September 15, 2009
Topp's slow debut
Like Myblagh I welcome Brian Topp's debut as a Globeandmail.com blogger, but his first piece was a rather tired piece of partisan revisionist history. I hope articles about the latter term vision of the NDP, what the NDP can add to the Canadian political discourse, or what concessions would possibly represent an acceptable deal for the NDP to keep the Conservatives in power are in the offing. Those subjects, at least, would be NEWsworthy.
September 13, 2009
An interesting tack
Should there be an election this fall, the NDP is going to need a talking point (or two) for why they should be returned to office. One that curiously stands out for me is that with a $56 billion dollar deficit (and growing), Canadians are going to want to have the NDP around the table when the tough cuts and budget decisions come down. Otherwise, without the NDP present, who is going to fight for provincial transfers, who is going to draw the line on health care, who is going to stand up for investments in education, and who is going to chart out a "green jobs" vision that will help see that this economic recession isn't just a recession like any other but one that also sees Canada come out ahead on the environmental AND economic efficiency front? The Liberals certainly didn't in the 90's. Neither did the Reform Party or what remained of the PCs, and we all saw what Harper's plan for the recession was last Fall when Flaherty promised to unaccountably cut $2 billion in public spending and sell $2.3 billion in government assets (which if he is as smart as Mike Harris means cutting off a bunch of revenue generating schemes for the government as well).
I think it is also fair to take politics local and criticise some of the places and the ways that "stimulus" money has been spent. There have been a lot of frivolous projects, providing little value to the community other than the jobs they created. In some ways, federal and provincial governments has been in a foot race to fritter away public money and the Conservatives are as guilty as any. Probably the most glaring fact to this effect, and also possibly part of the reason why the stimulus has been slow to move out and slow to take a big effect, is that we don't live in a manual labour style economy anymore- we live in a overwhelmingly service sector economy. The solutions that made sense in the '30s make a lot less sense today. In fact, a better investment in terms of job creation might have been hiring childcare workers (e.g. investing in the service sector). Just consider who would have been hired. Child care spending would have required stable financing and thus potentially no tax cuts. Similarly a greater investment in home energy audits and other green services might have generating more jobs and signaled where Canadians values' were.
This isn't to say that some infrastructure investments weren't necessary, Conservative's laughable "application-based" funding notwithstanding, but that the emphasis could and probably should have been placed on the purchase of services (just given our economy's composition). Also, anything that reduced/reduces our dependence on oil is also probably a good move considering the way high oil prices have been choking all the but the resource sectors of the Canadian economy each time there is a price hike.
I think it is also fair to take politics local and criticise some of the places and the ways that "stimulus" money has been spent. There have been a lot of frivolous projects, providing little value to the community other than the jobs they created. In some ways, federal and provincial governments has been in a foot race to fritter away public money and the Conservatives are as guilty as any. Probably the most glaring fact to this effect, and also possibly part of the reason why the stimulus has been slow to move out and slow to take a big effect, is that we don't live in a manual labour style economy anymore- we live in a overwhelmingly service sector economy. The solutions that made sense in the '30s make a lot less sense today. In fact, a better investment in terms of job creation might have been hiring childcare workers (e.g. investing in the service sector). Just consider who would have been hired. Child care spending would have required stable financing and thus potentially no tax cuts. Similarly a greater investment in home energy audits and other green services might have generating more jobs and signaled where Canadians values' were.
This isn't to say that some infrastructure investments weren't necessary, Conservative's laughable "application-based" funding notwithstanding, but that the emphasis could and probably should have been placed on the purchase of services (just given our economy's composition). Also, anything that reduced/reduces our dependence on oil is also probably a good move considering the way high oil prices have been choking all the but the resource sectors of the Canadian economy each time there is a price hike.
March 7, 2009
ONDP convention
I haven't commented on the ONDP leadership race since November 3rd but that doesn't mean I haven't followed it.
With the new leader to be chosen within about 6 hours time, I have to say this has been a roundly disappointing campaign. After the party set the entry fee at $20,000 it pretty much guaranteed that nobody interesting would run. It was a truly myopic decision. As such, for the last few months, we have essentially watched a bunch of open air caucus meetings between four MPPs who pretty much agree on everything. Disagreements in this campaign have hinged on banal strategy, peppered with ironic platitudes like:
A: the answer is organise, organise, organise.
B: Isn't that what a leadership campaign is about? If you can't pull it off in a leadership race, how the heck are you supposed to do it as a publicity-less leader or in an election campaign when you actually have to compete against strong parties?
A: We need to talk to more people
B: Once again, if you're such a great leader how come you aren't talking to these people already or in advance of a well telegraphed leadership campaign? Then again, if you wanted to talk to more people, why not let them talk to you? You know, by setting the entry fee for leadership of the new moribund party a little lower than 20G.
Finally, I would have liked to endorse a candidate in this campaign, but sometimes you just have to vote none of the above. All of the candidates have serious flaws. All are lacking in the charisma department. I fully expect Andrea Horwath to win, but she has struck me as everything young(ish) and nothing new. Peter Tabuns is the only one I could see pulling an upset. Michael Prue will finish last. Horwath was NDP campaign co-chair of the 2007 provincial election. Go fish.
With the new leader to be chosen within about 6 hours time, I have to say this has been a roundly disappointing campaign. After the party set the entry fee at $20,000 it pretty much guaranteed that nobody interesting would run. It was a truly myopic decision. As such, for the last few months, we have essentially watched a bunch of open air caucus meetings between four MPPs who pretty much agree on everything. Disagreements in this campaign have hinged on banal strategy, peppered with ironic platitudes like:
A: the answer is organise, organise, organise.
B: Isn't that what a leadership campaign is about? If you can't pull it off in a leadership race, how the heck are you supposed to do it as a publicity-less leader or in an election campaign when you actually have to compete against strong parties?
A: We need to talk to more people
B: Once again, if you're such a great leader how come you aren't talking to these people already or in advance of a well telegraphed leadership campaign? Then again, if you wanted to talk to more people, why not let them talk to you? You know, by setting the entry fee for leadership of the new moribund party a little lower than 20G.
Finally, I would have liked to endorse a candidate in this campaign, but sometimes you just have to vote none of the above. All of the candidates have serious flaws. All are lacking in the charisma department. I fully expect Andrea Horwath to win, but she has struck me as everything young(ish) and nothing new. Peter Tabuns is the only one I could see pulling an upset. Michael Prue will finish last. Horwath was NDP campaign co-chair of the 2007 provincial election. Go fish.
February 10, 2009
Measuring Richard Marois
So the intended byelection in St Lambert was gone before it ever arrived, and while it is impossible to speculate on what the result would have been in a race where the people of Saint Lambert were not casting a vote to determine the party in government, it is worth evaluating any change in the NDP's performance in the riding during a general election.
2006 Election
NDP 7.4% (-0.1% provincial average)
Spending $1,193
no rebate
Rank among NDP riding results in Québec: 35/75
2008 Election
NDP 14.5% (+2.3% provincial average)
Spending: not yet reported
Rebate achieved
Rank among NDP riding results in Québec: 17/75
As one can easily see, there was a significant improvement in the NDP's results despite the byelection being called off and zero history of the party in the riding. What deserves the credit for the improvement? Was it the candidate, the better funding and party attention, the demographics? What does this say about the NDP's ability to boost Québec ridings, through select attention maybe on the basis of candidate strength or demographics, to a more competitive status? What implications does this have for wider NDP competitiveness in Québec?
2006 Election
NDP 7.4% (-0.1% provincial average)
Spending $1,193
no rebate
Rank among NDP riding results in Québec: 35/75
2008 Election
NDP 14.5% (+2.3% provincial average)
Spending: not yet reported
Rebate achieved
Rank among NDP riding results in Québec: 17/75
As one can easily see, there was a significant improvement in the NDP's results despite the byelection being called off and zero history of the party in the riding. What deserves the credit for the improvement? Was it the candidate, the better funding and party attention, the demographics? What does this say about the NDP's ability to boost Québec ridings, through select attention maybe on the basis of candidate strength or demographics, to a more competitive status? What implications does this have for wider NDP competitiveness in Québec?
February 8, 2009
Liberals going BC retro
The Liberals are understandably cagey about revealing their political strategy for B.C. – where the Conservatives surged to a new high last fall – but the elements of a winning game plan are fairly straightforward, analysts say: Mindful of the recession, they must recruit high-profile candidates with economic credentials. They should once again prepare a B.C.-specific campaign platform to demonstrate an affinity for the province. And, finally, to unite the centre and left-of-centre vote, they must sell the party as the only serious entity capable of defeating the Harper government.
link
Sound familiar? That's because this pretty much matches Paul Martin's BC strategy in 2004. It wasn't a roaring success, but it also didn't bomb (at least in the first election). At this point I guess that's what qualifies as successful for the Liberals.
Liberal BC strategy post mortem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
