The BC NDP’s bad week

First came John Horgan leering at Christy Clark in the first B.C. Campaign 2017 debate: “I’ll watch you for a while. I know you like that.”

That leering, creepy, condescending remark is a Kim Campbell Week One Level disaster, folks. Horgan — sounding rather like Groper-in-Chief Donald Trump — is going to be hearing about that one for a long, long time.

And then came the B.C. NDP economic plan. Ouch.

A bit of history, first.

“The trouble with socialists,” Tommy Douglas once said, and he would know, “is that they let their bleeding hearts go to their bloody heads.”

Douglas, of course, was and is the patron saint of Canada’s New Democrats, and rightly so. He was widely admired. He wasn’t perfect, of course, and no politician ever is. But Tommy Douglas knew something about budgeting.

For example: did you know that, during his 17 years as Saskatchewan premier, Douglas never ran a deficit? It’s true. Not once. And, during all of that time, Douglas would also routinely dedicate 10 per cent of government revenues to paying down the debt. Douglas felt that too much debt — financial holes, in effect — put social programs and government services in peril.

Tommy Douglas isn’t still around to comment on the platform of B.C. NDP Leader John Horgan, of course. But if he was, one suspects that he wouldn’t be terribly impressed. Douglas might even be unhappy to hear about the $6.5-billion hole at the centre of the B.C. NDP’s plan for governing.

No exaggeration: $6.5 billion.

The yawning, gaping hole alleged to be at the centre of the B.C. NDP’s platform was detailed this week by the governing B.C. Liberals — who, love ’em or hate ’em, are the architects of five balanced budgets and oversee the strongest economy in Canada. The Dipper Hole is apparently the product of an analysis of more than four fiscal years. In sum, the B.C. Liberal number-crunchers calculated there were 14 serious errors in the NDP’s math — along with a failure to account for interest costs on increased spending levels.

The improperly costed promises relate to freezing a variety of interest rates, promises made to postsecondary students, and the provincial Medical Services Plan.

The $6.5-billion mistake, it should be noted, does not include assumptions the B.C. NDP made about revenue assumptions or another three dozen or so uncosted promises. The Liberals also left out of their analysis the province’s credit rating. But they still came up with that astonishing $6.5-billion figure.

That sort of thing happens a lot in B.C. We’ve all seen this movie before.

So what, one might say. An election is underway in British Columbia, and it’s a tight one. The B.C. Liberals aren’t ever going to say nice things about the B.C. NDP, and vice-versa.

What is noteworthy, then — what suggests the B.C. Liberals are highly confident about the $6.5-billion figure — is threefold. One, it is a simply gargantuan number. It is hard to imagine any sensible political party making such a claim without verifying it, re-verifying it, many times over. Two, the B.C. Liberals have retained two respected economists, Scott Clark and Peter Devries, to do a further review. They wouldn’t have done that if they didn’t have faith in their analysis.

Thirdly, there’s precedent. In focus groups conducted from sea to sea to sea, since time immemorial, voters will always express doubt about the ability of New Democrats to balance budgets and add up columns of figures.

And as political historians will note, that sort of thing happens a lot in B.C. We’ve all seen this movie before.

In 2013, for instance, the B.C. NDP actually investigated itself as it tried to understand why it had lost an election that had seen them as many as 20 points ahead of their main rivals. A big part of the problem, the B.C. NDP concluded in confidential report, was what the party had to say to British Columbians about the economy.

“[NDP] governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba defeat populist right-wing opponents by being — and being seen to be — more competent than our opponent on core fiscal and economic issues, as well as more caring about them,” the report concluded. “That is what we tried to do in 2013 in B.C. We didn’t succeed. Our opponent was out every day on a single issue — jobs and the economy. We were attempting to reassure voters we could be trusted with a mandate by spelling out dozens of proposals. We could see within a few days that this wasn’t working.”

Before that, in 2009, with yet another leader, the B.C. NDP again misfired on the economy, speedily sprinting away from its main economic promise. And, as respected columnist Vaughn Palmer wrote in the Vancouver Sun: “When the party released its platform, the vow to get rid of the carbon tax topped the list of highlights. But the NDP downgraded the “axe the tax” drive after it provoked a backlash from some environmental leaders.”

And so on and so on. The B.C. NDP may have many strengths. But for more than a decade, projecting economic competence has not been one of them. In election after election, the B.C. NDP either get their projections wrong — or they abandon their economic promises, mid-writ. Either way, it does not engender confidence.

Tommy Douglas, among others, would not be impressed. Even a New Democrat, he believed, needs to able to say how he or she will pay the bills.

British Columbian hearts, bleeding or otherwise, would tend to agree.


420

Here’s the dope on dope, from an old Straight Edge punk, in a handy bulleted, bolded list.

  • It’s a drug.  When prescribed, it should be only available from pharmacists.
  • It’s an intoxicant.  Unlike booze, it isn’t hardly linked to violence, which is good.  And, unlike booze, it’s still hard to figure out its intoxicating effects on someone behind the wheel.  Not good.
  • It’s a weed.  I don’t drink or take drugs or have ever smoked.  The idea of setting fire to a weed and inhaling the resulting smoke doesn’t seem like a super good idea, whether the weed is tobacco or marijuana.
  • It’s a trade barrier.  Or it will be.  Donald Trump is the most anti-trade occupant of the Oval Office, ever.  He’s already bashing Canada.  He will use dope as pretext to slow down/stop cross-border trade.  Just watch.
  • It’s boring.  It is is, it is.  In a world buffeted by war and terrorism and misery, like ours is, it’s fair to posit that cannabis has occupied way, way too much bandwidth.  It’s a good thing for sick people, so make sure they can get it at their drug store, and stop yammering about it all the time.

What do you think, O Smart Readers? Got a 420 take on toke?  Comment away.

 

 


Good thing Canada has been sucking up to Trump and his kids

…because it’s really paying off:

“We are also going to stand up for our dairy farmers in Wisconsin. And I’ve been reading about it, I’ve been talking about it for a long time, and that demands, really, immediately, fair trade, with all of our trading partners. And that includes Canada,” [Trump] said Tuesday, raising his voice to emphasize the country.

“Because in Canada, some very unfair things have happened to our dairy farmers and others.”

As I’ve been writing for months, a Neville Chamberlain strategy doesn’t work. All that strong men understand is strength.

Sucking up to the likes of Donald Trump strengthens his hand, and weakens ours. And it makes us look weak, too.

My radical advice: try acting like a strong, sovereign nation for a few days. And, if you don’t like it, you can go back to being a supplicant, who lets the bully steal your lunch, day after day.

 

 


Unpresident, we’re coming for you

Check out this New York Times chart:

Screen Shot 2017-04-19 at 8.13.45 AM

This special election was for a vacated seat in Georgia’s Sixth Congressional District.  It was a solid, long-time Republican fortress, formerly held by Tom Rice and Newt Gingrich.  It hasn’t sent a Democrat to the House of Representatives since the Carter administration, forty years ago.

Had 30-year-old newcomer Jon Ossoff won just a few more votes, he would have been elected outright last night.  He now faces a run-off against his nearest GOP challenger – a Trump supporter who got 55,000 fewer votes.

Donald Trump, that combed-over, sphincter-mouthed, sausage-fingered groper-in-chief, is an albatross around the jowly necks of every Republican, now.  And he is hurting conservative causes everywhere, even in far-away Europe (see here and here).

The mid-terms, if Agent Orange makes it that far, will be a historic disaster for the Republicans.  And Donald Trump will be the reason.


Falling On Your Sword Can Remedy Even The Worst PR Disaster

Now in HuffPo, here.  Per the old saw, it’s the cover-up, and seldom the break-in:

Such mistakes can have profound consequences, if you don’t deal with them quickly. Personally, I am always a big fan of Bible-thumping Republican/Conservative politicians who regularly denounce gays/abortion/infidelity — and then, subsequently and inevitably, get caught having gay sex/procuring abortions/working with sex workers. Without fail, they end up exposed as sweaty, creepy, debauched nut bars, not self-professed men of God. And regular folks — as United, Pepsi and the White House certainly discovered in recent days — punish them not for the sin, but for the hypocrisy.


#ONpoli, and the false god of anonymous sources

So, there’s a Toronto Star story this morning about Kathleen Wynne’s political future. By my count, it has five sources in it who are quoted directly, but not named. There are three other people quoted in it: Wynne, her Finance Minister, and a guy who doesn’t want to be quoted.

A snippet:

Sources told the Star that more than a dozen MPPs are looking at not running again in the 2018 election over fears they will lose their seats due to her unpopularity.

No MPPs will yet speak publicly about the potential exodus — more out of their personal regard for Wynne than‎ due to a fear of retribution.

But some are known to be considering an appeal to her en masse‎ to share their worries about the future.

Quite apart from whether this kind of story is fair to Kathleen Wynne or not – she’s in politics, and she has likely authorized many people to speak anonymously on her behalf over the years – this kind of story is possibly unfair to readers. Among other things, these sorts of tales require the reader to trust the paper, trust the reporter, and – most importantly – trust the anonymous source.

Should we? I mean, if these folks feel so passionately about the need for Kathleen Wynne to step down, shouldn’t they say so, publicly?  Shouldn’t they attach their name to their conviction?

I like what the International Journalists’ Network has to say about the issue:

Media professionals everywhere in the world grapple with the thorny issue of anonymity. It can be a double-edged sword.

According to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), “Anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to unlocking a big story, throwing back the curtain on corruption, fulfilling the journalistic missions of watchdog on the government and informant to citizens. But sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to the ethical swamp.”

The SPJ code of ethics makes two important points on anonymity:

1. Identity sources whenever possible. The public is entitled to as much information as can be provided on sources’ reliability.

2. Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

The problem surfaced recently in The New York Times’ newsroom. In March, the newspaper’s top management cracked down on anonymity, sparked by readers’ complaints about “persistent” use of unnamed sources. The new guidelines require editors to approve the use of anonymity in stories.

“Direct quotes from anonymous sources should be used rarely, and only when such quotes are pivotal to the story,” according to the July 15 article explaining the crackdown. “At least one editor must know the specific identity of any anonymous source before publication.”

The Toronto Star is one of the best newspapers in the world. It is. The reporter in question has been on the Queen’s Park beat for many years, and is considered to really know his stuff. And, as noted, Kathleen Wynne is a grown-up politician, and she knows how the game is played.

But, if you were to ask the public about important public issues – say, who their Premier is, and is going to be – they would probably indicate a preference for knowing who a source is, and what that person’s agenda is, so they can decide whether he or she is credible or not.

It’s not that reputable reporters or newspapers lie: in my experience, that almost never happens outside of Russia and dictatorships.  It’s that anonymous sources do.

So, at the end of this windy exposition, does anyone have a clear sense of what is happening with Kathleen Wynne?

No, not really.  And that’s the problem with the false god of anonymous sources: you just don’t know, you know?