Good advice for B.C. from Dobbin & the ghost of Tommy Douglas

I don’t always agree with Murray Dobbin, but this…

In Saskatchewan where I come from, Tommy Douglas and the CCF (the precursor of the NDP) won power in 1944 in a province totally dominated by a Liberal, pro-business party machine for decades. It won a landslide victory in a media atmosphere of absolute hysteria (headline: CCF will seize farms), fear-mongering and blatant lies. The CCF held power for 20 uninterrupted years. How? It started out as a movement and retained that character for many years afterward. It was deeply rooted in community. People felt ownership of it and its policies and out that came government programs that met the expressed needs of the people. And that, in turn, brought enormous trust in government.

…strikes me as excellent advice. Voter turnout across the country is plummeting. This may be, as some suggest, because Canadians are “lazy” or “complacent”. But I have always suspected that it’s something more serious. People are losing faith in the system. They are voting by not voting. Particularly amongst young people.

However, if there’s anything the last few years have shown – from Occupy/Idle No More/Casseroles/Maple Spring is that there are a lot of young people who do care and who will get politically involved.

Ordinary people don’t need a political party right now. Perhaps they need a movement, one they own.

B.C. WTF – a belated postmortem

Well then…surprise?

What the hell happened? How could a B.C. NDP that looked certain to win a majority not only lose, but lose seats? To Christy Clark?

Voter turnout was low. The kids didn’t show up. Again. The squishy middle sat this one out. No one was excited and/or scared enough to come out…for them. Whether that was because the B.C. Liberals negative campaigning disgusted swing voters into not showing up or because, as The Sixth Estate puts it, people just don’t care anymore

…I can’t say at this point.

I can say this: The simple fact is the B.C. NDP ran a terrible campaign.

Adrian Dix embraced Jack Layton’s theories on positive campaigning, but he lacks one key component Layton had at his disposal in spades.

Charisma.

(And how would Jack have fared under the full fire from the Big Blue Attack Machine? Even The Moustache might have withered)

Dix  is a smart guy. Very smart. But you probably wouldn’t go out of your way to have a beer with him.

The NDP played it safe. Played not to lose. And in doing so allowed the B.C. Liberals to win the” frame the narrative” contest, particularly on social media. As the great Billmon once said…

While liberals sift and weigh the evidence, debate alternative points of view, and reach for that ever elusive “fairness,” the conservative machine sifts and weighs alternative propaganda points, debates the best way to manipulate public opinion, and reaches for power — first, last and always….

The B.C. Liberals lied repeatedly.

They baited NDP reps into ridiculous arguments over semantics & minutiae on the Twitter on their terms.

I tuned it out after a while and hell I’m a political junkie.

But most importantly they successfully made it a referendum on the challengers & not the incumbents. This was an acquaintance from high school’s Facebook status last night:

Cast my first Green party vote ever!! or as i like to look at as an anti Christy cabbage patch doll vote /anti Dix snake vote…worst options ever!!…pointless, but done.

The important part isn’t the bit about the Green Party. It’s why isn’t Christy the snake in this sentence. The ammunition for her snakiness is plentiful. Instead she’s the cabbage patch doll. Which is to say, ultimately harmless.

Which is not the case at all.

If there’s good news for the B.C. NDP, it’s that Christy Clark is still Christy Clark and the B.C. Liberals are still the B.C. Liberals. They have not been magically transformed into competent stewards. They only got this far because our province is blessedly rich. Damage will be done, yes, but this crew will screw up again.

In the meantime, the B.C. NDP needs to fully embrace the 21st century. On energy. On transportation. On social policy.

Or others will.

Notable Linkage: How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

Excerpt:

It’s also worth noting that while economic policy since the financial crisis looks like a dismal failure by most measures, it hasn’t been so bad for the wealthy. Profits have recovered strongly even as unprecedented long-term unemployment persists; stock indices on both sides of the Atlantic have rebounded to pre-crisis highs even as median income languishes. It might be too much to say that those in the top 1 percent actually benefit from a continuing depression, but they certainly aren’t feeling much pain, and that probably has something to do with policymakers’ willingness to stay the austerity course.

How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled by Paul Krugman | The New York Review of Books

In unexpected news, a vainglorious ex-con writes something delusional

Conrad Black, Lord of  Coleman Federal Correctional Complex Crossharbour pens an op-ed – Public sector unions are a blight on our society. Yes, I’m a public sector worker who belongs to a union, but I think any who have the stomach to read this work of fiction will find that it is top to bottom filled with that intoxicating combination of chutzpah and delusion. One could weigh in, for example, on this passage…

Collective bargaining is a defiance of the free market, which is efficient and meritocratically fair.

…and comment that written by a wannabe aristocrat  who also happened to have been born into a wealthy family and thus by accident of chance a recipient of advantages most do not share  - and a man who thought himself so meritorious he helped himself to a little bit extra from the corporate accounts this is…silly. One could mention also that the market is not “meritocratically fair”. Wealth begats wealth. Social mobility – the ability of those born in lower income levels to rise to higher ones (and vice versa) – is lowest in the two advanced economies that have embraced so-called “free markets” the most: The United States and the United Kingdom.

Or one could mention that the teachers whom he labels as sloven philistines seem to perform quite well, thank you very much:

Canadian students are among the top performers in the world, according to an international educational survey of half a million 15-year-olds in more than 70 countries.

Etc. But it’s this statement by Black that really caught my attention:

During the 20th century, as government legislation progressively equalized the rights of the worker with those of the employer, unions became surplus to the requirements of the employed person.

It caught my attention because the above was written on the anniversary of this:

127 years ago today, the Governor of Wisconsin ordered the National Guard to fire upon a crowd of 14,000 workers who had gathered for one simple demand: that their workday be shortened to only 8 hours of physical labor. Seven people died that day and several more were injured in what would come to be known as the Bay View Massacre.

Over the course of the week, there would be several more demonstrations around the country in places like New York, Chicago, and Cincinnati. The battle over the 8 hour workday would last another 30 years and cost many more lives. But, their sacrifice bought us more time to spend with our families and to live our lives our way.

An American example, true. But government didn’t “legislate equalized rights of the worker” out of kindness in Canada either.

The rights workers both public and private sector enjoy today were fought for, and won by, unions. And paid for all to often in blood.

These rights the Conrad Blacks and Stephen Harpers would very much like to roll back.

Compare and contrast: North Korean punditry edition

“The Korean crisis has now become a strategic threat to America’s core national interests.”

Professor Jeremi Suri, New York Times. April 12, 2013. 

“North Korea is an international problem, but it’s not a problem that threatens our security” 

Professor Jeremi Suri, Austin Examiner. April 3, 2013.

One gets the idea Professor Suri is willing to be flexible in the op-ed you wish him to write.

Notable Linkage: Battle of the Wages: Who gets paid more, public or private sector workers? < Economics | CUPE

Excerpt:

The recession and resulting public deficits have put a spotlight on public sector pay and compensation levels. Many governments have enacted pay freezes, pay constraints and are proceeding with contracting out of public services, partly on the perception that public sector workers are consistently paid more than those working in comparative jobs in the private sector. This study uses the most detailed comprehensive data available on earnings by occupation and finds the reality is quite different. Overall average pay in the public sector is very similar to pay for comparable occupations in the private sector. Public sector pay is also considerably more equitable, whether measured by gender, age, occupational group or by region.

Battle of the Wages: Who gets paid more, public or private sector workers? < Economics | CUPE

New gig, old tricks

95% of small business owners? Really? That’s pretty definitive!

Oh…oh wait…

That’s 95% of those that responded to this push poll scientific survey. And how many were there?

1029.

So what Mike really meant to say was “95% of poll respondents who belong to an anti-tax group oppose new taxes.”

The CFIB claims 109,000 members nationally.

The Quiet Anniversary

10 years ago tomorrow (March 20) – an anniversary whose passing is strangely low-key in the media – the bombs began dropping on Baghdad. So began one of the great strategic and humanitarian disasters of our time.

Recommended:

Duty of Loyalty

Yesterday there was a Twitter-storm over this story about Library and Archives Canada’s new Code of Conduct for its employees. It stresses something called “Duty of Loyalty” to the employer, to the government and to elected officials.

“Duty of Loyalty” sounds Orwellian but it is in fact a term from common law. Personally I think it’s fair for an employer to expect that it’s  decisions will not be constantly and publicly undermined by its employees (unless those decisions put public safety at risk).

Ex. The employer puts the Windows 8 operating system on its computers. You hate Windows 8. Is it fair for you to launch a public campaign in an attempt to get the employer to conform to your wishes?

Sometimes an employer will adopt an approach and you think there’s a better way. That happens all the time. But rarely is it black and white. Different strategies have strengths and weaknesses, and decisions may have been made with information you do not have at hand or to address issues the employer may place higher priority on. It’s certainly right for you to bring your concerns to your employer, and any good employer will encourage this from its employees. But for individual employees to constantly refuse to accept decisions is a road to nowhere.

But what about this situation? Let’s highlight a few things from the code:

As public servants, our duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada and its elected officials extends beyond our workplace to our personal activities.

For example, in a blog with access limited to certain friends, personal opinions about a new departmental or Government of Canada program intended to be expressed to a limited audience can, through no fault of the public servant, become public and the author identified. The public servant could be subject to disciplinary measures, as the simple act of limiting access to the blog does not negate a public servant’s duty of loyalty to the elected government.

That certainly sounds chilling and my first reaction was that this certainly violated the Charter. However there was also this:

The duty of loyalty is not absolute. In assessing and making a determination regarding any particular public criticism, the duty of loyalty must be balanced with other interests, such as the public servant’s freedom of expression. The substance (i.e. the content of the criticism), context (i.e. the frequency of the criticism, the forum or medium in which it is made) and the form (i.e. the manner in which the criticism is expressed, e.g. restrained or vitriolic) are all relevant factors. Situations in which an exception is likely to be made to the duty of loyalty include the following: 1. The Government is engaged in illegal acts 2. Government policies jeopardize life, health or safety. 3. The public servant’s criticism has no impact on his or her ability to perform effectively the duties of a public servant or on the public perception of that ability

Mitigating? A bit, maybe, but when you consider the restrictions placed on the employee later in the code it seems, well, ridiculous. On the specifics of that and on future employment for LAC employees and on a “snitch-line” I’m going to outsource to Bibliocracy.

What do the courts say about this? The relevant case-law is here [hat-tip Matthew Lazin-Ryder]

All three cases, even Fraser v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, strike me as tipping this code of conduct over in to Charter-violating territory.

Why? It’s the intrusions into the personal sphere – the belief that even private comments could reach the public.

However, there’s a reason why I’ve bolded elected officials and elected government. That insertion moves this to a whole new level because now you’ve moved from trying to restrict criticism of corporate policy to restricting criticism of politicians and political parties.

Osborne v. Canada (Treasury Board) is clear on where the law stands on this. And this code seemingly runs right up against it, especially where it requires employees seek permission to engage in political activity. And how is political activity defined? Here. The relevant one:

Carrying on any activity in support of, within or in opposition to a political party

Does this mean you need to seek permission to say “Stephen Harper is an idiot” at a dinner party?

It certainly could be perceived that way.

But I’m not a lawyer. And I think it will take a court to resolve this.

Just another example of the restrictions being placed on us in the era of HarperGovtm

Disclosure: I am not a librarian, but I work for a municipal library.

Compare and contrast: Corporate vs. Human Development Edition

Canada has slipped out of the top 10 countries listed in the annual United Nation’s human development index — a far cry from the 1990s when it held the first place for most of the decade…When the numbers are adjusted for gender inequality, Canada slumps to 18th place.

Toronto Star, March 14, 2013

Outgoing Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney famously chided corporate Canada this summer for sitting on mountains of “dead money,” the idle dollars on balance sheets that could instead feed economic growth…The running tally of “dead money” in Canada? About $600 billion, or a bracing 32% of Canada’s GDP, according to an estimate quoted in January by RBC Global Asset Management chief economist Eric Lascelles. To put that big number into context, he noted that U.S. cash reserves account for just 9% of the domestic economy. Yet even the U.S. figures are staggeringly large.

Canadian Business, February 12, 2013

Canada’s Economic Action Plan in, er, action.

Time for more corporate tax cuts.