Minor league

On CBC Radio's The House today, Pierre Poilievre suggested that Canadians have a hard time understanding why federal political parties should be funded any differently than minor hockey teams.

After all, minor hockey teams play essentially the same role in our society that political parties do.

To illustrate this analogy, here's a purely fictional enactment of what might happen if a pre-pubescent bus load of pee-wees were to take charge of our Parliament.

The following footage is, of course purely fictional...

Party financing

Yesterday, this seemed topical. Today, admittedly less so.

Whether an act of economic restraint, or one of petty partisanship, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty Thursday announced an abrupt end to public financial support for federal political parties. The system of subsidies has been in place since changes to the Elections Act drastically reduced, and then eliminated, corporate and union donations to political parties and candidates. Currently, Canadian political parties receive a subsidy of approximately $1.95 per vote obtained in the most recent federal election.

Detractors of public subsidization of political parties point frequently to our American neighbours in justifying their position. If Barack Obama, John McCain and a supporting cast of other presidential contenders can collectively raise hundreds of millions in an election cycle, surely Canadians aspiring to national political office can be expected to do the same.

There are numerous structural differences in our political systems which belie this argument. We have no fixed election date or set electoral calendar. The Canadian federal system discourages (and in some cases makes illegal) the parallel functioning of municipal, provincial and national parties the way state Democrat and Republican organizations co-operate in the United States. Canada imposes severe restrictions on who can donate, and how much. Canadians don’t directly vote for their Prime Minister, or any other political figures aside from their local MP, while Americans face dozens of choices for multiple offices and ballot initiatives every two years.

The key difference, however, is that in Canada political parties themselves are responsible for running our equivalent of a primary system. In the United States, every partisan contest, from dogcatcher to Presidential nominee, is financed through state legislatures and electoral commissions. While U.S. political parties may set the ground rules (the timing of Michigan and Florida primaries, for example) everything from the administration of electoral list registration, to the printing and counting of millions of ballots by hundreds of thousands of staff in locations across the United States and abroad are financed entirely by the state.

In Canada, costs associated with local candidate nominations or party leadership contests are financed entirely by the parties themselves. Elections Canada enforces strict guidelines around donors and expenses, but every cost associated with promoting and executing these democratic exercises is borne by political parties. In the face of a diminished donor base, and the proposed elimination of public subsidies, parties can either increase the voters’ cost of participating in such exercises through membership fees, or decrease their ability to participate by cutting costs.

When introduced, one of the reasons for reducing allowable political contributions was that they were supposed to level the playing field and open the doors to candidates of lesser financial means. The effect would appear to have been quite the opposite. Similarly, the suggestion that a reliance on popular fundraising would further democratize our political process is also proving false. If anything, democratic participation has been drastically reduced.

Contested riding nomination races have become the exception, and not the rule. In the most recent federal election, the most under-reported story may have been the appalling lack of candidates who were actually elected to carry their party’s banner this time around. The number of ridings in which more than one person actually contested an NDP or Conservative nomination in the last election represents a minute fraction of the country, and while the Liberals fared much better, their trend is in a similar direction. It’s much cheaper to acclaim or appoint a candidate than it is to elect one. And given the high probability of personal indebtedness after any such campaign, it’s little wonder that few candidates would step forward in the first place.

The same is true at the national level, where nearly all of the contestants in the most recent Liberal leadership race still carry some amount of debt. New Democrats and Conservatives, who chose their leaders before such financing restrictions were in place, will be wise to get as much mileage as they can out of their current leaders, having witnessed the cost of replacement.

Of course, in these tough economic times, political parties will have to cut costs. Nomination contests will be the first thing to go, much to the glee of the entitled incumbents who can relax, knowing that the first step to re-election is no longer even so much as a formality. New candidates will increasingly be selected by way of the laying on of hands, and membership will conveniently price itself out of reach of anyone who dares breathe life into any of our increasingly stale political parties. With the decline of meaningful participation and party membership, voter turnout in federal elections will likely continue its marked decline.

If these are the hallmarks of a more democratic society, then surely the Conservatives are on the right track. If not, then maybe it’s time we gave serious consideration to publicly financing political parties’ democratic operations instead of cutting their funding in hopes the government’s opponents will simply whither away.

Begotten of smugness

Canadian Press NewsAlert (Fiscal-Update-Vote)
Source: The Canadian Press - Broadcast wire Nov 28, 2008 14:21
OTTAWA _ Liberals plan confidence motion Monday to bring down government, say they have viable alternative government.

Headlines

VOCM, forever in search of super superior superlatives, takes the cake with this awe-inspiringly awesome awful headline to describe their conquering hero:

Williams Re-Emphasizing Solidity of Contract Offers in Tough Times

If you're going to play up "solidity" I guess you might as well "re-emphasize" it.

Seriously. Who writes this shit?

Tories to abolish party funding?

My oh my, but this electoral financing rumour just might be true.

Which should make for some interesting TV tomorrow, not just Flaherty's proposal, but more particularly, the reaction of Opposition parties. And, of course, at least one longtime advocate of abolishing the state's role in financing political parties will likely be in full swing on tomorrow's CBC panel.

If the Liberals were smart, they'd be making this a confidence motion before the Tories do. If there's anything worth threatening an election over, this is probably it. First, because it is bad public policy and second, out of sheer self-preservation.

But here's a prediction. The Tories won't actually eliminate the funding. After floating the trial balloon through the media tonight, they'll announce a significant reduction instead.

If I'm wrong, they're crazy.

And we'll have a lot more to talk about tomorrow, won't we?

Danny and Steve

As a few of us have been grumbling for some time, the nature of their feud was never based on their differences, rather on their uncanny similarities.

What a difference three weeks makes

Barbara Yaffe, in the Vancouver Sun, three weeks ago:

"Stephen Harper has avoided tough choices, announcing Thursday a hefty cabinet that makes more than one in every four elected Conservatives a minister. Fully 38 of the 143 members of Parliament on the governing side will sit in cabinet. That's up from 31 members before the Oct. 14 election. What makes the size noteworthy is the fact the prime minister, in announcing his new team, emphasized the government's main focus will be the economy..."

"But frugality does not appear to be part of the Conservative calculation, despite the fact the country is now flirting with the possibility of a deficit budget."

The Speech from the Throne, two days ago:

"Hard decisions will be needed to keep federal spending under control and focused on results..."

"Departments will have the funding they need to deliver essential programs and services, and no more. Our Government will engage Parliament and encourage members to take a more active role in scrutinizing spending and suggesting areas for restraint."

"Part of a solid economic and fiscal foundation is the sound management of government. To make Canada’s national government more effective, our Government is committed to reform and streamline the way it does business."

Whatever.

The race begins...

...with Dominic Leblanc's first salvo - an Op Ed piece in Maclean's online edition, and a French version in today's La Presse (print version only)

Will.i.am.s latest...

WARNING - I strongly recommend a double dose of Gravol before watching this.

News Item

OTTAWA – Liberal Party President Doug Ferguson today announced that the National Executive has chosen Vancouver as the site of the next Liberal Leadership Convention. The Convention will be held at the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre from April 30, 2009 to May 3, 2009.

“After careful review of all viable options, I am proud to announce that Liberal delegates will choose the next Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in beautiful British Columbia,” said Mr. Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson also commented on the importance of highlighting the national scope of the Liberal Party of Canada. This decision, it is hoped, will energize our grassroots in a region of the country which has never hosted a Liberal Leadership Convention.

In addition to the date and location of the Convention, the National Executive has set the entry fee for Leadership candidates at $90,000 and the spending limit at $1.5 million. A levy of 10% will also be imposed on directed donations. As an added measure, a rebate option will be available to candidates according to their ability to raise funds for the Victory Fund, a grassroots fundraising initiative of the Liberal Party of Canada.

“The decisions made today were made in the best interest of the Liberal Party of Canada,” said Mr. Ferguson. “Though our work continues this weekend, I take pride in our Executive’s ability to arrive at these crucial decisions quickly and respectfully. I look forward to the same spirit of cooperation in what promises to be an historic and exciting Leadership race.”

The Liberal Party’s constitution requires the National Executive to meet within 27 days of the Leader publicly signaling his intention to resign. In addition to the date, location and broad terms of the Leadership Contest, the National Executive must establish membership rules, construct several committees and make key appointments intended to ensure the success of the Leadership contest and Convention. Further details of these decisions will be announced following the adjournment on Sunday, November 9, 2008.

wow

Yes they did.

Further to last night's rant...

More, here.

And another sensible question asked, here.

Obama / McCain Electoral College predictor

Win great prizes!

Well, not really.

But whoever predicts the result closest gets a piece of campaign memorabilia in the mail. Post your prediction in the comments below.

I have it at 320-218. But I can't remember if Maine still splits its electoral college votes, in which case I'd say 319-219, but that's splitting hairs.

CNN has a useful thingy here.

There he goes again

I wasn't going to post anything this week. Probably not next week either. On the one hand I just wanted this blog to whither away and leave it behind, having little time of late (and for the foreseeable future) to devote to it.

But as long as there's a foolish Premier or two kicking around, I suppose there'll always be a moment of inspiration worth sticking around for.

I hate writing about Equalization. I really do. It's boring and frustrating all at the same time, and the sad truth is the overwhelming number of people who write about it seem to be, quite frankly, stupid.

The sadder truth is that the people who read about are even less-informed. Whether that's the aforementioned writers' fault or their own stupidity is really not for me to say.

But the saddest truth of all is that the least-informed and most nonsensical of all on this subject appear to occupy high office, disproportionately swelling the ranks of Premiers and finance ministers across the country. It's maddening.

Undoubtedly, with today's news about Ontario becoming a recipient province, and the finance ministers meeting, you could expect a few dumb reactionary columns and news items, and most certainly some really dumb quotes.

Today's dumbest comments come as per usual from you-know-who:

"This is a very proud day for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians," Williams said at a news conference.

"I don't think the Newfie joke is there anymore. I think we're now an example to our fellow Canadians of how it can be done and how to work your way through hardship."

The sudden turnaround in Newfoundland's financial status is a year earlier than expected and comes as Ontario prepares to receive payments from the federal wealth-sharing program for the first time in its history next year.

Williams compared Ontario's current woes with its manufacturing industry to Newfoundland's struggles in the years after the commercial cod fishery was shut down in 1992.

"What I can say to the people of Ontario is we understand, we sympathize, we know that they're going through a significant downturn in their economy," Williams said.

Let's break this down, to fully appreciate just how asinine a statement this is.

First off, as anyone with half an inkling of what Equalization is could tell you, let's keep in mind that it is a purely relative measure.

What does that mean? Well, it means that any particular province's ending up on the receiving end (particularly a smaller one) has more to do with what's going on in the country as a whole, and not their individual "performance".

Newfoundland and Labrador was projected to be "off" of Equalization next year or the year after, as a result of high oil prices, and particularly the culmination of peak production of more than a decade's worth of large offshore oil projects which came on stream prior to Williams' arrival on the political scene (another story for another day). For added measure, Iron Ore and Nickel production have led a booming mining sector in the province as well.

So we're "there" a year or two early - isn't that cause for celebration?

Not really. Because getting "there" a year or two early is nothing more than a reflection of the tailspin that the rest of the Canadian economy is experiencing.

Let me give you a simplistic example. Let's say you're one of five starting players on a basketball team. You're 6'0'' and your teammates are 6'5'', 6'4'', 6'3 and 6'2''. You're the shortest dude on the team. But you hit a growth spurt. You reach 6'1'', then 6'2''. Then a funny thing happens. The three tallest teammates break their legs and get replaced with shorter ballplayers. You're suddenly the second tallest on the court. Do you celebrate?

That may seem a ridiculous example, but it's really the best way of illustrating the problem here. If being tall is a cause for celebration for the basketball player above, then isn't the fact that he's grown two inches a better cause for celebration than the fact that his teammates broke their legs?

Or, simply put, isn't it Newfoundland and Labrador's growth -- independent of what others are doing -- the real benchmark by which we ought to gauge our success, rather then constantly sniveling and smirking while looking over our shoulders to compare how the others are doing?

Whatever happened to "Proud Strong Determined"? What became of "Masters of our own domain"? Why are we still assessing our worth or sense of accomplishment by means of a purely relative measure?

If a nuclear bomb had fallen on Toronto in the 1980s and its economy had tanked, would we celebrate our own relative non-misfortune at such a turn of events? If Ontario's economy rebounds in two years, edging the Equalization standard above Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal capacity will we throw our hands in the air in despair and start re-circulating Newfie joke books. Of course not.

Newfoundland's economic growth in the past decade has been, by any measure, a story of success, of optimism, a mix of luck and timing and sensible policy decisions going back fifteen years or more. It is a good news story. It is cause for celebration, in Newfoundland and throughout the country. And yes, it's one of pride in many respects. But the true measure of prosperity in that province - in any province - is the year over year growth in the province's economy, the annual improvements in the standard of living of its citizenry, and not its semi-annual stacking up versus other provinces. If all ten provinces are dragged through a 2 year downturn, with everyone losing ground, but some losing a little less than others, would we similarly mark it as a cause for jubilation? One would hope not.