Politics in 2013

[Fishbone Jones]

I see he's still sticking to his Obama 'Hope and Change' script though. At least this time he changed it to 'Hope and Hard Work'  :

 

[CougarKing]

There is no problem with public sector unions, per se. What is problematical is the conditions under which they were established. Public sector unions were given the rights won by industrial unions - including the silly Rand formula - but they did not lose their "iron rice bowl." Traditionally public sector workers were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector (not the case any more!) but they had enviable, excellent job security.

Speaking of unions in general...

National Post headline: "Harper unlikely to take on unions so close to election," says John Ivison

 

[Brad Sallows]

>They are just living by the system that was instituted.

"They" unions know how to exploit the "system" very effectively.  Basic recipe: pick a weak jurisdiction; throw all resources into sustaining a strike that breaks the employer's will to resist demands.  Then, in all other jurisdictions, wait for arbitration to roll out the goodies.  Very cost-effective.

 

[Edward Campbell]

>A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost.

The "free market" knows the value of labour full well; most private sector labour is not unionized.  What needs to be shown is that the public sector's estimate of the value of its labour is more accurate than that of the private sector - for any given job.

But while the "free market" may have "known" the value of labour, for many generations business owners/managers refused - because they could - to pay fair wages for the value of the work provided. It took concentrated friction throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries to provide some balance and big labour - big enough to actually compete with big business - was an essential part of that process.

Just as the balance of power was tilted towards the owners/managers in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it tilted, thanks to government and legal interventions, to the labour side in the second half of the 20th century. It's like a pendulum: management had too much power circa 1910, organized labour, especially public sector unions, have too much power now. But that doesn't mean that organized labour is either "bad" or unnecessary.
 

 

[GAP]

But while the "free market" may have "known" the value of labour, for many generations business owners/managers refused - because they could - to pay fair wages for the value of the work provided.

And what did business do?

It exported it's manufacturing to regimes where it could reduce the labour costs....

Fair and equitable wages and benefits are wonderful if everyone is playing by those rules. Business will generally go with the lowest common denominator.....

 

[Edward Campbell]

The corporation has a duty to its owners (shareholders) to maximize profit. Paying "fair," market value wages and providing "fair," market value benefits is, broadly, good business. But, in the latter years of the 20th century the management/labour pendulum swung too far towards labour, until the negotiated costs of labour far exceeded its value. Two wholly predicable things happened:

    1. Automation; and

    2. Outsourcing and "offshoring."

Public service jobs are harder to automate and outsource and so public sector unions have enjoyed all the "benefits" for which the the industrial unions fought so hard in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but they do not take many of the risks - job losses - that industrial workers did and still do.

 

[GAP]

agreed

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the Globe and Mail's Brian Gable has, pretty much, summed up politics in 2013 (to date, anyway): the media is star struck.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/look-justin-trudeau/article11638060/#dashboard/follows/

Even (relatively) pro-Conservative columnists are fascinated by the prospect that Justin Trudeau might upset Stephen Harper on the basis of nothing more that charisma.

As Brian Gable suggests, the big losers are Thomas Mulcair and the NDP but, according to recent polling - remember Harold Wilson and "a week is a long time in politics" and all that - the Liberals have a seven point lead over the Conservatives, despite having no policies and a young, vague, untested leader.

 

[Nemo888]

For a century North America had a shortage of labour. The working class had their wages and bargaining power increase steadily until they took for granted what they fought for with blood and bullets. Then communist China realized it's main unexploited resource was excess labour. Ironically it was the communists that ended the supremacy of the working class.

 

[dapaterson]

Politics is just high school all over again.

For the past several years, the wonks have been running the place.  And the Liberals tried to out-wonk the wonkiest wonk of all, Stephen Harper.

That didn't go so well, as the parade of failed Liberal leaders can attest.

But now they've gone for one of the cool kids.  Who the wonks dislike and distrust.  But the wonks don't understand that the cool kids relate to each other differently, and spending your time attacking him and tearing him down may build you up in the eyes of your small peer group, but doesn't do much for you in the larger school population.

 

[Haletown]

in other politics, an RNC advert they chose not to run in the last election.


http://tinyurl.com/dxmlrcx


They probably should have run it . . .  if Hillary runs in 2016 I'd bet they will run it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well my program just got cut nationwide by about 44%, we lost 4 project coordinators. None of the organizational planning was done by the regional managers, it was all done at the EX level using rather dubious data. We just lost our best administrator, who was also the most experienced. They have also gotten rid of our GIS tech and the person running and upgrading our database. Just because they are core tools to our job does not mean we need that stuff right? Meanwhile 2 useless types in HQ survive.
Had they give a the regional managers a salary figure and told them to modify our org structure within that confine, we could have done a much better job. No doubt in 4 years when they realize we are not meeting the Service Fee standard and cannot charge fees, then they will hire people back again. 2 more years till I am 55 and pin pulling am I. There is no joy, satisfaction or pride left.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is this Stephen Harper's Watergate?

Remember Watergate? It was a low level blunder that need not have brought down a sitting US president ... but it did.

I'm with Andrew Coyne; I cannot fathom what possessed Nigel Wright to give Sen Mike Duffy $90,000. Duffy isn't that important, is he? I know he's a pretty good communicator - as a regular donor to the CPC I get periodic video messages from him - but he's not that good, is he? His brand is now tarnished; he has to go. Nigel Wright has, also, tarnished the PMO and he needs to go, too - and he's a helluva lot more valuable than Duffy.

Prime Minister Harper needs to step out in front of this, as soon as he gets back from New York, and call it what it is: inappropriate, even scandalous and intolerable. That's what Richad Nixon didn't do when Watergate happened and it was a decision he lived to regret.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the Mike Duffy front in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/mike-duffy-the-reporter-would-have-known-what-questions-his-story-raises/article11959318/#dashboard/follows/

Mike Duffy the reporter would have known what questions his story raises

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 16 2013

Before he became a senator, Mike Duffy was a reporter, and a good one. If reporter Mike Duffy were chasing the story about the remarkable gift that Senator Mike Duffy received from Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, to repay living and travel expenses, here are the questions that reporter Mike Duffy might ask Mr. Wright.

    Why did you decide to become personally involved in helping out a senator who has been accused of improperly charging more than $90,000 in expenses?

    You decided to pay these expenses out of your own pocket as a gift to Mr. Duffy. Did you secure the approval of Prime Minister Stephen Harper first, and if not, why not?

    Did you ascertain in advance whether the Senator could accept such a gift, and when and how he would be required to report it?

    Senator Duffy is reputed to be a highly effective fundraiser for the Conservative Party. Was your gift to the Senator intended, in part, to preserve his reputation and thus his effectiveness?

    Did you extend this gift to Mr. Duffy in order to secure his co-operation and silence, so that the controversy would disappear?

    Where any of the investigatory and reporting activities by the Senate committee on Internal Economy and the auditing firm Deloitte compromised by your actions?

But reporter Mike Duffy would know that these questions are mere brush-clearing for the next set of questions.

    The most important duty of any senator is to review legislation arriving from the House of Commons and to vote against that legislation if the senator believes it has been passed in error or in haste.
    How is Mr. Duffy to exercise that oversight, when he is so personally beholden to the Prime Minister’s Office and to you?

    The government is going after people who were overpaid by Employment Insurance, such as seasonal workers in PEI. They don’t have wealthy benefactors like you to make things right. What would you say to them?

    Your job is to keep the government on track and on message. Haven’t you just derailed those efforts by your own actions?

    To expand on that, your decision has embroiled you, your office, the Prime Minister and the Senate in a controversy that will dog this government for weeks to come, inevitably damaging its credibility.
    Given that your judgment in this affair has been so questionable, should you offer your resignation? Or have you already? If so what did the Prime Minister say?

Mr. Wright does not speak to reporters. If he did, he might say that he acted out of compassionate concern for a senator who, with the best of intentions, may have improperly interpreted confusing and ambiguous rules regarding residency and expenses, and who was under great stress when it became clear he could owe tens of thousands of dollars that he was in no position to pay back.

He would say that his most important concern was that taxpayers not be on the hook for any improper expenses Mr. Duffy might have incurred, and that he acted honourably, as Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre insisted Wednesday, by using his own funds instead.

And he would stiffly inform the reporter that he did not discuss private conversations with the Prime Minister, who would decide whether his chief of staff continued to enjoy his confidence.

Mike Duffy the reporter, however, would simply shrug, flip the page of his notebook and start in on the next set of questions.

John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in the Ottawa bureau.

I think Prime Minister Harper can make a small silk purse from this sow's ear.

He needs to fire Duffy from the Conservative caucus and, sadly, fire Nigel Wright, too; but then he can say, "My fellow Canadians, I'm sorry that I appointed two people (Patrick Brazeau and Mike Duffy) who betrayed our trust - our trust, mine and yours. But it demonstrates one thing: your political judgement is better then mine, better than mine or Jean Chrétien's ... and that why we need to elect all senators. You need to take the power away from me and use it yourselves to select the people you want to represent your province in the Senate of Canada."

"A lot of people," the prime minister should add, "including several provincial premiers, don't like elections because, I guess, they are a bit afraid that you might make decisions that they, or I, might not like. That's the problem with democracy, isn't it? You get to decide, not me, not a premier, not a bureaucrat or a back room operator, just you; and that makes a lot of people nervous. I'm not afraid of your decisions; I will learn to work with the good people you send to Ottawa."

 

[Remius]

Is this Stephen Harper's Watergate?

Remember Watergate? It was a low level blunder that need not have brought down a sitting US president ... but it did.

I'm with Andrew Coyne; I cannot fathom what possessed Nigel Wright to give Sen Mike Duffy $90,000. Duffy isn't that important, is he? I know he's a pretty good communicator - as a regular donor to the CPC I get periodic video messages from him - but he's not that good, is he? His brand is now tarnished; he has to go. Nigel Wright has, also, tarnished the PMO and he needs to go, too - and he's a helluva lot more valuable than Duffy.

Prime Minister Harper needs to step out in front of this, as soon as he gets back from New York, and call it what it is: inappropriate, even scandalous and intolerable. That's what Richad Nixon didn't do when Watergate happened and it was a decision he lived to regret.

Agreed Mr. Campbell.  This whole thing raises a lot of questions.  I was listening to Pierre Polievre defending this whole thing this morning  :facepalm:.  Nothing short of removing Duffy and likely Wright as well is going to remove this cloud of the PM.

 

[dapaterson]

Fiercely partisan.

Fiercely loyal.


Two key traits of Stephen Harper.

I fear those will override Mr Campbell's prescription.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Fiercely partisan.

Fiercely loyal.


Two key traits of Stephen Harper.

I fear those will override Mr Campbell's prescription.

As much as the "Campbell Solution" would make the most sense, this is how I, too, would bet my loonie.

Edited to add:  One more point to add to DAP's list - Reluctant to admit errors.

 

[Remius]

As much as the "Campbell Solution" would make the most sense, this is how I, too, would bet my loonie.

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...

Seems like he was double dipping as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/16/pol-duffy-expenses-double-dipping.html

I really won't feel too bad for him if he gets charged over this.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse...

Seems like he was double dipping as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/16/pol-duffy-expenses-double-dipping.html

I really won't feel too bad for him if he gets charged over this.

And that's why Prime Minister Harper needs to get "out in front" of this: to take the "high road," admit that he made mistakes, picked the wrong people, etc, but has "cleaned house" - cleaned up the caucus and the PMO - and now will appoint only senators who are elected and agree seek regular re-election.

Sens Duffy, Brazeau and Harb all appear, on the currently available evidence, to have abused the public trust - Sen Duffy now needs to join Sens Brazeau and Harb on the "independent" benches. It would be better if all three would resign but I fear that's too much to expect.

I think that a federal system needs a bicameral legislature: one chambre representing all the people on a roughly equal basis and the other representing the provinces* and, therefore, I think the NDP is wrong to want to abolish the Senate. So, since I think we need a Senate, the question becomes: how can it be made qualitatively better? I am serious when I suggest that Prime Minister Harper admit that the people's judgement is, usually, better than his own and that elected senators are unlikely to be as sleazy as appointed ones.

_____
* The provincial premiers' "Council of the Federation" is not sufficient; the federal parliament needs to represent both the people and constituent parts of the federation.

 

[dapaterson]

Where is Frank Magazine when you really need it?