While political leaders yammer away, big business acts. And it often acts with the active support of their governments and embassies abroad. While the rich world presents itself as the savior of the poor, giant pharmaceutical companies price vital drugs out of the reach of most poor people; asbestos companies export their deadly product, banned in the rich world, to poor countries; tobacco giants, whose boards are choc-a-bloc with former politicians, university presidents and other respected members of the community, ramp up their lavish advertising campaigns to turn poor country citizens into cigarette addicts; mining companies bribe officials of poor countries (who are later denounced for being corrupt) to plunder their resources at minimal cost, paying little in taxes and royalties and less in wages while creating environmental disasters.(Edit: fixed typo.)
What do you call those who have the capacity to reduce hunger, poverty and disease with a stroke of the pen, and fail to act? What do you call those who are knowingly responsible for causing death and suffering to millions of fellow citizens? What do you call those who deny to the poor the benefits that we in the rich world take for granted? You call them the G8.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Well said
The must-read on what the G8 and the G20 ultimately mean comes from Gerald Caplan:
On blanket treatment
Norman Spector's attempt to blame G20 violence on people who have nothing at all to do with it is bad enough on its own. But it's worth paying particular attention to how Spector chooses to frame the treatment of groups of protesters in describing what he claims to be proper means of limiting the amount of violence:
But Spector takes his message much further when it comes to the media in his third point. Never mind focusing on how the media treats violence or vandalism, and certainly never mind distinguishing between the few violent protesters and the thousands seeking to make a legitimate political point. As far as Spector is concerned, all "protesters" and "demonstrators" must be condemned in the press at all times, lest the public otherwise develop any "sympathy" for them or their causes.
Needless to say, that looks to be nothing but a recipe for ensuring that non-elite voices are never heard, whether surrounding a meeting like the G20 or otherwise. And a blanket policy of refusing to even listen to the message from peaceful protesters would only seem more likely to give rise to violence as disaffected citizens go to ever greater lengths in trying to be heard.
Update: Meanwhile, I'm sure Spector will be apologizing to the NDP any minute now.
Second, the destruction of property and other acts of violence were quickly condemned by the Mayor of Vancouver — a former NDP member of the legislature — and the city council, also controlled by the left. They were joined by the opposition party in the provincial legislature (Ignatieff, Layton:are you listening?). Non-elected lefties on the west coast quickly followed suit in condemning the violence.While there's some reason to be concerned with Spector's belief that he's entitled to demand a denunciation at any given moment, I don't otherwise have much of a problem with the points dealing with the condemnation of violence.
Third, the protesters were roundly denounced by the media; in fact, I cannot think of any journalists who expressed even a modicum of sympathy or admiration for the demonstrators, which is not the impression I’ve been getting in reports for the past week from Toronto.
Finally, after some initial hesitation, the violent demonstrations were eventually condemned by the BC Civil Liberties Association.
But Spector takes his message much further when it comes to the media in his third point. Never mind focusing on how the media treats violence or vandalism, and certainly never mind distinguishing between the few violent protesters and the thousands seeking to make a legitimate political point. As far as Spector is concerned, all "protesters" and "demonstrators" must be condemned in the press at all times, lest the public otherwise develop any "sympathy" for them or their causes.
Needless to say, that looks to be nothing but a recipe for ensuring that non-elite voices are never heard, whether surrounding a meeting like the G20 or otherwise. And a blanket policy of refusing to even listen to the message from peaceful protesters would only seem more likely to give rise to violence as disaffected citizens go to ever greater lengths in trying to be heard.
Update: Meanwhile, I'm sure Spector will be apologizing to the NDP any minute now.
Saskatoon Greystone - Peter Prebble to Seek NDP Nomination
James Wood reports on the biggest development to date in what looks to be one of the most hotly contested ridings in the province, as longtime MLA and cabinet minister Peter Prebble has announced his intention to run to retake Saskatoon Greystone. While any nomination meeting will presumably wait until this fall, it would be a surprise if anybody mounts a serious challenge to Prebble now that he's thrown his hat back in the ring.
But what can we expect in the general election? Prebble posted a higher raw vote in 2003 and a higher percentage vote in 1999 and 2003 than Norris managed to achieve in his narrow 2007 victory, meaning that he'll likely rank as a slight favourite despite Norris' incumbency advantage. But there can't be much doubt that the Sask Party will fight tooth and nail to keep the seat, and it'll certainly be worth watching where Norris gets placed in the impending Sask Party cabinet shuffle after two and a half years leading the Wall government's charge against Saskatchewan workers.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
But what can we expect in the general election? Prebble posted a higher raw vote in 2003 and a higher percentage vote in 1999 and 2003 than Norris managed to achieve in his narrow 2007 victory, meaning that he'll likely rank as a slight favourite despite Norris' incumbency advantage. But there can't be much doubt that the Sask Party will fight tooth and nail to keep the seat, and it'll certainly be worth watching where Norris gets placed in the impending Sask Party cabinet shuffle after two and a half years leading the Wall government's charge against Saskatchewan workers.
(Edit: fixed typo.)
The big picture
Alice at Pundits' Guide has put up another fascinating post based on her new database of riding-level fund-raising, this time providing what looks to be the most accurate numbers yet as to what proportion of party income actually comes from Elections Canada's per-vote funding. And for all the rumours of one opposition party or another agreeing to do away with the subsidy in order to harm another, the national opposition parties have in fact taken in nearly identical proportions of their total funding from the subsidy in the time period since 2004 - with the numbers looking more and more similar in recent years.
Having noted that it's far from clear whether anybody besides the Cons would stand to benefit even indirectly from cutting the per-vote funding out of the equation, Alice also offers this reminder about how federal funding rules should be (and once were) developed:
Having noted that it's far from clear whether anybody besides the Cons would stand to benefit even indirectly from cutting the per-vote funding out of the equation, Alice also offers this reminder about how federal funding rules should be (and once were) developed:
(I)f we go too far down the road of allowing the victor to create the rules, that’s the most anti-democratic outcome of all. Whatever I might believe about the merits of public funding of political parties, the fact remains that Prime Minister Chrétien introduced it unilaterally, thus violating a longstanding convention that the parties in the House of Commons would collectively establish rules they could all agree on, a rule that was still in effect as late as the 2000 Elections Act amendments.In fairness, all national parties in Parliament now bear some responsibility for deviating from a convention that made a world of sense. But nobody should be eager to permanently create an environment where the governing party or coalition is in the habit of dictating rules affecting its political opponents - and all of the proposals to change the current funding model should be considered with that in mind.
The second element I hope people will consider is the importance of establishing a principled basis for making those rules, rather than picking some solutions that appear to have a short-term benefit for their own party, but might later be found to have altogether different consequences.
The reviews are in
Bruce Johnstone slams the Wall government's politicization of Saskatchewan's Crowns as part of its general failure to treat them as functional organizations:
The shuffle of Crown corporation heads announced by the Saskatchewan Party government this week bore more resemblance to a game of musical chairs than a serious effort at executive recruitment for companies with billions in assets.
In fact, the intermingling of senior government officials and Crown corporation executives had all the earmarks of a government that regards Crown corporations as mere arms of government, rather than state-owned businesses requiring discrete skill sets and expertise to manage.
...
(T)he Saskatchewan Party, according to its own party policy resolutions, would have us believe that Crowns are "important tools in the provision of utility services to Saskatchewan families and business and important partners in the economic development of Saskatchewan."
Moreover, the Crowns are mandated to "provide high quality utility and insurance services and customer satisfaction to Saskatchewan people at the lowest possible cost." Those seem like fairly apolitical objectives to me.
But what we've seen from the Sask Party government (rather the party of the same name) is the same old political interference and fuzzy thinking that has passed for good guidance and governance for decades.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Burning question
So far, the media spin is that we should blame the G8 for failing to pledge as much money as had been hoped for maternal health in the developing world. But isn't it worth wondering whether the fact that it's Stephen Harper pushing the initiative - having picked fights with the rest of the G8 on issues like climate change and the bank tax in the recent past - might have something to do with the tepid response?
On imbalances
Shorter Murray Mandryk:
The Saskatchewan NDP is facing the same challenges in promoting and supporting female candidates as every other left-to-centre political party in North America has for the past 30 years. So needless to say, the issue is nobody's problem but Dwain Lingenfelter's.
The Saskatchewan NDP is facing the same challenges in promoting and supporting female candidates as every other left-to-centre political party in North America has for the past 30 years. So needless to say, the issue is nobody's problem but Dwain Lingenfelter's.
On police states
(Note: see update below.)
There's rightly been plenty of discussion about the draconian regulations put in place by the McGuinty government surrounding the G20. But it's worth highlighting what strikes me as the most appalling provision of the lot if it's being reported accurately:
But the regulation seems to be designed to provide absolute power to any given police officer testifying about an alleged incident. Never mind if there's videotape of an accused sitting quietly in a coffee shop miles away from the fence, then being apprehended by an officer screaming "I'm going to make an example out of you!". And never mind if the officer involved testifies that the accused was a ten-foot tall, eleventy-hundred pound half-man, half-mule who levitated above the security fence then threatened the lives of hundreds of police officers with a cheese grater. Based on the "conclusive" wording, a judge assessing the accused's guilt is bound to accept the officer's statement, without even considering its plausibility or the existence of evidence to the contrary.
Of course, in that particular case a judge would almost certainly find reason to avoid giving effect to such an absurd result - whether by finding the regulation to be unconstitutional, or by reading in some reasonable limits.
But in cases where there's some surface plausibility to an officer's testimony even if video evidence suggests that it's dead wrong, the McGuinty government has needlessly provided for a single officer's word to be gospel. And that deification of the police - and concurrent vilification of anybody caught in a dispute which in fact involves many different possible sides - looks to make for an extremely dangerous precedent even if the issues surrounding the security lockdown never surface again.
Update: Looking at the regulation itself, the report looks to be somewhat oversimplified: the "conclusive evidence" standard applies only to determinations of "the boundaries of the public work" under the statute involved. That can still raise the same issues where there's a dispute as to where the boundaries actually are, which in turn feeds into the problems with the declaration of a Charter-free zone - but at least it falls somewhat short of allowing officers' testimony to go unchallenged on all points after the fact.
(Edit: added link.)
There's rightly been plenty of discussion about the draconian regulations put in place by the McGuinty government surrounding the G20. But it's worth highlighting what strikes me as the most appalling provision of the lot if it's being reported accurately:
The regulation also says that if someone has a dispute with an officer and it goes to court "the police officer's statement under oath is considered conclusive evidence under the Act."Now, we're hardly lacking for obvious examples of how police abuses have taken place and been denied or covered up by the officers involved. Which would seem to highlight the need to take into account the possibility that an individual officer's word can't be taken as the law of the land.
But the regulation seems to be designed to provide absolute power to any given police officer testifying about an alleged incident. Never mind if there's videotape of an accused sitting quietly in a coffee shop miles away from the fence, then being apprehended by an officer screaming "I'm going to make an example out of you!". And never mind if the officer involved testifies that the accused was a ten-foot tall, eleventy-hundred pound half-man, half-mule who levitated above the security fence then threatened the lives of hundreds of police officers with a cheese grater. Based on the "conclusive" wording, a judge assessing the accused's guilt is bound to accept the officer's statement, without even considering its plausibility or the existence of evidence to the contrary.
Of course, in that particular case a judge would almost certainly find reason to avoid giving effect to such an absurd result - whether by finding the regulation to be unconstitutional, or by reading in some reasonable limits.
But in cases where there's some surface plausibility to an officer's testimony even if video evidence suggests that it's dead wrong, the McGuinty government has needlessly provided for a single officer's word to be gospel. And that deification of the police - and concurrent vilification of anybody caught in a dispute which in fact involves many different possible sides - looks to make for an extremely dangerous precedent even if the issues surrounding the security lockdown never surface again.
Update: Looking at the regulation itself, the report looks to be somewhat oversimplified: the "conclusive evidence" standard applies only to determinations of "the boundaries of the public work" under the statute involved. That can still raise the same issues where there's a dispute as to where the boundaries actually are, which in turn feeds into the problems with the declaration of a Charter-free zone - but at least it falls somewhat short of allowing officers' testimony to go unchallenged on all points after the fact.
(Edit: added link.)
Well said
Mike Burton and Joyce Green respond to the recent merger talk by reminding us of the single change that can do the most to make sure government actions reflect genuine public preferences:
If the objective of representative government and democratic elections is representation and democracy, the fastest way to get it is to adopt a better electoral system. Reforms that would create proportional results would make voting more attractive to citizens, as every vote would go toward electing representatives of parties on the ballot. No longer would people have to vote strategically, choosing the least of electoral evils rather than the party they liked best. Under proportional representation (PR), the votes a party gets translates into an equivalent share of seats in Parliament.
...
The merger story is a trial balloon, designed to see what the public reaction is. The public should shoot that balloon down. We need to deal with root causes of democratic alienation in our system. We need to involve citizens, represent their views, and produce parliaments that will work constructively for the benefit of the public they are supposed to represent.
If we deal with the electoral dysfunction we will not waste time messing around with symptoms. Two Big Parties are not good for democracy.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Nomination Liveblog
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Liveblog
6:30 John Solomon is chairing the meeting, and gets us going on time. As Don has noted, last night saw turnout of 50+ in Lumsden; I'd peg turnout around the same tonight, but with at least a couple of dozen guests in the crowd.
6:35 Barb Dedi introduces the RLLC executive, followed by approval of the agenda. And we're onward...to Solomon's introduction of guests. A few more people trickle in as Solomon reads the rules.
6:44 John Tzupa takes over as balloting chair, followed by Brian Sklar delivering the first speech.
6:46 Brian is introduced by Lorna Standingready (focusing on his resume), Aaron Sklar (discussing his political involvement) and Juliet Eloyfsen (pitching Brian as a strong voice against the Harper Cons).
6:51 Brian begins his speech with a critique of "Silent" Tom Lukiwski as doing nothing but sending mail outs, noting the resource revenue issue as part of the reason Lukiwski was elected.
6:54 On to a sharp policy critique of the Cons ranging from the G8/G20 fiasco to the GST to pharmaceutical patents.
6:57 Still on policy, including child care and the Cons' dumb on crime policies.
6:58 "We have a problem in our own party"...referring to a need to "get tough" and "take back God".
7:00 And I think I just got referenced (as considering Sklar to be in Lingenfelter's pocket). I didn't particularly intend to say that, but always appreciate the shout out.
7:02 Kerry Hecker introduces Don Hansen, painting Don as a voice for the underdog with a strong history in rural and social justice issues.
7:04 Don starts off with some self-deprecation, a noteworthy contrast to Sklar's beginning to the effect that "I'd vote for me" based on his introductions.
7:05 On to an attack on Lukiwski, dealing in particular with a few of Stephen Harper's most notorious quotes.
7:06 Plenty of passion from Don as he slams the Cons' climate change denial and refusal to fund abortions in the developing world.
7:08 On to Lukiwski's "Type B" quote - in its full jarring effect - before noting his failure to do anything to atone after apologizing and claiming to want to make up for it.
7:09 A comparison between churches and political parties, with a statement that both succeed when they're looking outward rather than inward.
7:10 Don discusses his work fighting the child sex trade in the Philippines, telling a story of his participation with indigenous elders in an annual festival for his work protecting children.
7:14 Don closes noting that our goal is not just to win, but to win in order to make the world a better place, with a reference to Woodsworth.
7:15 "For us, politics is not about ourselves,...but about something bigger", referring to Tommy Douglas' "New Jerusalem".
7:16 On to the vote, with 53 registered delegates (exactly matching last night's total). Which will mean radio silence for a bit on this end, as I'll be scrutineering for Don.
7:30 And the winner is...Brian Sklar. As always, congratulations to both candidates, and we'll look forward to making a strong push to retake RLLC.
(Edit: fixed typos as per comment.)
6:30 John Solomon is chairing the meeting, and gets us going on time. As Don has noted, last night saw turnout of 50+ in Lumsden; I'd peg turnout around the same tonight, but with at least a couple of dozen guests in the crowd.
6:35 Barb Dedi introduces the RLLC executive, followed by approval of the agenda. And we're onward...to Solomon's introduction of guests. A few more people trickle in as Solomon reads the rules.
6:44 John Tzupa takes over as balloting chair, followed by Brian Sklar delivering the first speech.
6:46 Brian is introduced by Lorna Standingready (focusing on his resume), Aaron Sklar (discussing his political involvement) and Juliet Eloyfsen (pitching Brian as a strong voice against the Harper Cons).
6:51 Brian begins his speech with a critique of "Silent" Tom Lukiwski as doing nothing but sending mail outs, noting the resource revenue issue as part of the reason Lukiwski was elected.
6:54 On to a sharp policy critique of the Cons ranging from the G8/G20 fiasco to the GST to pharmaceutical patents.
6:57 Still on policy, including child care and the Cons' dumb on crime policies.
6:58 "We have a problem in our own party"...referring to a need to "get tough" and "take back God".
7:00 And I think I just got referenced (as considering Sklar to be in Lingenfelter's pocket). I didn't particularly intend to say that, but always appreciate the shout out.
7:02 Kerry Hecker introduces Don Hansen, painting Don as a voice for the underdog with a strong history in rural and social justice issues.
7:04 Don starts off with some self-deprecation, a noteworthy contrast to Sklar's beginning to the effect that "I'd vote for me" based on his introductions.
7:05 On to an attack on Lukiwski, dealing in particular with a few of Stephen Harper's most notorious quotes.
7:06 Plenty of passion from Don as he slams the Cons' climate change denial and refusal to fund abortions in the developing world.
7:08 On to Lukiwski's "Type B" quote - in its full jarring effect - before noting his failure to do anything to atone after apologizing and claiming to want to make up for it.
7:09 A comparison between churches and political parties, with a statement that both succeed when they're looking outward rather than inward.
7:10 Don discusses his work fighting the child sex trade in the Philippines, telling a story of his participation with indigenous elders in an annual festival for his work protecting children.
7:14 Don closes noting that our goal is not just to win, but to win in order to make the world a better place, with a reference to Woodsworth.
7:15 "For us, politics is not about ourselves,...but about something bigger", referring to Tommy Douglas' "New Jerusalem".
7:16 On to the vote, with 53 registered delegates (exactly matching last night's total). Which will mean radio silence for a bit on this end, as I'll be scrutineering for Don.
7:30 And the winner is...Brian Sklar. As always, congratulations to both candidates, and we'll look forward to making a strong push to retake RLLC.
(Edit: fixed typos as per comment.)
Easily distracted
Shorter Deficit Jim Flaherty:
Remember back when we sent six cabinet ministers to four countries on the public dime to lobby world leaders on behalf of big banks? Complete waste of time, as it turns out. But I got a taxpayer-funded trip to New Delhi, so who's complaining?
(Edit: fixed labels.)
Remember back when we sent six cabinet ministers to four countries on the public dime to lobby world leaders on behalf of big banks? Complete waste of time, as it turns out. But I got a taxpayer-funded trip to New Delhi, so who's complaining?
(Edit: fixed labels.)
Suddenly it all makes sense
It took Brian Topp's theory as to who's calling the shots when it comes to Alberta oil exports to alert me to the possibility. But doesn't the Sask Party's statement that it's receiving instructions from its corporate masters "around the clock" make a lot more sense if it's one of the governments being run from overseas?
(Edit: fixed typo.)
(Edit: fixed typo.)
Thursday Morning Links
- The Cons' international failings have dominated the news lately, it's worth keeping in mind the damage they're doing at home as well - such as the latest phase of their plan to sell off as much as they can push out the door.
- Meanwhile, the NDP offers up another worthwhile idea of the type that tends to get ignored on the federal scene, with Alex Atamanenko proposing a plan for food safety and security.
- James Moore is getting duly slammed for his attacks on anybody interested in fair copyright - including with the new tagline above from Charlie Angus. But it's particularly worth pointing out that the main object of the Cons' "radical extremist" label was being cited by the Cons themselves as the leading authority on copyright just last year.
- Finally, Alice at the Pundits' Guide has added another piece to the puzzle in analyzing the operations of federal parties and candidates. For now, go read her post on riding-level returns and finances - but the new information will be particularly useful in tracking the resources of riding associations in specific ridings over time.
- Meanwhile, the NDP offers up another worthwhile idea of the type that tends to get ignored on the federal scene, with Alex Atamanenko proposing a plan for food safety and security.
- James Moore is getting duly slammed for his attacks on anybody interested in fair copyright - including with the new tagline above from Charlie Angus. But it's particularly worth pointing out that the main object of the Cons' "radical extremist" label was being cited by the Cons themselves as the leading authority on copyright just last year.
- Finally, Alice at the Pundits' Guide has added another piece to the puzzle in analyzing the operations of federal parties and candidates. For now, go read her post on riding-level returns and finances - but the new information will be particularly useful in tracking the resources of riding associations in specific ridings over time.
On precarious situations
Pamela Roth reports on the desperate shortage of housing in Regina and Saskatoon, leading to worsening homelessness problems in both cities. But the issue is all the more tragic given that both cities have made matters worse by contributing to the lack of rental housing:
According to a Salvation Army report on homelessness and poverty in Canada, Saskatchewan reported the highest rate of homelessness, with one in five respondents either experiencing or coming close to experiencing homelessness.Unfortunately, it's tough to share Delaney's sense of optimism that any level of government will be interested in dealing with the problem: the municipal level has had the most direct involvement in exacerbating matters, while the Wall and Harper governments both combine an ideological aversion to dealing with social issues with self-inflicted budget messes which figure to rule out any substantial spending. Which means that the lack of housing in Saskatchewan's cities figures to get far worse before there's any realistic prospect of improvement.
Delaney said the problem began to spiral out of control when the province began experiencing an economic boom a couple of years ago.
Housing prices and rent increased dramatically, she said, leaving those who weren't reaping the benefits of the boom out in the cold.
...
Many apartment buildings in Regina and Saskatoon are also being turned into condos, which has a direct impact on rent prices and the availability of accommodation.
Saskatoon currently has a 1.9 per cent vacancy rate, while Regina is at 1.6 per cent. Delaney said anything below a five per cent vacancy rate means there is an inadequate supply of housing.
"In Regina, right now, housing is an industry and there is a lot of people making money on housing. Our government needs to take responsibility and inject money into it where necessary," said Delaney.
Deep thought
So it's all but official: instead of the prodigiously wrong Rod Gantefoer as Saskatchewan's Minsiter of Finance, we can look forward to...somebody who Brad Wall considers a second choice behind Rod Gantefoer.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Well said
With the Cons now facing international blowback for their efforts to scuttle any global agreement on financial stability, now might be a good time for them to pay attention to Dan Gardner's take:
The Harper government opposes the bank tax on the grounds that a fund for bailing out banks would produce moral hazard. Which is true. But it's hard to see how that's different from a status quo in which everyone knows governments won't let banks fail. Flaherty also argues that Canada's banks didn't need a bailout so they shouldn't have to pay this "punishing" tax, which would be a compelling argument if the tax were about punishing the banks. It's not. It's about insurance. And Flaherty sounds like someone who says he doesn't need fire insurance because the blaze which recently swept through the neighbourhood spared his house.Update: Though to be fair, Gardner is off base just slightly in accepting the zombie lie that Canada's banks didn't receive any bailouts. So that would make Flaherty more like somebody claiming he doesn't need fire insurance even as the flames from neighbours' houses threaten to spread to his own home.
And this is Canada we're talking about. Humility, prudence, caution, insurance: These are practically the words of the national anthem. It would be nice if the government's position reflected these fine qualities at a crucial moment.
Regina Northeast - Bill Wells Competing for NDP Nomination
I didn't get around to posting it earlier, but there's a third candidate currently entered in the NDP's Regina Northeast nomination race: former Regina City Councillor Bill Wells, who doesn't seem to have a website or Facebook page up yet but whose bio can be found in PDF form here.
While the riding only partially overlaps Wells' home turf as a councillor (at least unless the shape of Ward 10 has radically changed in the meantime), his experience as a candidate and name recognition would seem to make him the favourite among the current set of contestants. But Dwayne Yasinowski and David Froh will have plenty of opportunities to win support into their corner before the nomination meeting this fall - meaning that Regina Northeast looks to be yet another hotly contested race.
While the riding only partially overlaps Wells' home turf as a councillor (at least unless the shape of Ward 10 has radically changed in the meantime), his experience as a candidate and name recognition would seem to make him the favourite among the current set of contestants. But Dwayne Yasinowski and David Froh will have plenty of opportunities to win support into their corner before the nomination meeting this fall - meaning that Regina Northeast looks to be yet another hotly contested race.
Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Nomination Wrapup
It's perhaps to be expected following a hard-fought provincial leadership race that some observers have looked for signs of a reprise at every turn. And so, some commenters (on this site at least) have tried to paint all kinds of nomination races as reflecting a continuation of the leadership contest - even when the actual connections to the leadership camps have ranged from slim to none.
That said, for those who are looking for a proxy battle, the Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre NDP nomination race is about as close as we figure to get - even if that's based on supporters behind the scenes rather than public intervention by the any of the leadership candidates themselves.
Which isn't to say that the candidates lack personal strengths that they also bring to the table. For example, Brian Sklar offers a strong public profile as a musician and media figure, as well as plenty of political experience within the NDP. But Sklar is also an inner-circle member of Dwain Lingenfelter's camp, with a support base primarily built around Lingenfelter's Regina machine, and a policy statement that echoes Lingenfelter's word for word.
Meanwhile, Don Hansen has plenty of personal and professional standing as a well-regarded pastor based in the rural part of the riding (Strasbourg and Bulyea). And he goes one step beyond Sklar on the independence side with a distinct set of policy messages based around J.S. Woodsworth's principle of "what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all". But Hansen too was recruited by one of Ryan Meili's key organizers, and his political team is built up primarily of participants in each of the runner-ups' leadership camps.
Of course, it's worth noting that the self-selection of supporters in RLLC is based on personal affinity for different priorities within the NDP's tent, rather than any conscious intention to replay the leadership race from either side. And indeed it likely says something for the unity of the provincial party that the most obvious parallels to the leadership race are actually playing out on the federal stage. But RLLC nonetheless looks to send an important signal as to the relative strength of a couple of the different groups of personalities within the party.
With that in mind, what can and should we expect over the nomination meetings to take place over the next couple of nights?
Endorsement
It won't come as much surprise to regular readers that my endorsement goes to Don Hansen, who took the time to introduce himself to readers in an earlier post.
On my reading, both candidates should be able to pose a strong challenge to the invisible Con incumbent Tom Lukiwski, and it'll be a definite plus to see either as Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre's representative in Parliament. But Hansen looks to offer a much stronger independent voice on all-too-often-neglected issues of poverty and social inclusion both within the NDP caucus and in the broader Canadian political scene. And that focus may be just as important politically as it is as a matter of principle, since the NDP's success in the next election and beyond will depend on its being able to draw sharp distinctions from the Cons' corporatist governing philosophy.
Prediction
So what's most likely to actually happen over the course of the nomination meetings? Sklar's longer-term involvement in the NDP and support of the provincial leader's organization make him the favourite on paper, and it's far from clear how far Hansen's rural advantage will go to overcome those factors. So I'll place the odds of winning at Sklar 65%, Hansen 35%.
But I'll encourage supporters of each side to come together as the provincial party has done in the wake of the leadership race - because whoever wins will have a far better chance of unseating Lukiwski if all sides are able to work together toward that common goal once the nomination is settled.
Update: As a reminder, the nomination meetings will take place tonight, June 23, in Lumsden at the Dew Drop Seniors Centre, and tomorrow, June 24, at the Italian Club in Regina. Registration will start at 5:30, and the meetings will be called to order at 6:30.
That said, for those who are looking for a proxy battle, the Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre NDP nomination race is about as close as we figure to get - even if that's based on supporters behind the scenes rather than public intervention by the any of the leadership candidates themselves.
Which isn't to say that the candidates lack personal strengths that they also bring to the table. For example, Brian Sklar offers a strong public profile as a musician and media figure, as well as plenty of political experience within the NDP. But Sklar is also an inner-circle member of Dwain Lingenfelter's camp, with a support base primarily built around Lingenfelter's Regina machine, and a policy statement that echoes Lingenfelter's word for word.
Meanwhile, Don Hansen has plenty of personal and professional standing as a well-regarded pastor based in the rural part of the riding (Strasbourg and Bulyea). And he goes one step beyond Sklar on the independence side with a distinct set of policy messages based around J.S. Woodsworth's principle of "what we desire for ourselves, we wish for all". But Hansen too was recruited by one of Ryan Meili's key organizers, and his political team is built up primarily of participants in each of the runner-ups' leadership camps.
Of course, it's worth noting that the self-selection of supporters in RLLC is based on personal affinity for different priorities within the NDP's tent, rather than any conscious intention to replay the leadership race from either side. And indeed it likely says something for the unity of the provincial party that the most obvious parallels to the leadership race are actually playing out on the federal stage. But RLLC nonetheless looks to send an important signal as to the relative strength of a couple of the different groups of personalities within the party.
With that in mind, what can and should we expect over the nomination meetings to take place over the next couple of nights?
Endorsement
It won't come as much surprise to regular readers that my endorsement goes to Don Hansen, who took the time to introduce himself to readers in an earlier post.
On my reading, both candidates should be able to pose a strong challenge to the invisible Con incumbent Tom Lukiwski, and it'll be a definite plus to see either as Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre's representative in Parliament. But Hansen looks to offer a much stronger independent voice on all-too-often-neglected issues of poverty and social inclusion both within the NDP caucus and in the broader Canadian political scene. And that focus may be just as important politically as it is as a matter of principle, since the NDP's success in the next election and beyond will depend on its being able to draw sharp distinctions from the Cons' corporatist governing philosophy.
Prediction
So what's most likely to actually happen over the course of the nomination meetings? Sklar's longer-term involvement in the NDP and support of the provincial leader's organization make him the favourite on paper, and it's far from clear how far Hansen's rural advantage will go to overcome those factors. So I'll place the odds of winning at Sklar 65%, Hansen 35%.
But I'll encourage supporters of each side to come together as the provincial party has done in the wake of the leadership race - because whoever wins will have a far better chance of unseating Lukiwski if all sides are able to work together toward that common goal once the nomination is settled.
Update: As a reminder, the nomination meetings will take place tonight, June 23, in Lumsden at the Dew Drop Seniors Centre, and tomorrow, June 24, at the Italian Club in Regina. Registration will start at 5:30, and the meetings will be called to order at 6:30.
The reviews are in
It's a shame it's taken until after the end of the sitting of Parliament for the Cons' dumb on crime legislation to receive the criticism it deserves. But at least we're seeing the right responses now. Here's Marilla Stephenson:
The truly frustrating aspect of the change in law is that it does nothing to speed already slow court dockets that are straining to accommodate cases in often inadequate and understaffed court facilities. The Conservatives, rather than doing something at the front end of the system that could have reduced the "time served before sentencing, have further back-end loaded an already groaning system by tying the hands of judges to prevent them from using their discretion.The Leader-Post editorial board:
And besides mirroring a heavy-handed American justice system, have the Conservatives done anything to demonstrate that eliminating "time served does anything to reduce crime in the first place?
As he finished his term as Canada's first ombudsman for crime victims in April, Steve Sullivan said: "The tough-on-crime agenda will not meet the needs of victims of crime." Sullivan called for "balance" and questioned the 27-per- cent hike in prison spending at a time of falling crime rates.And the Globe and Mail:
Let's be clear: Those who are a menace to society must be removed from it -- and for long periods if necessary.
But one size -- jail -- does not fit all. Locking up thousands more people without offering any evidence that this will increase public safety is itself a miscarriage of justice.
It is unfathomable that the Canadian government would be preparing to more than double annual spending on the country’s jails at a time when almost all other government departments are being held in check, or cut. Never mind deficit reduction. Never mind health care or education. Never mind the environment. Only one thing matters: to be seen as tough on crime.
If the Truth in Sentencing Act costs what Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, thinks it will, the act is reckless and ridiculous. Mr. Page’s estimate is that the costs to run the federal and provincial jails, now at $4.4-billion a year, will rise to $9.5-billion by 2015-16. Sixty per cent of the extra costs, or $3.1-billion a year, would be borne by the provinces. And that’s just one of many crime bills.
If the government didn’t know what the new law would cost, its managerial incompetence is inexcusable. If, as is more likely, it knew but didn’t say, its stealth is unjustifiable. Why would Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been promoting government-wide restraint in the name of deficit control, allow jail budgets to go wild? Why would the government not tell the truth about the Truth in Sentencing Act?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)