The latest EKOS poll (July 9 2009) has some interesting figures on just who currently intend to vote for the various parties.
Between them, the LPC and Tories have 64% of those polled saying they will vote for one or other of these two parties (31.2% LPC, 31.8% CPC).
That means a whopping 36% have turned their backs on these two so-called national parties, and favour the NDP or Greens, or, in Quebec, the Bloc.
It also means that neither the LPC nor the CPC stand a snowball's hope in hell of winning a majority government should these numbers hold up in the next election. And that means that we face a minority government, propped up by one or more of the other parties.
But dig a bit deeper.
Both the LPC and CPC have a disproportionate slice of the oldest demographic favouring them – a huge 78.6% of those over 65 would vote for one of these two parties. That is way above their combined 64% of the total votes!
As you go down the age bracket, the proportion of respondents who say they would vote for either of these two parties plunges, reaching 50% for those younger than 25.
What gives?
Are these two 'mainstream' parties so filled with tired old men and old women MPs that they do not have any policies which are appealing to the younger voters?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Friday, July 03, 2009
Mayor Robertson, think bigger – think Vancouver-Florence!
News broke today that Mayor Robertson is considering holding a referendum next year on whether to build a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over False Creek. The news shows a very unimaginative bridge crossing the Creek to join the two sides:
"The proposed 15-metre-wide suspension bridge would cross the entrance to False Creek just west of Burrard Street, linking Kitsilano at Vanier Park with the West End at Sunset Beach.
Architect Gregory Henriquez presented the plan to the mayor after the two talked about the idea a few months ago.
The proposed span was "very elegant and modern," according to Robertson, who compared it to the popular pedestrian-only Millennium Bridge that crosses the Thames River in London.
"It's an infrastructure project and these kinds of bridges have actually been quite positive economic generators in London and Paris and we would be among the leading cities in North America to do something like this," said Robertson on Thursday night after the proposal was publicly released.
Taxpayers could vote on the idea during a referendum in the next civic election, said Robertson, who is also hoping the federal and provincial governments will help with funding."
Let's hope that the Mayor does not blow this opportunity to provide something spectacular, instead of the ugly bridge proposed in the article.
The Cat's advice to the Mayor is to think of the beauty of the Ponte Vecchio, in Florence.
Instead of a single purpose bridge, Mayor Robertson should be aiming at building a bridge over False Creek which includes stores for restaurants (dine while watching the cruise boats sail beneath you), for local musicians to use as a venue to perform, and for local artists to not only use to display their art, but to create their art.
Imagine tourists flocking to watch local artists paint the lovely sunsets, and enjoying a glass of wine while doing so. And being able to listen to writers and artists explain their works? All in an edifice which soars over the Creek, and has little rooms tacked onto its sides, like the famous Ponte Vecchio!
That would kill two birds with one stone: provide for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, and become a major tourist draw. To make sure it appeals to tourists, the bridge might have to be located a little bit closer to English Bay, where there is plenty of room for it to disgorge the people.
And, of course, where those on the bridge would have a good view of the annual fireworks display at English Bay.
So, think bigger, Mayor Robertson, and think Florentian while you do so. No doubt PM Harper could find a few hundred million for such a project.
"The proposed 15-metre-wide suspension bridge would cross the entrance to False Creek just west of Burrard Street, linking Kitsilano at Vanier Park with the West End at Sunset Beach.
Architect Gregory Henriquez presented the plan to the mayor after the two talked about the idea a few months ago.
The proposed span was "very elegant and modern," according to Robertson, who compared it to the popular pedestrian-only Millennium Bridge that crosses the Thames River in London.
"It's an infrastructure project and these kinds of bridges have actually been quite positive economic generators in London and Paris and we would be among the leading cities in North America to do something like this," said Robertson on Thursday night after the proposal was publicly released.
Taxpayers could vote on the idea during a referendum in the next civic election, said Robertson, who is also hoping the federal and provincial governments will help with funding."
Let's hope that the Mayor does not blow this opportunity to provide something spectacular, instead of the ugly bridge proposed in the article.
The Cat's advice to the Mayor is to think of the beauty of the Ponte Vecchio, in Florence.
Instead of a single purpose bridge, Mayor Robertson should be aiming at building a bridge over False Creek which includes stores for restaurants (dine while watching the cruise boats sail beneath you), for local musicians to use as a venue to perform, and for local artists to not only use to display their art, but to create their art.
Imagine tourists flocking to watch local artists paint the lovely sunsets, and enjoying a glass of wine while doing so. And being able to listen to writers and artists explain their works? All in an edifice which soars over the Creek, and has little rooms tacked onto its sides, like the famous Ponte Vecchio!
That would kill two birds with one stone: provide for pedestrians and cyclists to cross, and become a major tourist draw. To make sure it appeals to tourists, the bridge might have to be located a little bit closer to English Bay, where there is plenty of room for it to disgorge the people.
And, of course, where those on the bridge would have a good view of the annual fireworks display at English Bay.
So, think bigger, Mayor Robertson, and think Florentian while you do so. No doubt PM Harper could find a few hundred million for such a project.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Why Tories and Liberals are in no-growth mode with voters
The latest EKOS poll shows these two parties basically tied, each with around 31% to 32% of the votes, leaving a huge whack of close to 40% of the voters choosing other parties.
That combined total of around 60% of the votes is the same market share that the venerable General Motors in the US had in its heyday, when it was the undisputed king of world auto makers. Of course, since then, GM has steadily lost its market share, and now is basically a bankrupt, state-owned entity, with slim prospects for meaningful recovery.
And the Green Party has shown a steady increase in its market share here in Canada, with EKOS showing it coming in at around 11% now. The NDP is bobbing around at 16%.
Why no breakthrough for the two major parties?
Could it be because they are both bereft of sound ideas to actually provide good, well-paying, long term, permanent jobs for Canadians?
Could it be that they both are complicit in destroying the number of such good jobs in Canada?
Could it be (in the words of KOS), that they do not have an answer to this problem:
"What we're now facing are the consequences of a decades-long war on labor in this country which has eliminated a 'critical mass' of good paying, working class jobs - which once fueled the greatest economy on the planet. The domino effect has been utterly destructive, and we're really only just beginning to see that now.
The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, is taking on water, and will ultimately sink.
There's really no stopping that reality from occurring at this point.
A nation of "minimum wage" workers is what we've essentially become, and it's getting worse, not better. The powers that be continue to represent corporations who only look at next quarter profits and how to increase them by continuing to reduce labor costs. How can anything possibly change if we continue in this direction.
The irony, of course, is that big corporations in this country, enabled by our so-called representatives that they've bought off, fired their own customers."
Perhaps this is the reason why such a large number of Canadians are less than enthralled by either major party.
That combined total of around 60% of the votes is the same market share that the venerable General Motors in the US had in its heyday, when it was the undisputed king of world auto makers. Of course, since then, GM has steadily lost its market share, and now is basically a bankrupt, state-owned entity, with slim prospects for meaningful recovery.
And the Green Party has shown a steady increase in its market share here in Canada, with EKOS showing it coming in at around 11% now. The NDP is bobbing around at 16%.
Why no breakthrough for the two major parties?
Could it be because they are both bereft of sound ideas to actually provide good, well-paying, long term, permanent jobs for Canadians?
Could it be that they both are complicit in destroying the number of such good jobs in Canada?
Could it be (in the words of KOS), that they do not have an answer to this problem:
"What we're now facing are the consequences of a decades-long war on labor in this country which has eliminated a 'critical mass' of good paying, working class jobs - which once fueled the greatest economy on the planet. The domino effect has been utterly destructive, and we're really only just beginning to see that now.
The Titanic has already hit the iceberg, is taking on water, and will ultimately sink.
There's really no stopping that reality from occurring at this point.
A nation of "minimum wage" workers is what we've essentially become, and it's getting worse, not better. The powers that be continue to represent corporations who only look at next quarter profits and how to increase them by continuing to reduce labor costs. How can anything possibly change if we continue in this direction.
The irony, of course, is that big corporations in this country, enabled by our so-called representatives that they've bought off, fired their own customers."
Perhaps this is the reason why such a large number of Canadians are less than enthralled by either major party.
US Recession wipes out all jobs gained in last boom
The US economy continues to limp along, with jobs being shed at a high rate, despite the 'green shoots' some see.
The latest figures show some alarming numbers:
"How bad is the current recession? Here's one measure: the United States now has fewer jobs than it did nine years ago, even though the work force — the number of people either working or looking for work — has grown by 12.5 million people since then. It's the first time since the Great Depression that a recession has wiped out all the jobs created during the previous business cycle…"
US unemployment is now at a 26-year high of 9.7%.
But that's only half the story.
There is a massive total of underemployed as well:
"8.9 million: Number of part-time workers who would have preferred full-time work last month. 2.17 million: People without jobs who wanted to work, were available and had looked in the last 12 months, but had not looked in the last month. 16.5 percent: Unemployment rate if you include involuntary part-time workers and those without jobs who hadn't looked for work in 12 months — the highest in records dating to 1994."
Those green shoots will need to flourish fast if the US engine is to provide meaningful jobs for these millions of unemployed and underemployed.
The latest figures show some alarming numbers:
"How bad is the current recession? Here's one measure: the United States now has fewer jobs than it did nine years ago, even though the work force — the number of people either working or looking for work — has grown by 12.5 million people since then. It's the first time since the Great Depression that a recession has wiped out all the jobs created during the previous business cycle…"
US unemployment is now at a 26-year high of 9.7%.
But that's only half the story.
There is a massive total of underemployed as well:
"8.9 million: Number of part-time workers who would have preferred full-time work last month. 2.17 million: People without jobs who wanted to work, were available and had looked in the last 12 months, but had not looked in the last month. 16.5 percent: Unemployment rate if you include involuntary part-time workers and those without jobs who hadn't looked for work in 12 months — the highest in records dating to 1994."
Those green shoots will need to flourish fast if the US engine is to provide meaningful jobs for these millions of unemployed and underemployed.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Harper, Ignatieff & EKOS: the 'I don't know' Gender Gap
The latest EKOS poll (June 25 2009) has some interesting general comments, and some gender specific numbers. The news for Ignatieff and our party is a mixed bag, with Ignatieff's negatives now rising, and his popularity showing a definite drop from the January poll. The poll also shows that Harper's position is improving:
"At the same time, the Conservatives are benefitting from rising optimism about the economy among some Canadians – those affected more directly by the economic news or stock and real estate markets than by the labour market, which continues to deteriorate.
"The Liberals may well recover from this short-term political setback,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “At least that has been the pattern of the last six months when purely political events have rocked Canadians’ voting intentions.”
“More hopeful for the Conservatives and worrisome for the Liberals is the rising optimism on the economy, which is clearly behind some of the movement back to the Conservatives from the Liberals in recent weeks. This might have the makings of a more enduring trend.”
The principal movement in this most recent poll took place in Ontario. For several months the Liberals have enjoyed an advantage in the province, often reaching into the double-digits. Now, they are neck-and-neck with the Conservatives in Canada’s largest province.
“The Liberals need Ontario to win an election,” Graves said. “They were gaining ground there, but now that advantage has disappeared.""
The personal popularity shows Harper regaining approval at a fast clip, with Ignatieff sinking into negative territory:
"Michael Ignatieff’s personal approval rating also took a substantial dip last week. Earlier in the year, while many Canadians said they did not yet know him, those who did have an opinion of the Liberal leader approved of the job he was doing by a substantial margin. By the beginning of this month, more people were familiar with him, and his approval rating was essentially neutral.
Now, in this most recent poll, he has slumped into net-negative territory. As with the party’s fortunes more generally, the most wounding change was in Ontario.
“There could be a couple of factors at play here,” said Graves. “It may be that the Tory ad campaign aimed at Ignatieff is finally starting to have a corrosive effect on his reputation. At the same time, Ignatieff was the public face of the Liberal brinksmanship last week, and that may have affected his personal reputation as well as the party’s.”
“Ignatieff’s negatives are not as serious as Stephen Harper’s, but the prime minister has been heading in the right direction in recent weeks, while Ignatieff’s numbers have been heading south. Canadians may not have wanted an election this summer, but they are certainly going to have a campaign nonetheless, as all the parties – and all the leaders – try to move these numbers.”"
Far and Wide has some other interesting conclusions from this EKOS poll.
Also interesting is the gender gap in support for both Harper and Ignatieff.
Both Harper and Ignatieff have more males expressing approval of them than females (for Harper, 39% of males approve and 29% of females, a gender approval gap of 10%; for Ignatieff, 37% of males approve, and 27% of females approve, with the same gender approval gap of 10%).
As for Harper, a whopping 47% of males disapprove of his performance, compared to 40% for Ignatieff (a difference of 7%).
Among females, the gender disapproval gap is 12%, with 46% disapproving of Harper and only 34% of Ignatieff.
There is hope for Ignatieff, in that the poll results show a higher proportion of DK/NR (Don't Know/No Response) for him than for Harper. We can take the DK/NR results as a rough measure of those who have not decided about Ignatieff yet – a kind of 'jury is still out' group. The positive feature is that this DK/NR group probably has many in it who just have not formed a firm opinion about Ignatieff, and who could be persuaded to approve of him. Their absence of an opinion could be because he is still unknown to many Canadians, and because there is not much publicly available information to allow voters to judge him as a politician, supporting specific policies directly applicable to Canada.
Not surprisingly, given his shelf life as an active politician in Canada, far more Canadians have firmer views about Harper: only 14% of males fall into the DK/NR group, and 26% of females.
For Ignatieff, the results are 23% males (almost twice that of Harper), and a sizeable 40% of females.
I could not find any January EKOS analysis of the gender approval and disapproval results, but did find the January EKOS results of the approval of the Liberal-NDP Coalition government (rather than a Harper government) interesting: 50% preferred the Coalition in January (the very clever and very dishonest Tory framing launched late in 2008 had died down a bit by then), and only 43% preferred a continued Harper government. The approval of the Coalition government was 80% amongst Liberal respondents, 86% NDP, 85% Bloc and 70% Greens).
"At the same time, the Conservatives are benefitting from rising optimism about the economy among some Canadians – those affected more directly by the economic news or stock and real estate markets than by the labour market, which continues to deteriorate.
"The Liberals may well recover from this short-term political setback,” said EKOS President Frank Graves. “At least that has been the pattern of the last six months when purely political events have rocked Canadians’ voting intentions.”
“More hopeful for the Conservatives and worrisome for the Liberals is the rising optimism on the economy, which is clearly behind some of the movement back to the Conservatives from the Liberals in recent weeks. This might have the makings of a more enduring trend.”
The principal movement in this most recent poll took place in Ontario. For several months the Liberals have enjoyed an advantage in the province, often reaching into the double-digits. Now, they are neck-and-neck with the Conservatives in Canada’s largest province.
“The Liberals need Ontario to win an election,” Graves said. “They were gaining ground there, but now that advantage has disappeared.""
The personal popularity shows Harper regaining approval at a fast clip, with Ignatieff sinking into negative territory:
"Michael Ignatieff’s personal approval rating also took a substantial dip last week. Earlier in the year, while many Canadians said they did not yet know him, those who did have an opinion of the Liberal leader approved of the job he was doing by a substantial margin. By the beginning of this month, more people were familiar with him, and his approval rating was essentially neutral.
Now, in this most recent poll, he has slumped into net-negative territory. As with the party’s fortunes more generally, the most wounding change was in Ontario.
“There could be a couple of factors at play here,” said Graves. “It may be that the Tory ad campaign aimed at Ignatieff is finally starting to have a corrosive effect on his reputation. At the same time, Ignatieff was the public face of the Liberal brinksmanship last week, and that may have affected his personal reputation as well as the party’s.”
“Ignatieff’s negatives are not as serious as Stephen Harper’s, but the prime minister has been heading in the right direction in recent weeks, while Ignatieff’s numbers have been heading south. Canadians may not have wanted an election this summer, but they are certainly going to have a campaign nonetheless, as all the parties – and all the leaders – try to move these numbers.”"
Far and Wide has some other interesting conclusions from this EKOS poll.
Also interesting is the gender gap in support for both Harper and Ignatieff.
Both Harper and Ignatieff have more males expressing approval of them than females (for Harper, 39% of males approve and 29% of females, a gender approval gap of 10%; for Ignatieff, 37% of males approve, and 27% of females approve, with the same gender approval gap of 10%).
As for Harper, a whopping 47% of males disapprove of his performance, compared to 40% for Ignatieff (a difference of 7%).
Among females, the gender disapproval gap is 12%, with 46% disapproving of Harper and only 34% of Ignatieff.
There is hope for Ignatieff, in that the poll results show a higher proportion of DK/NR (Don't Know/No Response) for him than for Harper. We can take the DK/NR results as a rough measure of those who have not decided about Ignatieff yet – a kind of 'jury is still out' group. The positive feature is that this DK/NR group probably has many in it who just have not formed a firm opinion about Ignatieff, and who could be persuaded to approve of him. Their absence of an opinion could be because he is still unknown to many Canadians, and because there is not much publicly available information to allow voters to judge him as a politician, supporting specific policies directly applicable to Canada.
Not surprisingly, given his shelf life as an active politician in Canada, far more Canadians have firmer views about Harper: only 14% of males fall into the DK/NR group, and 26% of females.
For Ignatieff, the results are 23% males (almost twice that of Harper), and a sizeable 40% of females.
I could not find any January EKOS analysis of the gender approval and disapproval results, but did find the January EKOS results of the approval of the Liberal-NDP Coalition government (rather than a Harper government) interesting: 50% preferred the Coalition in January (the very clever and very dishonest Tory framing launched late in 2008 had died down a bit by then), and only 43% preferred a continued Harper government. The approval of the Coalition government was 80% amongst Liberal respondents, 86% NDP, 85% Bloc and 70% Greens).
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ignatieff pays a price for bumbling
The Tory framing ads and the recent retreat by Ignatieff on the so-called Harper Report Card have cost the party a few percentage points in support, according to the latest Angus Reid poll.
What is more troubling is that Harper seems to be regaining and cementing his lead over Ignatieff with respect to the vitally important leadership elements, as this extract shows:
"Harper remains ahead of Ignatieff on being a strong and decisive leader (43% to 28%), having a vision for Canada's future (42% to 35%), managing the economy effectively (32% to 22%), and being honest and trustworthy (28% to 25%).
Ignatieff leads on caring about the environment (28% to 21%).
The two leaders are virtually tied on inspiring confidence, understanding the problems of Canadians, understanding complex issues, and generally agreeing with Canadians on issues they care about.
Harper managed to expand on his April numbers on the leadership and vision questions, while Ignatieff underwent a marked decline on inspiring confidence."
A 5% lead over Ignatieff as a strong and decisive leader is not positive, given Harper's series of missteps over the past few months. My guess is that Ignatieff's missteps in talking tough and then caving and propping up Harper's government have cancelled out Harper's errors, and that the Tory framing ads have also contributed to a relative disadvantage for Ignatieff as a leader.
What is really dismaying is that in a time of a world wide recession, with a Tory government which has proven itself woefully inept in anticipating and dealing with our own recession, that Harper should have a 10% lead (almost 50% higher) over Ignatieff when it comes to the best person to manage the economy effectively.
What is happening to cause this?
My best guess is that Ignatieff has been seen as a vacillating politician, given the many changes of position with respect to supporting the Tory government, and that the total absence of an announced, comprehensive Liberal economic plan has simply allowed Harper to set the pace as the best choice to run the country's economy.
Fortunately, both these problems are easily resolved by Ignatieff, if he finds some better advisors, backs off empty threats followed by inaction, and has the Liberal Party unveil a comprehensive set of policies, including economic ones.
If he does these things, I would expect the polls to show a marked improvement in about 6 to 12 months.
Just in time for an election … if the NDP and Bloc should agree,
What is more troubling is that Harper seems to be regaining and cementing his lead over Ignatieff with respect to the vitally important leadership elements, as this extract shows:
"Harper remains ahead of Ignatieff on being a strong and decisive leader (43% to 28%), having a vision for Canada's future (42% to 35%), managing the economy effectively (32% to 22%), and being honest and trustworthy (28% to 25%).
Ignatieff leads on caring about the environment (28% to 21%).
The two leaders are virtually tied on inspiring confidence, understanding the problems of Canadians, understanding complex issues, and generally agreeing with Canadians on issues they care about.
Harper managed to expand on his April numbers on the leadership and vision questions, while Ignatieff underwent a marked decline on inspiring confidence."
A 5% lead over Ignatieff as a strong and decisive leader is not positive, given Harper's series of missteps over the past few months. My guess is that Ignatieff's missteps in talking tough and then caving and propping up Harper's government have cancelled out Harper's errors, and that the Tory framing ads have also contributed to a relative disadvantage for Ignatieff as a leader.
What is really dismaying is that in a time of a world wide recession, with a Tory government which has proven itself woefully inept in anticipating and dealing with our own recession, that Harper should have a 10% lead (almost 50% higher) over Ignatieff when it comes to the best person to manage the economy effectively.
What is happening to cause this?
My best guess is that Ignatieff has been seen as a vacillating politician, given the many changes of position with respect to supporting the Tory government, and that the total absence of an announced, comprehensive Liberal economic plan has simply allowed Harper to set the pace as the best choice to run the country's economy.
Fortunately, both these problems are easily resolved by Ignatieff, if he finds some better advisors, backs off empty threats followed by inaction, and has the Liberal Party unveil a comprehensive set of policies, including economic ones.
If he does these things, I would expect the polls to show a marked improvement in about 6 to 12 months.
Just in time for an election … if the NDP and Bloc should agree,
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Once more to heel
Harper cut Ignatieff off at the knees with a few rather insulting 'concessions', and now the Liberals will support the Harper report card even though it is full of half-truths, misleading definitions, and vagueness.
It is time for Ignatieff to fire his advisors and get new ones; perhaps some who actually have some political sense, an appreciation of what politics is about, who know what framing means, and who are prepared to fight battles rather than recommend retreats.
Harper made Ignatieff look foolish and in turn the Liberal Party looks foolish.
If Ignatieff really wants to lead this party, he must take stock of his political reactions, and figure out what is not working. And most of what he is doing right now is not working. And then figure out how to change it before it is too late.
The nonsensical argument that Canadians do not want an election now is a craven caving in to the Harper framing, and for the Liberals in the House to parrot this is unforgiveable.
A summer election is not the issue.
The issue is whether Canada has the right government for these perilous times.
And most Canadians would agree that we do not have that.
What a sad week this has been.
It is time for Ignatieff to fire his advisors and get new ones; perhaps some who actually have some political sense, an appreciation of what politics is about, who know what framing means, and who are prepared to fight battles rather than recommend retreats.
Harper made Ignatieff look foolish and in turn the Liberal Party looks foolish.
If Ignatieff really wants to lead this party, he must take stock of his political reactions, and figure out what is not working. And most of what he is doing right now is not working. And then figure out how to change it before it is too late.
The nonsensical argument that Canadians do not want an election now is a craven caving in to the Harper framing, and for the Liberals in the House to parrot this is unforgiveable.
A summer election is not the issue.
The issue is whether Canada has the right government for these perilous times.
And most Canadians would agree that we do not have that.
What a sad week this has been.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Canadian MPs (and Senators) and expense accounts
Congratulations to Doug Ward of the Vancouver Sun for digging into the way in which our MPs are compensated for serving as such and for expenses. In the UK the flagrant abuse of the right to have expenses reimbursed has rocked the parliamentary foundations, caused the Labour government's popularity to plunge even further, and lead to many MPs deciding to step down or not run again.
UK MPs were ridiculed for their sense of entitlement; enraged citizens were treated to an exquisite dance of the seven veils by The Telegraph, which revealed on a daily basis the expense claims of presumptuous MPs from all parties.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there was darkness upon the land of disclosure, with Doug Ward being the first to my knowledge to examine our situation in some detail. And he has raised a few interesting matters. Our MPs get paid more than the UK ones do (C$175,000 base salary compared to the UK MPs' $100,000). The living costs of the two sets of MPs are very different. In the UK, many of the abuses arose from the expenses allowed for "second homes". In Canada the system is less generous, as our 308 MPs don't get an equivalent $40,000 allowance; we give our MPs $25,000 to cover their living expenses. And, of course, our MPs get an annual amount for their office budgets, based on their riding's size and population (this can amount to $255,000); they also get 64 free return airline tickets to and from Ottawa.
So we seem far better situated.
However, we are still being given the mushroom treatment as citizens, because we are not allowed to visit a website and see the individual expense claims of our MPs. And the MPs seem determined to cut back on the rights to audit such expenses:
"The House of Commons and the Senate have resisted requests from Canadian auditor-general Sheila Fraser to audit expense claims.
Fraser has been in negotiations with the Board of Internal Economy over a potential audit. But its unclear whether such a review would involve looking at MP’s expense claims or whether it would be a “performance audit” to determine whether taxpayers are receiving value for their money.
Gaudet said that Ottawa’s rules are tighter than those in Britain but that there is still room for abuse. “MPs in Canada can’t pay for house upgrades, for example. But they do get a housing allowance and how they spend it is up to them.”
Gaudet, who previously worked in an MP’s office, said that “transparency breeds accountability.”
“Who knows if MPs are expensing espresso machines in their offices. We can’t know because it isn’t public.”
Gaudet’s comment was in reference to media reports about how Toronto councillor Adam Vaughn used $281 of his $53,100 office expenses allowance to buy an espresso machine.
“Do I think there could be abuses? Possibly,” said Gaudet about Canadian MPs expense claims.
“Do I think they could be as bad as in Britain, probably not. But that would be setting the bar pretty low.”
Come on, MPs and Senators: show some respect for your masters, the citizens of Canada, and set up a website to reveal expenses of individual MPs and Senators, as well as allow proper auditing.
We deserve no less.
UK MPs were ridiculed for their sense of entitlement; enraged citizens were treated to an exquisite dance of the seven veils by The Telegraph, which revealed on a daily basis the expense claims of presumptuous MPs from all parties.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there was darkness upon the land of disclosure, with Doug Ward being the first to my knowledge to examine our situation in some detail. And he has raised a few interesting matters. Our MPs get paid more than the UK ones do (C$175,000 base salary compared to the UK MPs' $100,000). The living costs of the two sets of MPs are very different. In the UK, many of the abuses arose from the expenses allowed for "second homes". In Canada the system is less generous, as our 308 MPs don't get an equivalent $40,000 allowance; we give our MPs $25,000 to cover their living expenses. And, of course, our MPs get an annual amount for their office budgets, based on their riding's size and population (this can amount to $255,000); they also get 64 free return airline tickets to and from Ottawa.
So we seem far better situated.
However, we are still being given the mushroom treatment as citizens, because we are not allowed to visit a website and see the individual expense claims of our MPs. And the MPs seem determined to cut back on the rights to audit such expenses:
"The House of Commons and the Senate have resisted requests from Canadian auditor-general Sheila Fraser to audit expense claims.
Fraser has been in negotiations with the Board of Internal Economy over a potential audit. But its unclear whether such a review would involve looking at MP’s expense claims or whether it would be a “performance audit” to determine whether taxpayers are receiving value for their money.
Gaudet said that Ottawa’s rules are tighter than those in Britain but that there is still room for abuse. “MPs in Canada can’t pay for house upgrades, for example. But they do get a housing allowance and how they spend it is up to them.”
Gaudet, who previously worked in an MP’s office, said that “transparency breeds accountability.”
“Who knows if MPs are expensing espresso machines in their offices. We can’t know because it isn’t public.”
Gaudet’s comment was in reference to media reports about how Toronto councillor Adam Vaughn used $281 of his $53,100 office expenses allowance to buy an espresso machine.
“Do I think there could be abuses? Possibly,” said Gaudet about Canadian MPs expense claims.
“Do I think they could be as bad as in Britain, probably not. But that would be setting the bar pretty low.”
Come on, MPs and Senators: show some respect for your masters, the citizens of Canada, and set up a website to reveal expenses of individual MPs and Senators, as well as allow proper auditing.
We deserve no less.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
How Ignatieff could mark the Harper report card
Harper, hoping to avoid being felled as prime minister of a 'do little' government by getting a failing mark from all three opposition parties on his economic report, offered a voluminous study which did more to muddy the waters than to clarify matters. In fact, despite his positive spin, the report gave broad hints of the relative inaction of this non-believing government in actually spending the stimulus package funds:
"In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, Ont., he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented."
Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.
In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over - something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)
Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway." Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow - which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party."
The NDP has said that they will vote against the Tories if the Liberals introduce a non-confidence motion over the report. The Bloc has said it will as well.
That leaves the choice squarely in the laps of the Liberals.
And, as Ignatieff said, they have been watching the Tory government like hawks.
What to do?
Pull the plug now and plunge the nation into another inconclusive election, or back off and support Harper yet again, giving voters the impression that the Liberals are best suited to play backup in the band of governance, rather than to be lead singer.
The Cat thinks that Ignatieff and the Liberals have one way to solve this classic dilemma, in a manner which benefits ordinary Canadians.
The secret to untying the Gordian knot facing the Liberals is to revisit the test which Ignatieff himself imposed on the Tories when he destroyed the NDP-LPC coalition government by supporting the Harper government.
Back then, he said this:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
That is the key: how to make sure that the Tory government actually spends the billions allocated in their budget so as to create jobs fast.
The report card is a whitewash exercise, designed to spin the line that the Tories are moving expeditiously in pushing money out the door. The facts clearly indicate the opposite: the control-freaks in this government are not really committed to spending money to create jobs but in spending money as public relations exercises, designed to wring out the maximum political value for the party.
It's as if Santa has decided to take six months to hand out Christmas goodies so that he can bask in the thank-yous of the grateful recipients.
So, what should Ignatieff do?
My suggestion is that he tables in Parliament a Liberal paper which sets out conditions. If Harper agrees to the conditions and acts on them forthwith (before the Liberal date for a non-confidence motion), then the Liberals will support the government.
If Harper refuses, then he will be faced with the Liberal non-confidence motion, and will have brought down his own downfall.
So what will the Liberal paper contain?
Simply these items:
1. A multi-party committee will be formed, with representatives from all four parties in the House, proportional to their seats there, to oversee the spending of the stimulus funds. This committee will be called the Economic Implementation Committee.
2. The committee will make decisions by majority votes.
3. All projects over a threshold value ($5 million?) which would fit into the category of projects qualifying for federal stimulus funds under the Tory budget, will be approved by and expedited by the committee.
4. The committee will have legislated fast-track power to overrule any existing laws or regulations which impede the speedy beginning of and funding of the projects.
This proposal means the Tory government stays in power until the next report card is due, and their budget is the governing instrument, but that the boost to the economy takes place as fast as is feasible, through the actions of the committee.
If Ignatieff takes The Cat's advice, it will be up to Harper to decide whether to form the Economic Implementation Committee, or to take his chances.
And if he takes his chances, he will have to explain to Canadians why he decided to have another costly election, over the issue of how to implement the stimulus funding so badly needed by jobless Canadians in a faster, more feasible way.
That would be a tough argument for Harper to make. Not even a rather stout and very partial former television personality could help Harper make that work.
"In a campaign-style address in Cambridge, Ont., he said that 80% of the plan is "already being implemented."
Grammar watchdogs feel free to correct me, but the plan has "already been implemented" or it is "being implemented." This fuzzy use of language seems to be another attempt to mislead people into thinking that new overpasses are sprouting up all over the country.
In fact, while $20.6-billion of the $22.7-billion to be spent this year has been approved by Cabinet and the Treasury Board and is with government departments, by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as being "out of the door." (Many projects have not yet been given the green light, far fewer have seen cheques handed over - something that only happens after the fact, when the feds have been invoiced and completed their due diligence.)
Take the largest pool of cash, the $4-billion infrastructure stimulus fund. The government aims to spend $2-billion this year and the Prime Minister talked at great length about the 3,000 individual projects "that are now getting underway." Yet page 138 of the Report to Canadians document reveals that only $1.1-billion of the $2-billion fund has been committed and that money only began flowing to those projects last month. Progress has been extremely slow - which should not be news to the government, or the Liberal party."
The NDP has said that they will vote against the Tories if the Liberals introduce a non-confidence motion over the report. The Bloc has said it will as well.
That leaves the choice squarely in the laps of the Liberals.
And, as Ignatieff said, they have been watching the Tory government like hawks.
What to do?
Pull the plug now and plunge the nation into another inconclusive election, or back off and support Harper yet again, giving voters the impression that the Liberals are best suited to play backup in the band of governance, rather than to be lead singer.
The Cat thinks that Ignatieff and the Liberals have one way to solve this classic dilemma, in a manner which benefits ordinary Canadians.
The secret to untying the Gordian knot facing the Liberals is to revisit the test which Ignatieff himself imposed on the Tories when he destroyed the NDP-LPC coalition government by supporting the Harper government.
Back then, he said this:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
That is the key: how to make sure that the Tory government actually spends the billions allocated in their budget so as to create jobs fast.
The report card is a whitewash exercise, designed to spin the line that the Tories are moving expeditiously in pushing money out the door. The facts clearly indicate the opposite: the control-freaks in this government are not really committed to spending money to create jobs but in spending money as public relations exercises, designed to wring out the maximum political value for the party.
It's as if Santa has decided to take six months to hand out Christmas goodies so that he can bask in the thank-yous of the grateful recipients.
So, what should Ignatieff do?
My suggestion is that he tables in Parliament a Liberal paper which sets out conditions. If Harper agrees to the conditions and acts on them forthwith (before the Liberal date for a non-confidence motion), then the Liberals will support the government.
If Harper refuses, then he will be faced with the Liberal non-confidence motion, and will have brought down his own downfall.
So what will the Liberal paper contain?
Simply these items:
1. A multi-party committee will be formed, with representatives from all four parties in the House, proportional to their seats there, to oversee the spending of the stimulus funds. This committee will be called the Economic Implementation Committee.
2. The committee will make decisions by majority votes.
3. All projects over a threshold value ($5 million?) which would fit into the category of projects qualifying for federal stimulus funds under the Tory budget, will be approved by and expedited by the committee.
4. The committee will have legislated fast-track power to overrule any existing laws or regulations which impede the speedy beginning of and funding of the projects.
This proposal means the Tory government stays in power until the next report card is due, and their budget is the governing instrument, but that the boost to the economy takes place as fast as is feasible, through the actions of the committee.
If Ignatieff takes The Cat's advice, it will be up to Harper to decide whether to form the Economic Implementation Committee, or to take his chances.
And if he takes his chances, he will have to explain to Canadians why he decided to have another costly election, over the issue of how to implement the stimulus funding so badly needed by jobless Canadians in a faster, more feasible way.
That would be a tough argument for Harper to make. Not even a rather stout and very partial former television personality could help Harper make that work.
Is a 33% score by Harper on his probation report good enough?
Harper delivered his second probationary report to the opposition parties, called the Second Economic Report, and managed to grab headlines by saying that his government was doing a wonderful job and had managed to commit 80% of the funding required for the 2009/2010 year.
"This report indicates that 80 per cent of the measures are either flowing, or there are commitments in place that will allow the funds to flow to specific projects and initiatives."
And, what is more, Harper's guys have moved heaven and earth to get the money out of the door and into the economy, as Table 1.2 claims:
"Canada’s Economic Action Plan is designed to get stimulus out as quickly and effectively as possible in order to have the maximum impact on jobs. That is why the Government moved aggressively to deliver budget spending up to 14 months faster than the usual process."
Remember the NDP-LPC coalition which forced Harper's hand?
"The Liberal leader announced he’ll move an amendment to the budget which will require the government to table three detailed progress reports to Parliament starting in March. If the amendment passes, Liberals will not vote against the budget. But Ignatieff said the Liberals are prepared to defeat the government later should any of the progress reports show that the Tories had failed to implement some budget measures or that the budget wasn’t working.
“We are putting this government on probation,” he told a news conference. “Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.”
Ignatieff said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in.
“And now the job of a responsible Opposition is to hold them to their word, to force them to deliver and, if they don’t deliver, to replace them.”
The amendment specifies dates for tabling the status reports — March 26, June 23 and Sept. 10. They are timed to coincide with supply bills, which are automatically considered confidence votes."
More specifically, Ignatieff said he would be watching Harper's Tories "like a hawk."
What exactly was Ignatieff going to be watching like a hawk?
In Ignatieff's words:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
Ignatieff put his finger on the issue: what Canadians needed was cash – hard cash – actually flowing into projects which created jobs.
Not promises.
Not "commitments to fund", which is what Harper's report card talks about.
Let's match Harper's report card against what Ignatieff says was obtained from him.
Note that Ignatieff said the NDP-LPC coalition "forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in."
Now let's take the actual progress to date – the amount "committed" in Harper's report card.
That's $13.2 billion (if we exclude the GM/Chrysler rescue package). Check it yourself – go to Table 1.3 on page 14 of the report card.
And that makes only 33% "committed" of the total amount of $40 billion that Ignatieff was so pleased by.
Now, ask yourself: if your kid came home and started crowing about how well he or she had done because they scored overall 33%, what would you say?
"Nice job, here's some cash, off to celebrate you are!"
Or would you say: "That's just not good enough. That is a failing grade. You are grounded."
Let's see if any of the Bloc, NDP or Liberal parties will give Harper a pass on his 33% score.
"This report indicates that 80 per cent of the measures are either flowing, or there are commitments in place that will allow the funds to flow to specific projects and initiatives."
And, what is more, Harper's guys have moved heaven and earth to get the money out of the door and into the economy, as Table 1.2 claims:
"Canada’s Economic Action Plan is designed to get stimulus out as quickly and effectively as possible in order to have the maximum impact on jobs. That is why the Government moved aggressively to deliver budget spending up to 14 months faster than the usual process."
Remember the NDP-LPC coalition which forced Harper's hand?
"The Liberal leader announced he’ll move an amendment to the budget which will require the government to table three detailed progress reports to Parliament starting in March. If the amendment passes, Liberals will not vote against the budget. But Ignatieff said the Liberals are prepared to defeat the government later should any of the progress reports show that the Tories had failed to implement some budget measures or that the budget wasn’t working.
“We are putting this government on probation,” he told a news conference. “Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.”
Ignatieff said the threat of a Liberal-NDP coalition forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in.
“And now the job of a responsible Opposition is to hold them to their word, to force them to deliver and, if they don’t deliver, to replace them.”
The amendment specifies dates for tabling the status reports — March 26, June 23 and Sept. 10. They are timed to coincide with supply bills, which are automatically considered confidence votes."
More specifically, Ignatieff said he would be watching Harper's Tories "like a hawk."
What exactly was Ignatieff going to be watching like a hawk?
In Ignatieff's words:
“We will be watching like hawks to make sure that the investments Canadians need actually reach them,” Ignatieff said.
Ignatieff put his finger on the issue: what Canadians needed was cash – hard cash – actually flowing into projects which created jobs.
Not promises.
Not "commitments to fund", which is what Harper's report card talks about.
Let's match Harper's report card against what Ignatieff says was obtained from him.
Note that Ignatieff said the NDP-LPC coalition "forced the government to include $40 billion worth of stimulative measures in the budget; measures the Tories don’t really believe in."
Now let's take the actual progress to date – the amount "committed" in Harper's report card.
That's $13.2 billion (if we exclude the GM/Chrysler rescue package). Check it yourself – go to Table 1.3 on page 14 of the report card.
And that makes only 33% "committed" of the total amount of $40 billion that Ignatieff was so pleased by.
Now, ask yourself: if your kid came home and started crowing about how well he or she had done because they scored overall 33%, what would you say?
"Nice job, here's some cash, off to celebrate you are!"
Or would you say: "That's just not good enough. That is a failing grade. You are grounded."
Let's see if any of the Bloc, NDP or Liberal parties will give Harper a pass on his 33% score.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
