NDP leadership hopefuls were "surprised" when Adrian Dix caught them off guard by materializing a large number of ethnic block voters at the last minute before last week's deadline. Well I wasn't, because "surprsing" people is something of an Adrian Dix specialty. As I tried to warn people back on December 6 , Dix wasn't "mulling" a leadership bid, he was planning it. And one of the things he was planning was a secret block ethnic vote, to be sprung upon opponents at the last moment so that they could not respond in kind.
His tactics reminded me of a passage in Auditor General George Morfitt's Report on the Fast Ferries, which noted that Glen Clark's Ministerial Assistant was already lining up contractors whiile Clark was Minister of Employment and Investment in 1994-95. That Ministerial Assistant was, of course, Adrian Dix. What he and Clark were doing was ensuring that potential opponents of the scheme would be presented with a fait accompli before they had a chance to properly assess the program's merits. All in the interest of "jobs" and "getting things done" of course, but it wasn't good public policy. And in his daily modus operandi as Principal Secretary, he routinely preferred the element of surprise to the enlightenment of dialogue.
Dix may have scored a tactical victory with his latest stunt, but in so doing he may have also revealed how little he has really changed.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
What Will Become of Gordon Campbell's Progressive Policy Legacies on FIrst Nations and Climate Change?
Many observers of BC politics, myself included, were positively impressed by the two great policy U-turns of Gordon Campbell’s tenure in office. One was the New Relationship with First Nations peoples, in which the premier decisively put his failed opposition to the Nisga'a Treaty and the awkward and embarrassing experience of his much-criticized 2002 plebiscite on the Treaty process behind him, and instead, issued an official apology to First Nations in the 2003 Throne Speech , beefed up and renamed the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, accepted in principle shared decision-making and access to resources, championed the Kelowna Accord, and even concluded the second modern treaty, with the Tsawwassen people, in 2007.
The other great policy reversal, on climate change, was even more unexpected. The government's record on environmental issues in its first term was dismal, with its most noteworthy actions on the climate change file being its opposition to the federal government’s ratification of the Kyoto Accord and its planned construction of three coal-fired power plants. Premier Campbell then claimed to have had an epiphany in 2006 when he visited Beijing on a particularly smoggy day; as a result almost one-third of the February 2007 Throne Speech was devoted to stating the government's commitment to action on climate change and related initiatives. These included the creation of a Climate Action Team to develop sector targets and to make recommendations on how to make the government carbon neutral; establishment of a $25 million Clean Energy Fund; new legislation to capture methane emissions from landfills, and the creation of a new Citizens' Council to help raise public awareness. In place of his previous emphasis upon the costs of mitigation and adaptation , the premier now stressed that BC's actions to combat climate change were "right for the economy". Later in 2007, BC became the first province to join the Western Climate Initiative. These steps were followed in 2008 by an even more controversial step: a revenue-neutral carbon tax that was claimed to be "among the broadest and most comprehensive in the world", and the only carbon tax in Canada other than in Kyoto-loving Quebec. (Ironically, the government has done far more to combat climate change during the Great Recession than it did during its first term in office, which was ostensibly dedicated to economic recovery.)
In addition to having a similar timetable and authorship, these policy changes shared a shrewd underlying political strategy: to build support in two areas where the NDP's predominance had hitherto been taken for granted. The political risks of the carbon tax and lingering resistance to treaties were offset by the political advantages of a more divided opposition. (Unfortunately for Mr. Campbell, no such offset existed with respect to the HST).
Nevertheless, all of these parallels between the aboriginal and environmental files should not be allowed to obscure a fundamental difference between them. Although each of these policies depended upon the personal initiative and support of the premier, the strategy of reconciliation with native peoples has in fact much deeper roots in cabinet, party, and civil society, in particular the business community, which rightly sees the settlement of treaties as a prerequisite to more intensive economic development of the land base. The statement by a leading candidate to succeed Campbell, George Abbott, that he would include a question on the future of the carbon tax in a future referendum, indicates a desire to legitimate a reversal of this green policy while minimizing the environmental backlash. But returning to such a device in the context of treaties with First Nations would be unthinkable; it would no doubt prompt accusations of betrayal and create far more division and opposition than it would avoid.
Abbott's proposal in fact reflects a far shallower commitment to the climate change policies of Gordon Campbell within the Liberal Party and its supporters than there is to the New Relationship. Enlightened self-interest indicates that there can be no turning back on the Treaty process, and no desire to return the uncertainty and conflict of the past. The Liberal Party's key constituency, the business community, is far more ambivalent about carbon taxes and green regulations--its lukewarm support has come from the guarantee that carbon taxes would be offset by corporate and personal income tax reductions, but global revenue neutrality has not meant revenue neutrality for every sector. Transportation, agriculture and rural economies of every kind tend to be hit harder by fuel cost increases. Needless to say, the energy sector--which has recently surpassed forestry as the leading source of government revenues--is hit harder as well.
In short, expect the Cabinet Committee on Climate Action, chaired by the premier, to disappear some time after the Liberals anoint their new leader next spring; for the projected increases in the carbon tax to be reduced or eliminated altogether; and for British Columbia to sink to the middle rung of Canadian provinces when it comes to tackling climate change. But also expect the reconciliation between the province and First Nations to continue along its gradual but necessary historic path.
The other great policy reversal, on climate change, was even more unexpected. The government's record on environmental issues in its first term was dismal, with its most noteworthy actions on the climate change file being its opposition to the federal government’s ratification of the Kyoto Accord and its planned construction of three coal-fired power plants. Premier Campbell then claimed to have had an epiphany in 2006 when he visited Beijing on a particularly smoggy day; as a result almost one-third of the February 2007 Throne Speech was devoted to stating the government's commitment to action on climate change and related initiatives. These included the creation of a Climate Action Team to develop sector targets and to make recommendations on how to make the government carbon neutral; establishment of a $25 million Clean Energy Fund; new legislation to capture methane emissions from landfills, and the creation of a new Citizens' Council to help raise public awareness. In place of his previous emphasis upon the costs of mitigation and adaptation , the premier now stressed that BC's actions to combat climate change were "right for the economy". Later in 2007, BC became the first province to join the Western Climate Initiative. These steps were followed in 2008 by an even more controversial step: a revenue-neutral carbon tax that was claimed to be "among the broadest and most comprehensive in the world", and the only carbon tax in Canada other than in Kyoto-loving Quebec. (Ironically, the government has done far more to combat climate change during the Great Recession than it did during its first term in office, which was ostensibly dedicated to economic recovery.)
In addition to having a similar timetable and authorship, these policy changes shared a shrewd underlying political strategy: to build support in two areas where the NDP's predominance had hitherto been taken for granted. The political risks of the carbon tax and lingering resistance to treaties were offset by the political advantages of a more divided opposition. (Unfortunately for Mr. Campbell, no such offset existed with respect to the HST).
Nevertheless, all of these parallels between the aboriginal and environmental files should not be allowed to obscure a fundamental difference between them. Although each of these policies depended upon the personal initiative and support of the premier, the strategy of reconciliation with native peoples has in fact much deeper roots in cabinet, party, and civil society, in particular the business community, which rightly sees the settlement of treaties as a prerequisite to more intensive economic development of the land base. The statement by a leading candidate to succeed Campbell, George Abbott, that he would include a question on the future of the carbon tax in a future referendum, indicates a desire to legitimate a reversal of this green policy while minimizing the environmental backlash. But returning to such a device in the context of treaties with First Nations would be unthinkable; it would no doubt prompt accusations of betrayal and create far more division and opposition than it would avoid.
Abbott's proposal in fact reflects a far shallower commitment to the climate change policies of Gordon Campbell within the Liberal Party and its supporters than there is to the New Relationship. Enlightened self-interest indicates that there can be no turning back on the Treaty process, and no desire to return the uncertainty and conflict of the past. The Liberal Party's key constituency, the business community, is far more ambivalent about carbon taxes and green regulations--its lukewarm support has come from the guarantee that carbon taxes would be offset by corporate and personal income tax reductions, but global revenue neutrality has not meant revenue neutrality for every sector. Transportation, agriculture and rural economies of every kind tend to be hit harder by fuel cost increases. Needless to say, the energy sector--which has recently surpassed forestry as the leading source of government revenues--is hit harder as well.
In short, expect the Cabinet Committee on Climate Action, chaired by the premier, to disappear some time after the Liberals anoint their new leader next spring; for the projected increases in the carbon tax to be reduced or eliminated altogether; and for British Columbia to sink to the middle rung of Canadian provinces when it comes to tackling climate change. But also expect the reconciliation between the province and First Nations to continue along its gradual but necessary historic path.
Friday, December 17, 2010
The Best Men for the Job of B.C. Premier are Lawyers: Leonard Krog and Mike DeJong
Now that I have thrown poison darts at Adrian Dix and Christy Clark, let me say something more positive about someone.
As a lifelong observer of BC politics, a political scientist of a decade's standing, and as someone who was a public servant for 5 years, I have reached the reluctant, somewhat boring and no doubt unpopular conclusion, that lawyers generally make better premiers than non-lawyers. They are simply more 'careful' about what they say and do, and in more than just a 'political optics' sense. Getting things done properly in today's world of government, is a highly legalistic exercise.Process is NOT for cheese, folks. It is the basis of nearly all good policy decisions, especially in this Charter era, and good lawyers are naturally good at it.
Furthermore, if efforts at electoral reform continue to fail, and we cannot achieve moderation of government by tinkering with institutions, perhaps we can achieve it by changing the character of the leading decision-makers themselves. Tom Berger and David Vickers are not available, unfortunately, but a couple of pretty good lawyers are.
There are two leading candidates who have discharged the responsibilities of electede office after undertaking reasonably successful law practices. While they are not the only potential candidates who meet these two basic criteria, I think that they are the safest bets among the candidates on offer.
Leonard Krog has been an effective parliamentarian, particularly on the BC Rail file. He has done a little more than De Jong both in his law office and in his family life, which should hold him in good stead.
Mike De Jong has been one of the more solid cabinet ministers, holding down a number of sensitive posts with only a whiff of scandal----he, like Falcon and Clark, was close enough to someone who was close to the BC Rail decisions, and will have some questions to answer.
So, if you want to make a prudent decision, choose someone who makes prudent decisions for a living. Choose one of these two guys.
As a lifelong observer of BC politics, a political scientist of a decade's standing, and as someone who was a public servant for 5 years, I have reached the reluctant, somewhat boring and no doubt unpopular conclusion, that lawyers generally make better premiers than non-lawyers. They are simply more 'careful' about what they say and do, and in more than just a 'political optics' sense. Getting things done properly in today's world of government, is a highly legalistic exercise.Process is NOT for cheese, folks. It is the basis of nearly all good policy decisions, especially in this Charter era, and good lawyers are naturally good at it.
Furthermore, if efforts at electoral reform continue to fail, and we cannot achieve moderation of government by tinkering with institutions, perhaps we can achieve it by changing the character of the leading decision-makers themselves. Tom Berger and David Vickers are not available, unfortunately, but a couple of pretty good lawyers are.
There are two leading candidates who have discharged the responsibilities of electede office after undertaking reasonably successful law practices. While they are not the only potential candidates who meet these two basic criteria, I think that they are the safest bets among the candidates on offer.
Leonard Krog has been an effective parliamentarian, particularly on the BC Rail file. He has done a little more than De Jong both in his law office and in his family life, which should hold him in good stead.
Mike De Jong has been one of the more solid cabinet ministers, holding down a number of sensitive posts with only a whiff of scandal----he, like Falcon and Clark, was close enough to someone who was close to the BC Rail decisions, and will have some questions to answer.
So, if you want to make a prudent decision, choose someone who makes prudent decisions for a living. Choose one of these two guys.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Bullet-in for Adrian Dix: Don't even think about it
"We need an NDP with progressive policies and a decisive leader who can communicate these ideas to the public." ---Jenny Kwan
TRANSLATION:
By "progressive policies", Jenny means more left-wing than Carole James's or Gregor Robertson's moderate ways.
By "decisive leader" , she means a return to more centralized strong-arm Glen Clark style governing.
By "who can communicate these ideas to the public", she means the one person (other than Gregor Robertson) who can get on the News Hour on a regular basis.
She means the Hollow Man. That proven fraud artist (remember the back-dated memo? That was practically the only thing he ever put down on paper), Glen Clark's right-hand man, his partner in crime (Yes, it was Adrian who was lining up those fast-ferry contractors so that therewould be a fait accompli before anyone knew better). That "bright and amiable" fucking thug (I have direct quotes from people who witnessed Adrian blacklisting and firing Corky Evans supporters).
The one person who exemplified what was wrong with the Clark government even more than Clark himself did.
That's Right. Mr. "Process is for Cheese" himself.
Of course, he might be the perfect opponent for Christy Clark--who has two things in common with him.
First, they both were spectacular failures while they were in government.
Second, they both stand for the proposition that politics should be about the six o'clock news, rather than the other way around..
God Help Us.
TRANSLATION:
By "progressive policies", Jenny means more left-wing than Carole James's or Gregor Robertson's moderate ways.
By "decisive leader" , she means a return to more centralized strong-arm Glen Clark style governing.
By "who can communicate these ideas to the public", she means the one person (other than Gregor Robertson) who can get on the News Hour on a regular basis.
She means the Hollow Man. That proven fraud artist (remember the back-dated memo? That was practically the only thing he ever put down on paper), Glen Clark's right-hand man, his partner in crime (Yes, it was Adrian who was lining up those fast-ferry contractors so that therewould be a fait accompli before anyone knew better). That "bright and amiable" fucking thug (I have direct quotes from people who witnessed Adrian blacklisting and firing Corky Evans supporters).
The one person who exemplified what was wrong with the Clark government even more than Clark himself did.
That's Right. Mr. "Process is for Cheese" himself.
Of course, he might be the perfect opponent for Christy Clark--who has two things in common with him.
First, they both were spectacular failures while they were in government.
Second, they both stand for the proposition that politics should be about the six o'clock news, rather than the other way around..
God Help Us.
First thoughts about the resignation of Carole James
I thought james lacked the gravitas to be a good premier, but I feel the same way about Jenny kwan. Farnworth, Krog, Simpson and Robertson all have warts but could do the job.
Good thing about Adrian Dix: He is their purest, most professional politician.
Bad thing about Adrian Dix: He is their purest, most professional politician.
Good thing about Adrian Dix: He is their purest, most professional politician.
Bad thing about Adrian Dix: He is their purest, most professional politician.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
George Abbott is Good to be Lucky
Christy Clark's steady and deserved fall from being the Deputy Premier and Vaughn Palmer-anointed "future of the Liberal Party" in 2000-2001 has been followed by Carole Taylor's quasi-retirement and Colin Hanson's Icarus-like doom from flying too high and too close Gordon Campbell and the HST. While Christy Clark remains popular within the party and has had a high public profile, she has been a repeated failure, whether as Education minister, one of the engineers of Stephane Dion's leadership, or as an impatient candidate for the Vancouver mayorlty. That just leaves five serious contenders: Kevin Falcon, Mike De Jong, Rich Coleman, Moira Stilwell, and George Abbott.
Moira Stilwell benefits from being both a woman and being relatively unknown--a serious advantage in a party that has been in power for nearly a decade and is in need of a facelift. But much depends on the personal relationships between the remaining candidates. Would their mutual respect and insistence that success in cabinet portfolios cause them to pull for each other on the final ballot, or would mutual animosity cause them to pull behind someone else? I think that if the personality clashes were that serious, they would have been obvious by now. That probably rules out Stilwell making it to the last round. But, of the final four, Kevin Falcon would seem to be the most compromised by his proximity to Gordon Campbell. His wings were not burned, like Hanson's, but they were badly singed.
So that just leaves Coleman, De Jong and Abbott. Rich is the least telegenic of the three, and made a big splash when as Minister of Forests his brother became rich by having his land taken out of the Forest Land Reserve. That just leaves De Jong and Abbott on the final ballot.
My hunch is that De Jong, who along with Farrell-Collins constituted the "fifth column" that replaced Gordon Wilson and David Mitchell with the Campbell crew way back in 1993, has the most favours to call. But my sense is that the avuncular Abbott, who has been quiet, competent, has more teflon and has probably tread upon fewer toes, will appeal to the Liberal Party's urge for politically expedient image renovation. Lucky, to be sure. But he also worked hard to get into this position.
So that's my best guess, right now. Unless the 65-year-old Carole Taylor tosses down her Chancellor's robes and makes a case for being the "caretaker" premier for the next 2-6 years, I'm putting my money on George Abbott.
Moira Stilwell benefits from being both a woman and being relatively unknown--a serious advantage in a party that has been in power for nearly a decade and is in need of a facelift. But much depends on the personal relationships between the remaining candidates. Would their mutual respect and insistence that success in cabinet portfolios cause them to pull for each other on the final ballot, or would mutual animosity cause them to pull behind someone else? I think that if the personality clashes were that serious, they would have been obvious by now. That probably rules out Stilwell making it to the last round. But, of the final four, Kevin Falcon would seem to be the most compromised by his proximity to Gordon Campbell. His wings were not burned, like Hanson's, but they were badly singed.
So that just leaves Coleman, De Jong and Abbott. Rich is the least telegenic of the three, and made a big splash when as Minister of Forests his brother became rich by having his land taken out of the Forest Land Reserve. That just leaves De Jong and Abbott on the final ballot.
My hunch is that De Jong, who along with Farrell-Collins constituted the "fifth column" that replaced Gordon Wilson and David Mitchell with the Campbell crew way back in 1993, has the most favours to call. But my sense is that the avuncular Abbott, who has been quiet, competent, has more teflon and has probably tread upon fewer toes, will appeal to the Liberal Party's urge for politically expedient image renovation. Lucky, to be sure. But he also worked hard to get into this position.
So that's my best guess, right now. Unless the 65-year-old Carole Taylor tosses down her Chancellor's robes and makes a case for being the "caretaker" premier for the next 2-6 years, I'm putting my money on George Abbott.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Needed: An Insistence that the economy can be grown equitably and sustainably
"A Rising Tide lifts all yachts, and leaves the rowboats behind.""Canadians need to make some hard choices to tackle the key structural problems challenging the country’s future prosperity, including soaring health-care costs and a tax system that is unfair to lower-income earners"
---Ed Clark, President of Toronto-Dominion Bank
---Warren Buffett
If the President of theToronto-Dominion Bank thinks the tax system is unfair to low-income earners, then why should acquiesce in both federal and provincial policies that appear to assume that the only path to economic success is to shift the tax burden onto workers? If Warren Buffett appears on ABC's This Week complaining that the rich don't pay enough in taxes , and that the Bush tax cuts should be repealed, and Bill Gates is arguing for a bigger and better investment in public education in the United States, and Ted Turner is complaining that the U.S. Supreme Court made a bad decision in allowing corporations to make unlimited donations to political campaigns, shouldn't we be listening?
As Doug McArthur's Report on the BC Economy indicates, one of the distinguishing features of the Campbell government was its reliance on increased inequality as an attempt to gain competitive advantage. As I have argued on this blog, one of the great disappointments of the Campbell record has to be the failure of this 'supply-side' thinking. His top-heavy salary boosts for senior officials in government, his regressive approach to tax reform (including both the carbon tax and HST) reveal this "golden goose" approach to economics, yielded very little in terms of investment and jobs. The reasons, I suspect, are at least two-fold: (1) He was mistaken, just a smany premiers before him were mistaken, to think that he could have that big an impact when employment, investment and jobs are so highly determined outside of BC's borders. (2) Even if a large general benefit could be achieved, it would merely generate pressure for surrounding jurisdictions to do likewise --in other words, a race to the bottom.
Of course there are individual communities and industries that would appear to be exceptions to these generalizations--the coastal fish farm industry would appear to be a clear example. But even there, the benefits to the local economy have to be weighed against the larger social and environmental costs. The bent of the Campbell government was to refuse to undertake that social calculation. But what is the purpose of government, if not to perform that function?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)