And that was the budget. It was full of interesting things, but you wouldn’t know it based on the fact that absolutely everybody was fixated on the deficit figure, and barely even that it was built on a super cautious, pessimistic framework that basically presented a worst-case scenario in terms of assumptions, meaning that the only place it really could go was up, and yes, if the economy grows enough, then the budget will start to balance itself. The child benefit changes are the big news, and as for reaction, the Conservatives call the budget a “nightmare” while the NDP rail about all of the promises that it didn’t keep (because everything should have happened immediately).
Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau
Roundup: McQuaig’s “lessons learned”
Former NDP star candidate Linda McQuaig penned a column in the Toronto Star about her “lessons learned” after two unsuccessful attempts at running for office (and no plans to run again), and as one could expect, it’s a little self-serving. In it, she bemoans her loss of freedom to discuss topics thanks to party discipline and central messaging, and the fact that she knowingly walked into a trap about oil sands staying in the ground despite the fact that it went against the party line. Her takeaway: that the rush to avoid complexity and controversy infantilises voters, and somehow the NDP’s apparently popularity over their position on C-51 (despite the fact that it too was facile and unworkable, according to the very same security experts they cited over the bill’s problems) must somehow be an indication of they’re actually hungry to be treated like citizens. It’s a bit of a leap in logic because part of what the issue was when she went against the party line was that after it happened, she went into lockdown and didn’t really talk her way out of what she said, and the spin machine of “you want to destroy the energy industry” filled that silence. It was a self-inflicted wound that could have been managed, but wasn’t. As for her contention that voters are looking for adult conversations on issues, that may very well be true, but the NDP weren’t offering it while the Liberals certainly were better suited for it with their comprehensive platform. What we got from the NDP were some platitudes about “competent public administration” and promises to balance the budget based on fuzzy numbers (and recall that their first “costed” platform document was little more than buzz-words with dollar figures attached that meant nothing). So really, if you think that voters want an adult conversation then provide them with one, not what the disingenuous platitudes being offered (that C-51 could be repealed wholesale, that the NDP “only needed 35 more seats,” word games over the “federal minimum wage,” the aforementioned fuzzy costing documents). Voters aren’t as stupid as the campaign was treating them. Michelle Rempel responds to McQuaig here, while Rob Silver had a few other comments over the Twitter Machine.
1. She started as a reporter 42-years ago. How is it possible that she didn't pick up how elections work (for better or worse) in that time?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
2. Is her argument that if Mulcair had "let" her say what she really believed (party platform be damned) the NDP would have done better?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
3. If the answer to #2 is yes, does she have any evidence for that beyond "the NDP was doing well in the summer…because C51" because…
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
4. If her personal views are political winners (per her), what would have happened to her if she had expressed herself freely all campaign?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
5. Given that she knew that "party discipline" is a thing (again, for better or worse), why did she decide to run not once but twice?
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
6. It's not like Mulcair kept it a secret that he was running on a platform that diverged pretty clearly from her lifetime of writing.
— Rob Silver (@RobSilver) March 18, 2016
Roundup: Bruised feelings helping nobody
In yet another write-up of the creation of the new Independent Working-Group in the Senate, we’re seeing a repetition of certain themes, and an omission of some other, more fundamental issues at play such as privilege and Independent senators running their own affairs, in part because you have a group of journalists who aren’t quite sure what to look for and what questions to ask – and it’s not helped by some of the senators at the centre of the issue feeding into those narratives instead of talking about the other issues at play. The narratives, of course, have to do with partisanship in the institution. Those senators who have left caucuses are quick to talk about the blind partisanship eroding the credibility of the Senate, and media observers who are unfamiliar with the Senate outside of the salaciousness of the ClusterDuff affair glom onto this kind of talk because it confirms all kinds of notions that they’ve held without much in the way of actual challenge. Meanwhile, senators who are still proud party members are proving particularly thin-skinned about the whole thing.
Sen. Dagenais told The Hill Times that after reading the six Senators’ press release, he was “upset” and “disappointed” that they questioned the “credibility” of the parliamentary work of Conservative and Liberal Senators because they’re affiliated with political parties.
“I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I don’t accept this,” said Sen. Dagenais.
I won’t deny that there has been a certain tone of moral superiority by some of those senators who have left their caucuses, and it can feel like a bit of a slap in the face to others. At the same time, I think that some of the counter-protestations, that senators who leave their caucuses should resign (per Senator Tkachuk) or that that the notions of a non-partisan Senate are an inherent breach of privilege and would render the Chamber non-functional (per some of the arguments of Senator Housakos, among others) are also way beyond the pale. And yes, some of this has been fed by Justin Trudeau’s talk about how wonderful a non-partisan Senate would be, as though it’s partisanship that’s the problem rather than a question of degrees. No, partisanship is not a bad thing – in fact, it’s fairly healthy in a democracy, and the Senate reflecting that diversity of political opinion is a good thing. What has been a problem are the degrees to which senators, particularly new ones, have taken their partisanship, and it cannot be understated that nearly all of the Conservative senators took it a little too far in demonstrating their loyalty and commitment to putting forward Stephen Harper’s agenda, but they were also very poorly trained upon appointment, and they took the wrong lessons to heart. That is not the fault of partisanship – it’s the fault of a party leadership that was trying to exercise levers of power that didn’t exist in the Senate, and they tried to create some using sentiment and a sense of personal loyalty to the man who appointed them. Now, things are swinging violently in the other direction and babies are being thrown out with bathwater. Partisanship doesn’t make the chamber a bad place, nor does a group of senators looking to try a new way of doing things make their efforts illegitimate. This is a bold new era, and both sides need to stop this constant state of upsetting each other. There is room in our parliament for parties and independents, and the sooner they stop this game of offending one another, the faster we can proceed with a credible modernisation process.
Roundup: Cullen tries to game the debate, again
Nathan Cullen is at it again with his attempts to try and skew the electoral reform debate in his direction. Not content to try and game a future Commons committee with “proportional” (but actually not even remotely proportional) membership, Cullen insisted yesterday that the government set up a citizen’s assembly to run a parallel kind of consultative process in order to really make sure that they’re hearing from all the right voices, and so on. Of course, what Cullen isn’t saying is that this is but one more dishonest tactic in trying to hijack the process into delivering the system that his party prefers. But how do I know that this is what the outcome would be? Well, a couple of things, the first is of course the bias for reform that these kinds of assemblies are set up with, and in the kinds of “eminent Canadians” that Cullen seeks to lead this assembly. You can just about imagine the names on his shortlist (Ed Broadbent, Craig Scott, etc), but one really doesn’t have to look very far. Political academia is very much biased in favour of reform, as is the majority of punditry in this country. The fix is very much in when it starts. Also, the experience of the citizens assembly in Ontario that recommended MMP in advance of the ill-fated Ontario referendum on a new electoral system is a kind of demonstration as to how these assemblies become convinced as to the magic that these new systems will apparently bring – they are in an environment where the current system is not adequately explained or represented, and they wind up favouring a system which purports to maximise on the supposed benefits, in this case MMP. Fairness! Local representation! Cooperation! Votes counting! Forget the usual caveats about logical fallacies and magical thinking that these proponents engage in, they are essentially being sold a time-share in Mexico, and make no mistake that by the end, they will sign up for it. It also feeds into the narrative that PR-enthusiasts like to dine out on, about how people just don’t understand how great PR/MMP is, but because those in the citizen assembly really got to learn about it, they understood just how awesome and magical it is, so they really get it. Cullen is trying to tap into all of this – convince your assembly that the preferred MMP system is the way to go, you suddenly have moral authority to pursue it in parliament for all it’s worth, particularly if the government is reluctant to put it to a plebiscite. Cullen is more transparent than he thinks he is, which is why this new plan deserves to be treated with scepticism.
Roundup: A “third party” option
Six senators have taken the first steps to forming their own quasi-caucus with the Upper Chamber, as a means of trying to better sort out how to deal with life as independent senators. The list includes former Conservatives, Liberals and Independent Progressive Conservative Elaine McCoy, and they are calling themselves a “working group” as opposed to a caucus or party. Their aim is to get “third party” status that will allow them to better control their own destiny. Currently, party whips in the Senate control not only committee assignment duties, but also office allocations, parking spaces, trips for inter-parliamentary delegations, and all of those other administrative details that independents currently don’t have access to. Rather than turn over those kinds of details to Senate administration, they are looking to come up with a means to start controlling it themselves, which is important because it protects their privilege as Senators, which is important in how they govern themselves and are responsible for their own affairs. This is a very important consideration, and as the Chamber continues its process of forced evolution and change with the advent of decreasing partisanship and a greater number of independents on the way, because it has the potential to find a way through some of those process hurdles that are currently tripping them up. We’ll see how many other independent senators join this working group – after all, official party status in the Senate requires five members, which they have for the moment but at least one of their number is soon to hit the mandatory retirement age, and it would be incumbent upon them to keep their membership numbers up in order to carry on carrying on with their own affairs. This will hopefully help have systems in place for when the new senators start arriving, some of whom may opt to stay independent (others of course free to join a caucus if they wish), and allow these senators to assign one of their own as a kind of “whip” to deal with the administrative duties, and hopefully get more resources for their offices when it comes to things like research dollars. Overall, though, it will hopefully give them some organisational clout so that they are better able to answer stand up to the current oligarchy of the party structure in the Senate. Elsewhere, Senator Patterson has tabled a bill to amend the constitution and remove the property requirements for Senate eligibility (which I previous wrote about their relative harmlessness).
#indp #SenCa announcemement https://t.co/UphTnIzagq #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/8Lg1JLlW1c
— Elaine McCoy (@SenElaineMcCoy) March 10, 2016
Roundup: A cynicism prescription
We’re still talking Trudeau’s trip to Washington? Of course we are. Today some of it was a bit more oblique, but during his video town hall with Huffington Post, Trudeau was repeatedly asked about Donald Trump, and most of it he tried to avoid answering, talking about how lovely Cape Breton is (context: it’s become a kind of joke about how Americans fleeing Trump would move there), but he did offer that Trump would likely tone down his rhetoric should he win the nomination and start running for the general election instead. He did offer a few other, broader comments on what he’s witnessed in the American election cycle, about the cynicism that is on full display, and how it may need broad-based campaign finance reform like we saw here in Canada in the late nineties, and again after Harper came to power in 2006, where we got big money out of our politics. He’s got a point, but one suspects that there is more than just campaign finance laws that are broken in American politics. As for the big state dinner, Stéphane Dion said that it will help showcase that environment and the economy can exist together, as evident by some of the choices (like Catherine McKenna’s apparently inclusion). Meanwhile, it looks like we can probably expect an announcement on protecting the environment in the Arctic, as well as some overdue progress on thinning the border.
Roundup: Getting their attention
The upcoming trip to Washington DC continues to headline the news, and introducing Trudeau to the American audience was that segment on 60 Minutes, which wound up being fluffy and pretty lazy – particularly when they used a photo of actress Kim Cattrall in place of Margaret Trudeau. Oops. The celebrity factor could still play well for Trudeau, as it allows him to reach Americans in a way that most other politicians can’t, and it could serve Canadian interests well if we can push forward on some of our issues while we have their attention. One of those issues is softwood lumber, which is up for re-negotiation, but may wind up being another fraught battle, between changing circumstances since the last deal, and American election season making any deal on their end unpalatable, but at the same time, it could wind up back in endless litigation, which one expects that nobody wants to deal with. While Trudeau may not be able to get the issue solved on this visit, it could be an opportunity to get some wheels in motion and put some momentum behind it. But then again, with everyone concerned about the optics of the state dinner, and the celebrity aspects that come with it, we’ll see if any actual issues will penetrate the American consciousness.
'@60Minutes I have a son who is the Prime Minister of Canada? I couldn't b more proud. @CBCTheNational pic.twitter.com/EiqzzJJjOl
— Kim Cattrall (@KimCattrall) March 7, 2016
Roundup: Anticipating the road trip
With the First Ministers’ meeting now out of the way, attention is turning to Justin Trudeau’s trip to Washington DC next week, and what will happen there, and naturally, what it all means. At least five ministers will accompany him on the trip – though not necessarily to the state dinner, which is going to apparently be quite the event. Obama is apparently looking to Trudeau to be a partner for green initiatives, and indeed Trudeau will be hosted by an environmental group with a known anti-oilsands agenda (to the protests of Conservative MPs). Trudeau, for his part, is being introduced to the Americans first by appearing on 60 Minutes where he will be seen in a more serious light than his appearance in Vogue, and part of his message is that he wants Americans to be a little more outward looking and pay attention to other countries. Of course, the one topic that must not be spoken of is the presidential nomination process, for which Trudeau cannot (and indeed must not) make any kind of pronouncements on other than that he won’t comment on the internal politics of another country. Not that it won’t stop everyone from asking while he’s down there (because you know they all will, Canadian and American media alike), but he’s savvy enough of a politician not to say anything. Instead it’ll likely be a litany of platitudes about trade, trying to thin the border, and thanks for Canada’s renewed contribution in the conflict with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. And the requisite celebrity questions and requests for selfies, of course.
Roundup: Mindless PR propaganda
There are times when will indulge my masochistic streak. Yesterday was one of those days, when I took a deep breath, girded my loins, and read that Broadbent Institute “report” on Proportional Representation. And then proceeded to roll my eyes and sigh the whole way through it. To say that it’s an intellectual exercise would be an insult to critical thinking or, well, actual intelligence. No, it was but a mere collection of platitudes masquerading as serious argument (and it should not surprise me considering the source). If you too want an exercise in masochism, or you desperately want to hate-read it, it’s here, but I wouldn’t waste my time. The highlights consist of “OMG First-Past-the-Post is old!” and a bunch of charts that show how terrible “false majorities” are, except that there is no such thing as a “false majority” because the popular vote figure is a logical fallacy that neither reflects how the system is constructed, nor how elections are run. In fact, nowhere in the document does it actually give a proper recounting of how our system works, where you have 338 separate-but-simultaneous elections that each decide on who occupies a single seat to form a parliament, and that parliament determines who forms government based on who can command the confidence of the Commons. Instead, it calls FPTP elections “horse races” while proportional representation is “sharing the pie” (not how the system works – at all), and then talks at length about “fairness.” It talks about “wasted votes” as if they were a Thing as opposed to an expression by sore losers for whom votes only count if the person they voted for wins. It makes a bunch of bullshit platitudes about how PR will magically increase voter turnout (not true) and ignores that declining voter turnout is a widespread problem across all democracies regardless of electoral system. Accountability? Apparently not an issue because you have all kinds of parties to vote for! And any criticisms of PR? Brushed off and not actually explored. The worse sin of all, however, is the way in which it treats the political process, as though the vote were the end-all-and-be-all of engagement. False. Completely and utterly false, and that’s part of the problem that the magical thinking of PR advocates in general. You see, our system starts with joining a party, where you then participate in policy discussion leading up to resolutions at biennial policy conventions, and in participating in nomination races for candidates. Riding associations act as liaisons with caucus members to relay concerns, even if your riding is not represented by your party of choice, and one actively participates in the system. The ballot box is but one small facet of that process. But most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it in schools, and PR advocates prey on this ignorance to push for their own magical solutions to perceived problems without a proper understanding of the ecosystem or the mechanics. So no, unless you’re going to represent the actual system, then no, you’re not having an honest discussion about PR, and that’s exactly what this report was – dishonest, jejune, and a sad waste of everyone’s time.
Oh, FFS. Just because you didn’t win doesn’t mean that your vote was wasted. It just means you’re a sore loser. pic.twitter.com/5OYZHt1KYd
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 2, 2016
https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705081823639031808
https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705082136756424705
https://twitter.com/fatbertt/status/705083872577507328
Roundup: Go knock doors
While I’ve pretty much said my piece on the Manning Conference, one last headline caught my eye yesterday, which was the “Traditional campaigns dead! It’s a digital world now!” variety, which made me roll my eyes a bit, but here it is. The “experts” – all American – talk about how Facebook and digital ads are where it’s at instead of TV advertising, but it seems to me like they missed entirely what happened during the last federal election – you know, something that the Conservatives might have a vested interest in actually learning from their mistakes in, rather than what is going on south of the border, with their utterly insane primary season and unlimited corporate and private money. Because seriously, if they paid attention to what the Liberals did here, it was actually a lot of traditional campaigning, which was door-knocking. Yes, they flooded social media with their “days of action,” which featured candidates and their teams – wait for it – door-knocking. There wasn’t a series of YouTube or Facebook ads that won the election for the Liberals – in fact, the only commercial that anyone remembers is the one with Trudeau on the escalator, and mostly because everyone tried to mock it (not all of it effectively). How often in the last decade did we hear about the Conservatives’ fearsome electoral machine with their CIMS database, and how that was helping them cut swaths though campaigns based on the smiley and frowney faces of voter identification? It didn’t win them the election. Yes, the Liberals rebuilt their own voter identification database (“Liberalist”), but again, what was it used for? Door-knocking, and canvassing donations, but it also bears noting that the Liberals did not spend the most money, disproving that money is what wins elections. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll take the words of these American “experts” that the Conservatives enlisted with a grain of salt, while the traditional shoe-leather method of direct voter engagement and going from door-to-door is putting in the hard work that won a majority of seats.