question of income mobility in Canada based on a more careful methodology which I co-authored a few years ago, using exactly the same income tax data base. Our results lead to quite different conclusions.
...
(T)he top 1 per cent and even the top 0.01 per cent had incomes that bounced around less than the incomes of the 25 per cent at the poorest end of the income ladder. A major reason: low earnings are often the result of “precarious” jobs which not only pay low wages, but are unstable.
Life at the top may be risky, but the real risks in life lie at the bottom of the income spectrum..
This reality of precarious jobs amongst the poor, and current research standards for unbiased analysis of income mobility, are ignored by the Fraser Institute as it tries to perpetuate the Horatio Alger, ‘rags to riches’ myth.
On post-mortems
Alice offers up the definitive analysis of last night's federal by-elections, and I won't go over too much of the same territory. But I'll quickly add a few observations for each party - as everybody looks to have some reason for concern.
And yes, I include the Greens in that statement. They'll undoubtedly point to massive increases in vote share in Calgary Centre and Victoria as a key accomplishment. But a party with only one seat and a limited fund-raising base needs to take advantage of every opportunity to add to its resource base - and I have to wonder whether the Greens will be left asking what might have been if they'd focused on one riding alone, rather running campaigns which fell just short in two.
For the NDP, the major disappointment has to be Calgary Centre - where it lost ground despite a superb candidate due to a confused attempt at strategic voting. But given the common assumption that Ontario will largely determine which party forms government, I'm surprised there hasn't been more notice of the campaign and results in Durham. There, the NDP somewhat consolidated its second-place position thanks in large part to the type of candidate more easily recruited to an official opposition party - but still has some distance to go in catching up to the Cons.
Meanwhile, the Libs look to have lost the most on the night. While they put up a strong fight in Calgary Centre, the Libs dropped to fourth place in Victoria (which they held as recently as 2006) and lost ground in third place in Durham (which they held until 2004) despite ample promotion of fairly well-recognized candidates. And a fourth-place finish in the total vote only adds insult to injury for a party which still hasn't come to terms with its third-place standing in the House of Commons.
Finally, the Cons performed roughly to expectations other than the collapse of their support in Calgary Centre. While I'd like to think they'd learn some lessons from Joan Crockatt's near-loss in the heart of the Cons' home base, I'll leave it to them to prove they're actually willing to do so - and I'm not holding my breath.
In sum, last night's results serve first and foremost to confirm the dangers of taking anything for granted in Canadian politics. But we'll have to wait a few years to find out whether either that lesson or the support bases assembled for the by-election campaign result in any real change.
And yes, I include the Greens in that statement. They'll undoubtedly point to massive increases in vote share in Calgary Centre and Victoria as a key accomplishment. But a party with only one seat and a limited fund-raising base needs to take advantage of every opportunity to add to its resource base - and I have to wonder whether the Greens will be left asking what might have been if they'd focused on one riding alone, rather running campaigns which fell just short in two.
For the NDP, the major disappointment has to be Calgary Centre - where it lost ground despite a superb candidate due to a confused attempt at strategic voting. But given the common assumption that Ontario will largely determine which party forms government, I'm surprised there hasn't been more notice of the campaign and results in Durham. There, the NDP somewhat consolidated its second-place position thanks in large part to the type of candidate more easily recruited to an official opposition party - but still has some distance to go in catching up to the Cons.
Meanwhile, the Libs look to have lost the most on the night. While they put up a strong fight in Calgary Centre, the Libs dropped to fourth place in Victoria (which they held as recently as 2006) and lost ground in third place in Durham (which they held until 2004) despite ample promotion of fairly well-recognized candidates. And a fourth-place finish in the total vote only adds insult to injury for a party which still hasn't come to terms with its third-place standing in the House of Commons.
Finally, the Cons performed roughly to expectations other than the collapse of their support in Calgary Centre. While I'd like to think they'd learn some lessons from Joan Crockatt's near-loss in the heart of the Cons' home base, I'll leave it to them to prove they're actually willing to do so - and I'm not holding my breath.
In sum, last night's results serve first and foremost to confirm the dangers of taking anything for granted in Canadian politics. But we'll have to wait a few years to find out whether either that lesson or the support bases assembled for the by-election campaign result in any real change.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- The U.S.' budget negotiations are leading to some public lobbying as to whether wealthy Americans will make any contribution whatsoever to closing the country's deficit. On the plus side, Warren Buffett is renewing his call for a minimum tax for those who can afford it - but the usual suspects are also trying to push yet more freebies for the rich alongside service cuts for those who actually need public support.
- Mike de Souza reports on a much-needed response to the Cons' cuts to First Nations, while Stephanie Levitz notes that the Cons are likewise slashing support for refugees and demanding that private charities pick up the bill.
- Which looks like a rather opportune time to contrast the Cons' plans against Ian Welsh's eminently reasonable proposal as to the starting point we should apply in developing public policy:
- The U.S.' budget negotiations are leading to some public lobbying as to whether wealthy Americans will make any contribution whatsoever to closing the country's deficit. On the plus side, Warren Buffett is renewing his call for a minimum tax for those who can afford it - but the usual suspects are also trying to push yet more freebies for the rich alongside service cuts for those who actually need public support.
- Mike de Souza reports on a much-needed response to the Cons' cuts to First Nations, while Stephanie Levitz notes that the Cons are likewise slashing support for refugees and demanding that private charities pick up the bill.
- Which looks like a rather opportune time to contrast the Cons' plans against Ian Welsh's eminently reasonable proposal as to the starting point we should apply in developing public policy:
If there is one policy point I’d like to make it isn’t a policy point, it’s an ethical one: default to kindness.
Or try kindness first.
In policy terms, the kind thing to do is usually the right thing to do. I’d go so far as to say, almost always.
The first thing you should do, in any policy situation, is ask “what would the golden rule have me do?” Most of the time, this will be the correct policy, which will produce the best results. People who are treated with kindness, in general, reciprocate and are productive. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.- And there's still reason for optimism that most Canadians agree with that focus - despite the massive sums of money the Cons have spent to try to push their anti-social values.
Further, kindness is the default position even with the worst people. If you allow rapists to be raped, you become a rapist. If you torture torturers, you are now a torturer. You do not, in the old phrase, sink to their level. That doesn’t mean being a pushover, it doesn’t mean no justice, it does mean that the State has no business seeking revenge and that the rules, which should default to kindness, apply equally the worst people and the best. This is not just the right thing to do, it is the only thing to do, because the State often decides the best people are the worst people, as even a cursory examination of history will attest, and it very often makes mistakes, as the many errors in capital cases have brought to light. But, again, even if someone is the worst of the worst beyond even the shadow of a doubt, they must be treated with kindness even as they are incarcerated, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because doing anything else degrades those who do it. Torturers are always corrupted by torturing, occupying armies always become weak, corrupt and brutal. You cannot do evil and not be, yourself, scarred by it.
Be kind, and remember, what you insist on your government doing to others changes your government, and will effect (sic) its treatment of you.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
On sad traditions
I haven't commented much on the latest out of the federal Libs' camp. But I'll quickly expand on the similarities noted by Paul Wells between Justin Trudeau and some of his predecessors - who did so much to alienate progressive Canadians during their stay in power:
Now, there's a case to be made that the Libs's most plausible path to put themselves into contention for government in 2015 involves digging the 1993 songbook out of the attic with Trudeau as the new frontman, while concurrently trying to make up a fund-raising gap by echoing the Cons' rhetoric in the hope that the resource sector will want to take them over as a hedge against Con losses.
But as is often the case, there's a massive difference between what's best for the Libs and what's best for progressive politics in Canada. And Trudeau's choice to push the idea that we should see ourselves as a "grocery store" eager to hand over whatever anybody will pay for might make for the most obvious conflict between the two yet.
If the Libs and their presumptive leader in fact plan to compete with the Cons for the title of the most resource-obsessed party while pulling in legacy voters in the process, they'll all too likely succeed only in muddying the waters of a choice between social and corporate values where the progressive side can win - while also raising the likelihood that the next non-Con government will follow the Cons' myopic focus on resource exploitation. And Canadian progressives should take care not to get trapped in that worst of all possible worlds - both in voting in tomorrow's by-elections, and in their choice of focus over the next few years.
The other reason I think Pierre Trudeau would have recognized a familiar style in Justin Trudeau’s announcement is that the older man was hardly immune to taking stances that might alienate the drowsiest elements of his electoral base. He didn’t win three majorities on debating-club points. Take his decision in 1983 to allow Ronald Reagan to test cruise missiles over Canada. (If you take this walk down memory lane, stick around long enough to hear NDP foreign-affairs critic Pauline Jewett’s magnificent rant in rebuttal. “Isn’t this typical? Parliament’s not in session, six o’clock on a Friday afternoon they make the announcement hoping you’re not around either.” Plus ça change.)Of course, at the same time, Chretien paid lip service to fighting climate change without ever figuring out what he planned to do about it, pushed alarmist deficit-fighting and tax cuts ahead of any interest in social programs, and worked to slash the social safety net. And all this after rising to power on a relatively progressive platform - which of course went out the window after it had served its purpose of helping the Libs to win power.
Nor indeed does one need to make connections to Pierre Trudeau to see that Justin Trudeau’s stance has roots in solid, if lately undernourished, Liberal traditions. Winning Liberals have often been natural-resource Liberals. Here’s Chrétien this year at the world’s biggest mining conference in Toronto; he subsidized the oil sands up the wazoo and made an Edmontonian his natural-resources minister.
Now, there's a case to be made that the Libs's most plausible path to put themselves into contention for government in 2015 involves digging the 1993 songbook out of the attic with Trudeau as the new frontman, while concurrently trying to make up a fund-raising gap by echoing the Cons' rhetoric in the hope that the resource sector will want to take them over as a hedge against Con losses.
But as is often the case, there's a massive difference between what's best for the Libs and what's best for progressive politics in Canada. And Trudeau's choice to push the idea that we should see ourselves as a "grocery store" eager to hand over whatever anybody will pay for might make for the most obvious conflict between the two yet.
If the Libs and their presumptive leader in fact plan to compete with the Cons for the title of the most resource-obsessed party while pulling in legacy voters in the process, they'll all too likely succeed only in muddying the waters of a choice between social and corporate values where the progressive side can win - while also raising the likelihood that the next non-Con government will follow the Cons' myopic focus on resource exploitation. And Canadian progressives should take care not to get trapped in that worst of all possible worlds - both in voting in tomorrow's by-elections, and in their choice of focus over the next few years.
Sunday Morning Links
Assorted content for your Sunday reading.
- Michael Geist notes that even as the Harper Cons have done nothing but hand more free money to big pharma through ever more generous patent giveaways, the Supreme Court of Canada has offered a reminder of the bargain underlying our patent system:
- And Jeffrey Simpson highlights just a few more examples of the Cons' choice to hide their anti-social decisions behind a wall of secrecy. [Update: Though PLG is right to note that Simpson is far too willing to declare there's nothing the media can do in the face of the Cons' obfuscation.]
- Finally, Dr. Dawg discusses how smart people wind up voting for anti-intelligence politicians:
- Michael Geist notes that even as the Harper Cons have done nothing but hand more free money to big pharma through ever more generous patent giveaways, the Supreme Court of Canada has offered a reminder of the bargain underlying our patent system:
The Supreme Court was seemingly in no mood for such games as it reminded the parties that the patent system was based on a bargain that Pfizer had failed to meet. In a paragraph that is likely to be quoted for many years, the court stated:- But then, Jesse McLaren writes that the Cons' priorities have nothing to do with the public-interest side of any bargain.
"The patent system is based on a 'bargain,' or quid pro quo: the inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention for a limited period in exchange for disclosure of the invention so that society can benefit from this knowledge. This is the basic policy rationale underlying the Act. The patent bargain encourages innovation and advances science and technology."Disclosure is therefore a crucial part of the patent bargain. The court clarified that this involves not only a description of the invention and how it works, but rather a much more practical level of disclosure "to enable a person skilled in the art or the field of the invention to produce it using only the instructions contained in the disclosure."
In this case, the court found that Pfizer failed to provide sufficient disclosure, since the pharmaceutical giant "obscured the true invention." Pfizer argued that this should not result in invalidating the patent, but a unanimous court found no other alternative. The immediate effect is that the Viagra patent is therefore voided in Canada, which will allow for generic substitutes.
...
Innovation is a laudable goal, yet the court has reminded Canadians that it is only part of the patent equation. Pharmaceutical companies will undoubtedly continue to lobby for more extensive rights before Parliamentary committees and in trade agreements, but the policy focus from governments and courts should be on ensuring that the "patent bargain" remains intact.
- And Jeffrey Simpson highlights just a few more examples of the Cons' choice to hide their anti-social decisions behind a wall of secrecy. [Update: Though PLG is right to note that Simpson is far too willing to declare there's nothing the media can do in the face of the Cons' obfuscation.]
- Finally, Dr. Dawg discusses how smart people wind up voting for anti-intelligence politicians:
This, too, is telling, and a perfect summing-up:
…Watching him being cross-examined by Messrs. Shiller and Caplan - who once used the word “lacuna” in his closing submission, then, for the rest of us not so smart as he is, added helpfully, “that gap” — was a brilliant reminder of why once upon a time, I marked an X by Rob Ford’s name.Big city lawyers with their fancy words. They think we’re stupid. Yeah? By God, we’ll give them stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)