Supporting and Opposing #nlpoli

If you get any kind of enjoyment at all out of watching people tie themselves in knots,  point out to a New Democrat that their party supports Muskrat Falls.

Oooo - eee you are in for a ride.

But let's make it clear.  The provincial New Democrats most certainly do not oppose Muskrat Falls.

No sir.  Never have.

Bring out yer dead #nlpoli

In the end there was something perfectly fitting in the way New Democrats dumped their failed leader.

Every pundit around and lots of New Democrats believed that Mulcair would easily pass the leadership test.  They figured he'd have no problem getting close to the 70% vote against a leadership convention.

Last fall, all sorts of people  - including a raft of New Democrats - assumed the party would coast to victory in the general election.  Just 30 more seats to go they told us just before the vote.

And in both cases,  the result was quite the opposite of what everyone believed.

It was Greek to me #nlpoli

After days of intense talks,  the Europeans apparently have finally reached a final deal to help Greece out of its latest financial misery.

Greece is broke.  With a gross domestic product of about US$238 billion, the country had a government debt of about US$346 billion.  Some of the country’s banks have very low reserves of cash.  People have already made a rush and withdrawn their money from them.  This has forced the government to impose a tight limit on withdrawals in order to avoid a bank collapse of the type that hit Newfoundland in 1894.

Under the new deal,  the European Union will place officials in key parts of the Greek government in order to ensure that the Greeks actually implement reforms that are part of the bail-out deal.

It’s a tough response, but then again the Greeks are in a tough economic spot.  The third tough spot, since 2009. For all that, though, there are people around the world who believe the whole problem is imaginary.  They believe that something called “austerity” is the real culprit.  If you just got rid of it, so this way of thinking goes, the Greeks could go back to the way things used to be.

Political Pandermonium #nlpoli

You can tell the election is already going on.  You can tell because of what some of the political workers are doing.

The Liberals are going door-to-door.  They are meeting voters.  They are asking for their votes.  Then the campaign workers write on Twitter and Facebook.about the “glorious day” of campaigning  they’d had.

Politicians tweet as well. The candidates tweet about their campaigning. The elected politicians tweet about the meeting they went to, or a government comment, or questions in the House of Assembly. 
Taking a lesson he learned from Reform Conservative turned Grit turned provincial Conservative Steve Kent, provincial Connie turned Grit Paul Lane goes places,  takes a picture of himself there, tweets it, and then frigs off somewhere else. The selfie makes it look like he stayed at the event.  That’s how he can be in so many places at the same time.

Lane also posts ridiculous pictures like this one about the May 24 weekend.  It’s a stock photograph of an Adirondack chair on a lake somewhere else in North America.

He used the same picture in a string of tweets over the weekend. People on Twitter made fun of Paul.  It looks like Lane had these pictures made as fridge magnets. Paul needs to decide if he has a moustache or not.

NDP leadership rules screw local businesses #nlpoli

Any of the small, local printing companies who usually make a fair bit of cash from political campaigns can keep their printing presses chilled during the upcoming NDP leadership campaign.

Any candidates who make it past the other restrictions must print any campaign materials like flyers and householders in unionized printing plants. The campaign rules released on Wednesday are plain:

“Candidates shall not use non-unionized companies for the production of any campaign material.,  where such services are available.”

That’s great for the largest printer in the province but it shuts out pretty every other shop. 

Dictatorship of the CEO

The party executive will appoint a chief electoral officer to oversee the leadership contest.  Under section 13,  the CEO has the unrestricted right to expel a candidate based on nothing more than a written complaint that a written complaint from a candidate or party member who feels “feels aggrieved by the words or actions of another candidate.”

The CEO can “deal with the complaint in whatever manner she feels is appropriate, including, in severe circumstances, the disqualification of a candidate from the leadership race.”

There is no right of appeal for any decision by the CEO.

Membership

The campaign rules refer to a list of “active” members of the party.  Each candidate will get a list once they’ve been approved.

There’s no definition of “active” member in the party constitution. That leaves the door open for a Cabana-style manoeuver in which party insiders invent conditions and rules to suit their own purposes.

There’s no word yet on the convention itself and how that will run.

-srbp-

NDP votes for “More of the Same” #nlpoli

Gerry Rogers is smiling again now that Earle McCurdy has agreed to be the NDP Kevin Aylward.

If Earle had decided to stay retired,  Gerry was the substitute leader the key inside factions of the party had tapped to fill-in until after the next election.  Rogers would have had to take one for the team, just like her Liberal namesake did in 2007.

Now that McCurdy is in, the party executive will announce some leadership process that either completely avoids a convention (like the Conservatives in 2010) or puts up a sham competition (as in the NDP 2014 leadership review).

Drew Brown recently likened the next NDP leader to the Liberal’s last-minute substitute in 2011.  Fair enough.  Any possible change for the party will come in the future.

The Void #nlpoli

For its last editorial of 2014,  the Telegram decided to discuss the fate of the province’s New Democrats.

A quick summary:  things were good for the Dippers.  Now things are not so good.  This isn’t just a local thing.  It’s happening nationally.  Lorraine Michael has said in year-end interviews she likely won’t be around for long after the next election.

Lorraine has been wonderful, the editorial says. It good that she’s going to leave.  After all , why “would Michael want to obscure her legacy by presiding over such lean times?”

Talk about ending on a wrong note.

Rational. Disciplined. Principled. #nlpoli

Back at the start of the current Conservative administration in 2003, they were very sharply aware of the problem with using one-time revenues for day-to-day spending.

They were so concerned about using that one-time money that they tried to get the federal government to do the impossible, namely give the provincial government here a permanent handout equal to oil revenues, in addition to the oil revenues that the provincial government collected.

Then they tried to get the federal government to exclude those one-time revenues from the Equalization formula so the provincial government could get the oil money and the hand-out at the same time. That didn’t work either.

The one thing the Conservatives didn’t do – for all their rhetoric about independence – was to act like a responsible, independent government.  They didn’t manage public finances for the long haul.

The left-wing conservatives #nlpoli

In 2010,  the provincial Conservatives had a chance to reinvigorate their party in time for the 2011 general election.  They deliberately stuck with an interim leader in order to avoid what they considered a potentially divisive leadership contest.

After the 2011 election, the Conservatives kept Kathy Dunderdale, even though she’s made it clear when Danny Williams quit in 2010 that she was planning to retire and had no further political agenda or objectives of her own.

Kathy Dunderdale finally decided to retire in 2014.  The Conservatives had a second chance to reinvigorate their party.  They chose to pass on the chance, opting for a leader picked by some sort of back-room deal.

Opposition Syndrome #nlpoli

Politics is often about compromise.

Compromises are great when they work.

They suck when they don’t.

The provincial New Democrats spent a week in a leadership crisis that climaxed with a two-day caucus retreat complete with a hired, professional meeting facilitator.

The result is the worst possible solution for the New Democrats if they are interested in being a viable competitor in the next provincial general election.

Where there’s smoke… #nlpoli

Four members of a political caucus don’t usually demand their leader’s resignation unless they had a reason... or a bunch of reasons that built up over time.

As it turns out, the number of people unhappy with Lorraine Michael’s leadership style is a lot more than a small faction.

-srbp-

The New Undemocratic Party #nlpoli

At the end of the first full day of the political crisis inside the New Democratic Party, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador learned more about the party than anyone likely imagined they’d ever know.

Two members of caucus – George Murphy and Gerry Rogers -  showed they are freaks of nature:  they have even less backbone than the average provincial Conservative cabinet minister.  Well, either that or they cannot read plain English. 

That’s about the only choices you have once the pair of them tried to claim the letter they signed to leader Lorraine Michael wasn’t a request for a leadership  review but just a request for a meeting.

The most striking, and in many ways the most startling news, is about Lorraine Michael and the cabal running the provincial NDP.

The Night of the Pen Knives #nlpoli

Sometimes political party leaders get to chose how they leave the job.

Other times they don’t.

The Liberals punted Leo Barry out of the leadership in 1987.  The entire caucus handed him a letter demanding his resignation after her went off to the States on a trip.  Now the truth be told, the trip wasn’t the cause of the caucus revolt.  The trip just brought everything to a head.

In Lorraine Michael’s case, the New Democratic Party leader came back from a holiday to find an e-mail from her four caucus mates demanding she take a hike in 2014 so that the party can “renew” before the next provincial general election.

A party like the others #nlpoli

Among the oldest of old Canadian political jokes is that you went to the Tory conventions to drink, the Liberal conventions to get laid, and the NDP ones to pick up pamphlets.

Well, as it turns out the NDP have now joined the ranks of the old parties.  The Ottawa Citizen reported last Thursday that the NDP national director and deputy director have written a formal apology to a young staffer after she was – allegedly – on the receiving end of of unwanted attention from a donor at a fundraising event, whom the paper identifies as subjected to Jack Layton’s former communications director.

The Citizen also reported that junior staffers helping to run the were left to fend for themselves after the people in charge left the venue without notice.  The paper describes the unnamed individuals as “sloppy drunk”.

No threat #nlpoli

In a meeting of the committee that manages the business affairs for the House of Assembly, the Tories approved an additional $150,000 for the Liberals.  The New Democrats got nothing, even though they have a significantly larger caucus.

Check this CBC report for a good synopsis.

The Tories used a 2008 report to justify the extra Liberal cash.  Back then, they denied the Liberals the cash recommended by an independent review and, instead, rewarded the New Democrats.

You can take all the political chatter about this little episode but don’t spend too much time on it.  Instead focus on what this little play by the Tories says about their opinion of which party poses the bigger political threat to the Tories.

Hint:  it ain’t the Liberals.

And frankly, that’s a pretty sensible call at this point.

Since last October, the provincial Liberals haven’t done anything to suggest they are sharper than they used to be, more focused or anything else positive. In fact, if anything, the Liberals have actually slid backwards. A series of internal problems garnered the caucus some embarrassing headlines.  Their media work – such as it is – remains clunky and amateurish.  There’s no sign they are doing anything to develop an A Game, let alone bring it. More money isn’t likely to make any difference to them.

On the other hand, more money would have let the New Democrats hire staff to reinforce the ones they’ve got.  The Dippers have been hitting the Tories hard lately;  well, a lot harder than the Liberals. If they’ve been able to do damage with few resources you don’t need much of an imagination to figure out what they could do with more.

So let’s see what happens over the next few months.

The Tories have never been more vulnerable:

• Sound financial management, accountability and transparency? That’s been pretty much demolished by the latest Auditor General’s report. 
• The Kiewit story points back to some serious problems with the 2008 Hebron deal.
• We are pushing up on the latest deadline for Nalcor to cut a deal with Emera on Muskrat Falls.
• Public opposition to the Muskrat Falls proposal is growing.
• There’s trouble at the mill in Corner Brook.
• The government is likely to run real deficits over the next few years:  money will be tighter.

Let’s see which of the opposition parties – if either – can actually score any points against the Tories.

The Tories have already shown us who they think is a bigger political threat.

How good is their assessment?

- srbp -

The NDP and Regressive Social Policy: education #nlpoli

those who are interested in education policy and the current election campaign will be fascinated by a chunk of one conversation that broke out on Twitter Sunday. 

Two of the participants were Mark Watton, former Liberal candidate in the Humber West by-election earlier this year and Brad Evoy, a New Democratic Party supporter and former vice president (academic0 of the Grenfell campus Student Union in Corner Brook.

They were discussing NDP policy that would make post-secondary education in Newfoundland and Labrador free to any students.

This is an edited version of the conversation, but one that tries to preserves both the flow of the exchange and the thrust of Evoy’s position.  Evoy starts off on accessibility and then morphs into a wider argument:.

Watton:  Just because something costs money, doesn't mean it is inaccessible. …a viable investment i.e. one which individuals, as well as the state, can make.

Evoy:  That's mighty well and easy for you to say, Mr. Watton, but it is not so for many NLers.

Watton:  on what basis do you make that statement?

Evoy:  Again, individual investment should not prohibit what is best for our common good. …Aside from knowing those who suffer under debt loads and turn away from PSE due to cost? … So there is some with the ability to be affluent, that doesn't mean all can….Question now, would you even dare suggest the same for Primary and Secondary Education… As in our society some level of PSE is now as needed just as well as those, in many fields…would it not be better to remove personal wealth from the equation all together? … Is it not more equitable for students to be judged on their merit and pay tax when…...they are all established well enough to do so? That's the idea here….Some form of PSE is quickly becoming an employment baseline...... in many professions. We require skilled persons in our economy.

Watton:  so if something is an employment baseline the state should pay for it for everyone?

Evoy:  Aren't we already doing so from the period when high school was exactly that? …And, again, it's a baseline for many professions and some won't have the academics…

Free or low tuition has been a popular idea for decades.  The arguments in favour f it usually centre on accessibility for people from lower income families.

The only problem for people who make accessibility their foundation is that there isn’t any substantial evidence to support the claim about accessibility and free tuition.

Take a recent study from Ireland as typical.  Kevin Denny of the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a paper in may that looked at the impact of the Irish government policy that wiped out tuition fees in 1996. His conclusion is that eliminating tuition fees had no effect on university attendance by students from lower income families.

What did it do?

The only obvious effect of the policy was to provide a windfall gain to middle-class parents who no longer had to pay fees. [p. 14]

In a footnote Denny indicates there is some reason to believe that these families wound up shipping their children to private schools.  that would likely have had the effect of improving their academic performance which further disadvantaged children from lower income families in the competition to enter university.

Overall, while the numbers of students from low incomes went up after 1996, so too did the number of students from other  family income levels.  The effect was such that the proportions of students in university did not change significantly for the better with the elimination of tuition fees.

Flip back up to Evoy’s comments for a second and look at this bit:

would it not be better to remove personal wealth from the equation all together? … Is it not more equitable for students to be judged on their merit and pay tax when…...they are all established well enough to do so?

The effect of free tuition is the opposite, according to Denny.  It doesn’t take personal wealth out of the equation.  Rather, free tuition delivers a windfall to those who could already afford to send their children to university or who can afford it moreso than those on low incomes.

Incidentally, you can find similar conclusions to Denny’s work in other studies.  A 1990 paper by Benjamin Levin titled  “Tuition fees and university accessibility” noted that university students in Canada tended to be from families where one or both parents had university degrees.  University graduates earned, on average considerably more than non-graduates.  As such, free tuition would tend to provide a disproportionate advantage to those who were better able to pay for education anyway.

That’s without considering that the cost of a university education in this province is already unconnected to the actual cost of the education.  This is especially true in medicine and the other professions where incomes are higher and the ability to repay substantial loans would be much better than say a typical Arts graduate. 

And the other thing these studies have in common is that they found that other factors  - besides tuition fees - affect access to post-secondary education.

If accessibility is the goal, there are other ways to deal with it.  Levin argued that targeted programs were a better way to go.  Means tested grants, for example, or changing the ratio of student loans and grants based on student financial circumstances would help to ensure that students from low income families would not be disadvantaged because of fees.  In the professions, governments can do more of what they do now with a variety of cash incentives as well as provide means-tested grants.

What’s most interesting about the New Democrats and free tuition is the ease with which they have adopted what is essentially a regressive social policy. 

While New Democrats like Evoy talk about accessibility and how the party represents “ordinary” Canadians,  their solution is a blunt tax cut or subsidy approach that appears to be better suited to Conservatives. That’s especially striking in the case of free university tuition where research shows that eliminating fees doesn’t improve accessibility. 

It does, however, provide financial advantage to people who are already better able to pay tuition or people who would be better able to pay in their future career.

The NDP.

Not Tommy Douglas’ socially progressive party any more.

- srbp -

Good to the last vote: NDP paints own caricature #nlpoli

Your humble e-scribbler said it most recently just a few days ago:

The two opposition parties are less concerned about the financial costs.  Instead they are making the most of sounding like they want to do something while at the same time advocating more and more spending to prop up this bit of the industry or that bit.

The province’s New Democrats unveiled their fisheries policy on Thursday.  It calls for increased government intervention in the fishery and an essentially open-ended commitment to public spending to keep plants open that are no longer financially viable or that are having problems due to excessive government intervention in the fishery already.

Here are some choice bits from the very brief NDP news release:

[NDP leader Lorraine] Michael says government must immediately reopen the plant [at Marystown] while the audit is going on, giving workers more employment.

The NDP wants the federal government to help fund the scheme in a perversion of the Employment Insurance system that looks more like make work than not:

In addition to demanding the immediate reopening of the plant, today the NDP is calling for the redirection of traditional Job Creation Partnership-type programs into the plant to ensure long term employment for fish plant workers.

And if that wasn’t enough, the New Democrats want to increase the government role in the fishery even more:

Michael also noted that since the plant is currently closed, the redfish concession given to OCI, which was agreed to by plant workers in order keep the plant open, should be revoked until the plant is reopened.

Now everyone should know that this specific release is aimed at a seat the NDP thinks they can win.  But the principle behind it is exactly what your humble e-scribbler predicted.  The NDP want to continue the Frankenstein experiment in social engineering begun decades ago with a return to the worst of the policies that helped create the current mess in the first place.

You couldn’t write a better parody of an NDP fisheries policy if you tried.

- srbp -

The Politics of Cynicism: even worse than thought edition #nlpoli

If they accidentally accumulate enough credits to a form a government after the next election, the provincial New Democrats will keep taxing small business income at 14%.

What the provincial party announced last week was a very small reduction in the rate that applies only on the first $500,000 of business income.

So what was dishonestly torqued as a 25% reduction (a one percentage point reduction from four percent to three percent)  solely to make the policy appear to be much more significant that it was is actually even worse for what the release did not include.

Just to add to the crass manipulation the New Democrats engaged in last week, consider New Democrat candidate Gerry Rogers’ words at  the news conference announcing the NDP’s small business policy. 

Here’s the version from the Telegram:

“Absolutely, it’s important for the NDP to be seen as pro-business,” Rogers said.

“I think the NDP is clearly pro-business, pro-development, but only in as much as it’s good for all the people of the country.”

Yes, important “to be seen as”.

But not as important to actually be, it seems.

People wonder how the New Democrats would pay for the cut.  truth is they wouldn’t have to.  If the local economy grows at the optimistic rates forecast by some people – and business income grows along with it -  small business will fork over as much or more when they pay 14% on amounts over $500,000.

So what would a real small business policy look like?

Well, if tax cuts are your thing, you could increase the amount of income covered by the lowest rate.  Apply the four percent rate to the first $750,000 or even first million of small business income.

That would be a real tax cut, not the charade the Dippers offered last week.

Reduce red tape.  Don’t just engage in the charade the Tories did over the past seven years.  Seriously reduce the weight of unnecessary regulation.  The fishery is probably one of the finest examples of an industry almost breaking down under the weight of completely useless paperwork and restrictions.

The current system reduces thousands of people in the province to little better than wage slavery and perpetual dependence on government hand-outs to make a very meagre living.  Your humble e-scribbler highlighted that idea, among others,  a few months ago:

The third idea is for the provincial government to abolish processing licenses with the elaborate red tape restrictions that go with it.  The current system helps to keep too many people and too many plants working in an industry featuring low wages, limited capital for investment and with no prospect that new workers will enter the industry to keep it going.

The Dippers couldn’t do that, of course, since it would seriously shag up the fisheries union on which the NDP depends for so much support.  Since the provincial NDP is basically the political arm of the province’s unions, with a few other people along for the ride, there’s no way they could make a meaningful change to help everyday  people every day, whether they are workers or small business owners.

But the NDP will issue news releases that make it seem like they would to something.

Because, after all, it is important for politicians to be seen to be [insert the phony value of the moment here].

- srbp -

Uniting the Left: a reminder

So with the Liberal meeting in Ottawa, the idea of uniting the left is coming back around again.

Not surprisingly, Liberal leader Bob rare is pissing on the idea.
Now Bob’s reasoning may be somewhat different than the one your humble e-scribbler offered last June but the point still holds up:

Meanwhile over on the left, the New Democrats united with the other left wing party – the Bloc – and became the official opposition. Now they’ll basically face the same sort of question the Conservatives already addressed.  There’s no guarantee how they’ll answer it nor is there a correct answer.

… 

Do they head toward the centre, as other successful left-wing parties have done, or will they continue to embrace their ideological base and potentially kiss power good bye? 

Put another way:  Is Jack Layton going to emulate Tony Blair or Michael Foot?

And that’s really the point.  The left wing in the country is already united.  The Bloc and the NDP merged even if the Blocists weren’t willing partners to the political marriage.

Put another way, the Bloc NDP essentially pulls together the ideological left in the country.  At the same time, the NDP is well on its way to morphing from being a national party with representation in all the regions of the country to a party representing regional interests nationally.

Meanwhile, the Liberals remain a coalition party that has, historically, shifted ideologically from the centre left to centre right based on the dominant trends in the country.

So if Denis Coderre wants to frig off to join the Bloc NDP, he can certainly go ahead.

But since the ideological left is already united, why would the Liberals – a federalist party of the political centre that long ago rejected reactionary politics of the left and right – ever want to join with the Dippers or the Connies, for that matter?

- srbp -

 

*  edit to eliminate repetition.

Cleary quits as federal NDP candidate

Ryan Cleary won’t be carrying the New Democratic Party banner in the next federal election.

Cleary ran for the party in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl in 2008, lost, took up a job as a talk show host, quit that gig supposedly because he wanted to spend more time with his family and then sought the Dipper nod in the same riding almost immediately afterward.

Perhaps he expected a quick election call.

Cleary posted a note on his blog:

I wish to advise the constituents of St. John’s South-Mount Pearl that, effective Oct. 27th, I resigned as NDP candidate for the federal riding, and as a member of the party — severing all affiliation. I’ve written several articles in recent months for publication and hope to write more, which creates a professional conflict. You cannot be a politician and a journalist — it’s one or the other. I’ve chosen to return to journalism, my profession of almost 20 years. I would like to say a sincere thank you to the people who have supported me politically. It’s been a humbling and eye-opening experience, and my passion and drive will continue to be directed towards the betterment of Newfoundland and Labrador.

No word yet on a possible replacement for Cleary.

Several recent converts might make good candidates.

- srbp -