The release of thousands of secret documents that reveal what governments are really saying about each other undoubtedly poses risks.
But if Canada's top spy is telling the Americans that he's worried Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a weak leader and corrupt - while our politicians are telling us things are going well - then I want to know.
WikiLeaks, a website and organization set up to share information that governments, agencies and corporations want to keep secret, is releasing about 250,000 cables from U.S. diplomats around the world back to Washington.
Lives will be put at risk, the politicians warn.
And international relations will be profoundly damaged if diplomats, politicians and businesspeople can't sit down to exchange views confident that no outsiders will ever know what they said. Let the shine in, and all will be lost, say critics of the document release.
There is a price to be paid. Some information exchange might be reduced; some decisions less well-informed.
But the basic premise of those criticizing WikiLeaks is the public can be kept in the dark - or told lies - while the real facts are kept within the elite, for the greater good.
That seems dangerous, at least as dangerous as too much openness.
Consider the WikiLeaks documents outlining U.S. diplomats' reports to Washington based on 2008 discussions with Jim Rudd, then the head of CSIS and Canada's top spy.
That was a difficult year for the war in Afghanistan. Lives were being lost and money spent, but little was being accomplished. But the government was keen to press on with the mission even as the public had doubts.
Judd's comments to U.S. diplomats in Ottawa would have been a useful addition to the discussion about whether we should keep spending lives and treasure in Afghanistan.
Rudd was not encouraged by progress in Afghanistan, the diplomats reported to their masters in Washington. CSIS identified many problems - President Hamid Karzai's "weak leadership, widespread corruption, the lack of will to press ahead on counter-narcotics, limited Afghan security force capability (particularly the police) and, most recently, the Sarpoza prison break."
(Canada had spent $1 million to improve the prison and Corrections Canada had trained the guards. But in June 2008,Taliban fighters moved into Kandahar, attacked the prison and freed about 1,000 inmates. It was a show of defiance.)
There were some official statements about how difficult things were in Afghanistan in 2008. But there was more cheerleading. The top NATO commander said the Taliban was on the run. Brought to their knees, said a British commander.
But privately, Rudd was sharing a bleak assessment with the U.S. and, presumably, the Canadian government.
None of this is clearcut. If Rudd and others share information with diplomats, perhaps better solutions will be reached.
It can be argued that the head of Canada's spy service shouldn't be making his views public, pushing aside elected representatives.
But should U.S. government representatives get the real story, while Canadians are kept in the dark?
I'm glad to learn that the CSIS head told U.S. contacts that images of Omar Khadr's interrogation would trigger "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" and "paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty."
And that he told the Americans that court decisions had "tied CSIS in knots" and cost it public support. Canadian authorities can't even use evidence if it could have been obtained through torture, he complained.
It seems that these things - torture, handcuffed spies, a stalled war, our role in Afghanistan - should be subject to a real public discussion.
But the only honest conversation was between American envoys and Canadian spies. We were on the outside.
And we only know about the real story because of WikiLeaks.
Those on the inside generally like secrecy.
It's harder to see why the rest of us should indulge their desire to have two sets of facts - one for them, and one for the rest of us.
Footnote: The man behind WikiLeaks is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and former computer hacker. He's keeping a low profile; various governments are discussing espionage or other charges (he faces sexual assault allegations in Sweden) and Sarah Palin has apparently suggested that the U.S. should assassinate him.
Breaking News Around The World And Career Highlights
Another question for Elections BC
This is troubling.
Elections BC refused to approve the recall petition in Ida Chong's riding based on rules it created after the petition was submitted. It appears incompetent to have failed to have the rules in place, as the Times Colonist noted in an editorial here.
The legislation sets a 200-word limit on the petition. Elections BC ruled MLA counts as five words; HST as three. So the petition was over the limit under the new rules.
An Elections BC official defended the retroactive decision to create the rules.
"The methodology used for word counts had never been an issue in the past because all previous recall applications had come in at well below 200 words," she said.
It's not a compelling defence.
Worse, it's also untrue, as The Gazetteer, establishes here. There haven't been that many recall campaigns; voters should expect better from Elections BC than false statements to defend its decisions.
Elections BC refused to approve the recall petition in Ida Chong's riding based on rules it created after the petition was submitted. It appears incompetent to have failed to have the rules in place, as the Times Colonist noted in an editorial here.
The legislation sets a 200-word limit on the petition. Elections BC ruled MLA counts as five words; HST as three. So the petition was over the limit under the new rules.
An Elections BC official defended the retroactive decision to create the rules.
"The methodology used for word counts had never been an issue in the past because all previous recall applications had come in at well below 200 words," she said.
It's not a compelling defence.
Worse, it's also untrue, as The Gazetteer, establishes here. There haven't been that many recall campaigns; voters should expect better from Elections BC than false statements to defend its decisions.
Government fumbled drinking-driving changes
First the solicitor general, in charge of road safety, tries to convince the public that a little drinking and driving isn't so bad.
Then police reveal that roadside breathalyzer devices in the province - already used to impose licence suspensions on several hundred thousand British Columbians - were badly calibrated. Innocent people likely suffered roadside suspensions and further penalties.
The Liberals' changes to drinking and driving laws have turned into a mess.
Blame two factors.
First, a lack of honesty about the real goals of the changes, which give police power to impose much tougher penalties on drivers without laying impaired driving charges.
Even if a driver hasn't downed enough to blow over .08, the legal definition for impaired driving, police can now impose serious penalties. Blow over .05 and, for a first offence, you lose your licence for three days, have your car impounded and face about $600 in fines and fees.
The government pitched the changes, which took effect Sept. 20, as an effort to improve road safety.
That was partly true. The tougher penalties for people who blew between .05 and .08 make the consequences of being a little impaired much more serious. (That used to bring a 24-hour suspension.)
But the government was also looking for a way to penalize people without laying impaired driving charges under the Criminal Code.
Drivers could and did plead not guilty to those charges and fight them in court. About one-quarter of provincial court time is taken up with impaired charges. The government wanted to save money by taking that option away.
The measures worked. Bars and restaurants reported a 15 to 30 per cent drop in business once the new rules were in place.
That prompted Solicitor General Rich Coleman to encourage a little light drinking and driving. People had got it wrong, he said. "They can go in and have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and still leave and be OK."
Coleman's advice is simply wrong. A couple of Calgary Herald journalists tested the B.C. limits with the help of the Calgary police department. The woman, who was small, had two glasses of wine and a meal over a couple of hours and blew .062.
Following Coleman's bad advice could be disastrous, in so many ways.
The other big concern was with justice. The new penalties could be imposed by a single police officer. Any appeals were not through the courts and came after the penalty was served.
Given that. you would think the government would accept a responsibility to ensure citizens' rights were protected.
It didn't. The standard for impaired under the Criminal Code is .08 blood alcohol content. But the machines are calibrated to signal fail at 0.1, to allow for a margin of error, which the manufacturers' acknowledge.
But the devices had been set to signal warning - bringing the licence suspension, vehicle impoundment and fines - at .05, with no margin for error.
Until the traffic safety committee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs said "recent" RCMP tests showed the roadside devices weren't accurate. Drivers might have been wrongly penalized. The 2,200 devices would be reset to .06 to allow a margin of error.
But about 170 people have a week have faced sanctions based on the faulty breathalyzer tests since Sept. 20. And about 35,000 people a year have been hit with 24-hour suspensions - based on defective machines.
What's most alarming is that the injustice wasn't identified by the solicitor general or the attorney general. Only a subcommittee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs protected the rights of citizens.
So we have a government in favour of a little drinking and driving, while bringing in tough penalties for drivers who haven't actually broken the law.
Drinking drivers have been kept off the road. But what a big mess has been made in stumbling toward that goal.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government has reduced the penalties for driving without a licence or while suspended. Those offences use to result in vehicle impoundments of 30 to 90 days, but too many people just abandoned their cars. A first offence now brings a seven-day vehicle impoundment.
Then police reveal that roadside breathalyzer devices in the province - already used to impose licence suspensions on several hundred thousand British Columbians - were badly calibrated. Innocent people likely suffered roadside suspensions and further penalties.
The Liberals' changes to drinking and driving laws have turned into a mess.
Blame two factors.
First, a lack of honesty about the real goals of the changes, which give police power to impose much tougher penalties on drivers without laying impaired driving charges.
Even if a driver hasn't downed enough to blow over .08, the legal definition for impaired driving, police can now impose serious penalties. Blow over .05 and, for a first offence, you lose your licence for three days, have your car impounded and face about $600 in fines and fees.
The government pitched the changes, which took effect Sept. 20, as an effort to improve road safety.
That was partly true. The tougher penalties for people who blew between .05 and .08 make the consequences of being a little impaired much more serious. (That used to bring a 24-hour suspension.)
But the government was also looking for a way to penalize people without laying impaired driving charges under the Criminal Code.
Drivers could and did plead not guilty to those charges and fight them in court. About one-quarter of provincial court time is taken up with impaired charges. The government wanted to save money by taking that option away.
The measures worked. Bars and restaurants reported a 15 to 30 per cent drop in business once the new rules were in place.
That prompted Solicitor General Rich Coleman to encourage a little light drinking and driving. People had got it wrong, he said. "They can go in and have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and still leave and be OK."
Coleman's advice is simply wrong. A couple of Calgary Herald journalists tested the B.C. limits with the help of the Calgary police department. The woman, who was small, had two glasses of wine and a meal over a couple of hours and blew .062.
Following Coleman's bad advice could be disastrous, in so many ways.
The other big concern was with justice. The new penalties could be imposed by a single police officer. Any appeals were not through the courts and came after the penalty was served.
Given that. you would think the government would accept a responsibility to ensure citizens' rights were protected.
It didn't. The standard for impaired under the Criminal Code is .08 blood alcohol content. But the machines are calibrated to signal fail at 0.1, to allow for a margin of error, which the manufacturers' acknowledge.
But the devices had been set to signal warning - bringing the licence suspension, vehicle impoundment and fines - at .05, with no margin for error.
Until the traffic safety committee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs said "recent" RCMP tests showed the roadside devices weren't accurate. Drivers might have been wrongly penalized. The 2,200 devices would be reset to .06 to allow a margin of error.
But about 170 people have a week have faced sanctions based on the faulty breathalyzer tests since Sept. 20. And about 35,000 people a year have been hit with 24-hour suspensions - based on defective machines.
What's most alarming is that the injustice wasn't identified by the solicitor general or the attorney general. Only a subcommittee of the B.C. Association of Police Chiefs protected the rights of citizens.
So we have a government in favour of a little drinking and driving, while bringing in tough penalties for drivers who haven't actually broken the law.
Drinking drivers have been kept off the road. But what a big mess has been made in stumbling toward that goal.
Footnote: Meanwhile, the government has reduced the penalties for driving without a licence or while suspended. Those offences use to result in vehicle impoundments of 30 to 90 days, but too many people just abandoned their cars. A first offence now brings a seven-day vehicle impoundment.
Editorial: Liberals cave to Big Pharma
Today's Times Colonist editorial:
"The last act in a nasty vendetta has finally played out. Premier Gordon Campbell's government has decided to kill B.C.'s only independent drug review agency. And not just kill it, but bury it in an unmarked grave.
The agency involved is called the Therapeutics Initiative. Based at the University of British Columbia, it evaluates new drugs that come on the market.
The Therapeutics Initiative saves taxpayers $50 million annually by finding cheaper alternatives. Largely thanks to its efforts, B.C. has the lowest drug costs in the country, despite offering some of the best coverage.
Moreover, the Therapeutics Initiative runs on a shoestring budget. The agency gets $1 million a year. That means it generates a 50 to one return on investment.
Finally, its researchers have been credited with saving 500 lives by issuing timely warnings about suspect medications..."
Read the rest here.
"The last act in a nasty vendetta has finally played out. Premier Gordon Campbell's government has decided to kill B.C.'s only independent drug review agency. And not just kill it, but bury it in an unmarked grave.
The agency involved is called the Therapeutics Initiative. Based at the University of British Columbia, it evaluates new drugs that come on the market.
The Therapeutics Initiative saves taxpayers $50 million annually by finding cheaper alternatives. Largely thanks to its efforts, B.C. has the lowest drug costs in the country, despite offering some of the best coverage.
Moreover, the Therapeutics Initiative runs on a shoestring budget. The agency gets $1 million a year. That means it generates a 50 to one return on investment.
Finally, its researchers have been credited with saving 500 lives by issuing timely warnings about suspect medications..."
Read the rest here.
The breathalyzer scandal
Useful editorial from the Times Colonist:
"The news that poorly calibrated breathalyzer devices could have resulted in licence suspensions and fines for innocent drivers is alarming.
Answers are needed from Solicitor General Rich Coleman, not an unelected police spokesman.
Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham, acting as chairman of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police traffic safety committee, announced Friday that the 2,200 roadside testing devices in the province will be recalibrated.
"Recent" RCMP lab tests found a margin of error in the machines. The devices could indicate a driver's blood-alcohol level was over .05 -- the level at which provincial penalties can be imposed -- when he was under the limit.
The solution is to recalibrate the breathalyzers so a "warn" signal is obtained if the driver blows .06, recognizing the potential machine error.
The implications are huge. Since the new drinking and driving rules were introduced, about 170 British Columbians a week have faced three-day licence suspensions, vehicle impoundment and some $600 in fines and fees. That's more than 1,500 people, at least some of whom were potentially innocent.
But the impact is much greater. Since 1977, police have been issuing 24-hour suspensions based on the same roadside test. Some 150,000 people have been penalized in the past five years alone. Again, some apparently should not have been.
The latest effort to curb drinking and driving is welcome and appears to be working.
But concerns about the arbitrary nature of enforcement and the lack of an effective appeal process were raised well in advance of the new laws. Yet the government did not ensure enforcement was fair and reliable.
Police and government have known of the machines' margin of error for years. The "fail" signal, which indicates a driver is over .08, is actually triggered when a person blows 0.1 for that very reason. But they did not ensure accurate testing for the tens of thousands of drivers facing roadside justice.
Police have put the three-day suspensions on hold until the machines are fixed. But what of the drivers who have lost their licences, paid their fines and now have the offences on their records -- and who might have been innocent?
Government sloppiness has created injustice for some drivers and undermined confidence in a controversial measure."
"The news that poorly calibrated breathalyzer devices could have resulted in licence suspensions and fines for innocent drivers is alarming.
Answers are needed from Solicitor General Rich Coleman, not an unelected police spokesman.
Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham, acting as chairman of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police traffic safety committee, announced Friday that the 2,200 roadside testing devices in the province will be recalibrated.
"Recent" RCMP lab tests found a margin of error in the machines. The devices could indicate a driver's blood-alcohol level was over .05 -- the level at which provincial penalties can be imposed -- when he was under the limit.
The solution is to recalibrate the breathalyzers so a "warn" signal is obtained if the driver blows .06, recognizing the potential machine error.
The implications are huge. Since the new drinking and driving rules were introduced, about 170 British Columbians a week have faced three-day licence suspensions, vehicle impoundment and some $600 in fines and fees. That's more than 1,500 people, at least some of whom were potentially innocent.
But the impact is much greater. Since 1977, police have been issuing 24-hour suspensions based on the same roadside test. Some 150,000 people have been penalized in the past five years alone. Again, some apparently should not have been.
The latest effort to curb drinking and driving is welcome and appears to be working.
But concerns about the arbitrary nature of enforcement and the lack of an effective appeal process were raised well in advance of the new laws. Yet the government did not ensure enforcement was fair and reliable.
Police and government have known of the machines' margin of error for years. The "fail" signal, which indicates a driver is over .08, is actually triggered when a person blows 0.1 for that very reason. But they did not ensure accurate testing for the tens of thousands of drivers facing roadside justice.
Police have put the three-day suspensions on hold until the machines are fixed. But what of the drivers who have lost their licences, paid their fines and now have the offences on their records -- and who might have been innocent?
Government sloppiness has created injustice for some drivers and undermined confidence in a controversial measure."
Big Pharma wins, B.C. taxpayers lose
The government's pandering to Big Pharma by killing a world-acclaimed initiative that ensured only effective drugs were covered by Pharmacare is truly appalling. The Therapeutics Initiative saved the health system hundreds of millions of dollars while ensuring good medical outcomes.
There is no public policy reason to eliminate it. But it also hurt pharmaceutical company profits � B.C. spends much less on prescription drugs than the national average � and they have lobbied for more than a decade to kill it.
Finally, they've won, as this piece reports.
Pharmaceutical companies have a great economic incentive to sell more drugs, at higher prices. That's their job. And it's worth a lot to them to win this kind of victory, so they can spend a great deal on the campaign - political donations and PR campaigns and support for groups that will support them. (Most illness advocacy groups - heart, stroke, cancer - received significant support from drug companies. Some likely couldn't survive without the money.)
Health consumers and taxpayers have to rely on government to look after their interests. It's not working.
_____________
One small step that could help is a government-funded Consumers' Health Forum, which I wrote about in the Sun in 2004.
Health care consumers need a voice
VICTORIA - The only people who haven't got a say in the way health care works in Canada are the patients.
Doctors have the BCMA. Nurses, the BCNU. Drug companies have their lobbyists and funded health groups.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system to keep us healthy and fix us when things go wrong? We have no voice.
The government, you might argue. But you'd be wrong. The government doesn't represent health care consumers. It balances a broad range of pressures.
When Health Minister Colin Hansen is locked in a struggle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors, for example, his government represents not just parents who might need to bring a sick baby into emergency at 2 a.m., but businesses that want lower taxes and people pushing for other spending priorities. He's mindful of patients' interests; he's also mindful of the commitment to a balanced budget.
Nothing wrong with that. Just don't interpret it as government representing consumers.
There's a knee-jerk reaction against talking about consumers in the context of government services. But that's what we are -- we pay an average $2,700 a year each for health care, and we consume the service. And we're especially powerless because we're dealing with a monopoly supplier and can't shop elsewhere if we're dissatisfied.
The absence of any real consumer voice has created a vacuum, allowing special interest groups to claim to speak for us. It's obligatory for everyone in a health care debate to talk about putting patients first, while pursuing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition weighed in last week with its annual report linking higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. The title, Your Money or Your Life, summarizes the message. B.C. has the highest per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and the lowest mortality rates and shortest waiting times for treatment. More money equals lives saved.
Perhaps. But perhaps B.C. has a lower cancer death rate because people are generally more active and healthier here, or because of tougher anti-smoking rules, or because of a large immigrant population less predisposed to cancer. A true consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
The cancer coalition is doing important work. But it doesn't speak for consumers. Its stated goal is to make cancer the No. 1 health care priority in Canada, not to advocate for better health care.
And like virtually all major health advocacy groups, the cancer coalition depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies.
Alan Cassels, a drug policy expert at the University of Victoria, says the drug company funding inevitably creates conflicts. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
The problem is compounded because when Health Canada sets out to hold high-level consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us.
It's not a uniquely Canadian problem. But fixing it need not be costly or difficult, as Australia has shown.
The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a health care voice.
It's a coalition of health and community groups. Only organizations that represent consumers -- not providers or care workers or corporations -- are eligible.
The forum represents the public, takes complaints, publishes articles and newsletters, and, most importantly, speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members -- no drug company donations -- and with a staff of eight.
It's a small price to give consumers a long overdue voice.
There is no public policy reason to eliminate it. But it also hurt pharmaceutical company profits � B.C. spends much less on prescription drugs than the national average � and they have lobbied for more than a decade to kill it.
Finally, they've won, as this piece reports.
Pharmaceutical companies have a great economic incentive to sell more drugs, at higher prices. That's their job. And it's worth a lot to them to win this kind of victory, so they can spend a great deal on the campaign - political donations and PR campaigns and support for groups that will support them. (Most illness advocacy groups - heart, stroke, cancer - received significant support from drug companies. Some likely couldn't survive without the money.)
Health consumers and taxpayers have to rely on government to look after their interests. It's not working.
_____________
One small step that could help is a government-funded Consumers' Health Forum, which I wrote about in the Sun in 2004.
Health care consumers need a voice
VICTORIA - The only people who haven't got a say in the way health care works in Canada are the patients.
Doctors have the BCMA. Nurses, the BCNU. Drug companies have their lobbyists and funded health groups.
But you and I, the people who rely on the system to keep us healthy and fix us when things go wrong? We have no voice.
The government, you might argue. But you'd be wrong. The government doesn't represent health care consumers. It balances a broad range of pressures.
When Health Minister Colin Hansen is locked in a struggle with Nanaimo emergency room doctors, for example, his government represents not just parents who might need to bring a sick baby into emergency at 2 a.m., but businesses that want lower taxes and people pushing for other spending priorities. He's mindful of patients' interests; he's also mindful of the commitment to a balanced budget.
Nothing wrong with that. Just don't interpret it as government representing consumers.
There's a knee-jerk reaction against talking about consumers in the context of government services. But that's what we are -- we pay an average $2,700 a year each for health care, and we consume the service. And we're especially powerless because we're dealing with a monopoly supplier and can't shop elsewhere if we're dissatisfied.
The absence of any real consumer voice has created a vacuum, allowing special interest groups to claim to speak for us. It's obligatory for everyone in a health care debate to talk about putting patients first, while pursuing their own interests.
The Cancer Advocacy Coalition weighed in last week with its annual report linking higher spending on cancer care with lower death rates. The title, Your Money or Your Life, summarizes the message. B.C. has the highest per-capita spending on cancer, the report found, and the lowest mortality rates and shortest waiting times for treatment. More money equals lives saved.
Perhaps. But perhaps B.C. has a lower cancer death rate because people are generally more active and healthier here, or because of tougher anti-smoking rules, or because of a large immigrant population less predisposed to cancer. A true consumer organization would look at all those factors, and weigh the effectiveness of using the same money for other health priorities.
The cancer coalition is doing important work. But it doesn't speak for consumers. Its stated goal is to make cancer the No. 1 health care priority in Canada, not to advocate for better health care.
And like virtually all major health advocacy groups, the cancer coalition depends on funding from big pharmaceutical companies.
Alan Cassels, a drug policy expert at the University of Victoria, says the drug company funding inevitably creates conflicts. "You can almost see the influence of the money."
The problem is compounded because when Health Canada sets out to hold high-level consultations, these are the groups it calls to the table. Each advances its special interest; no one speaks for us.
It's not a uniquely Canadian problem. But fixing it need not be costly or difficult, as Australia has shown.
The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia is almost 20 years old, formed with government support after consumers demanded a health care voice.
It's a coalition of health and community groups. Only organizations that represent consumers -- not providers or care workers or corporations -- are eligible.
The forum represents the public, takes complaints, publishes articles and newsletters, and, most importantly, speaks to the government on behalf of the consumer.
All for about $750,000 a year from government and a bit more from members -- no drug company donations -- and with a staff of eight.
It's a small price to give consumers a long overdue voice.
NDP gives the Liberals something to smile about
I should be writing about the faulty breathalyzers that have been used to impose penalties on hundreds of thousands of British Columbians.
Or Children�s Minister Mary Polak�s bizarre claim that a 15-year-old girl with Down syndrome, found emaciated and raw with diaper rash after spending nine days alone with her mother�s corpse, might not have suffered any harm.
Or a lot of other issues that matter to people right now.
Instead, one more column about politics, thanks to the strange goings-on in the NDP.
That�s an indication the party has got lost. The Liberals are leaderless and wedded to unpopular policies. New Democrats should be focusing attention on problem areas and showing they could do a better job.
Instead, some sort of weird, secret internal rebellion is gripping the party, at the worst possible time.
And it�s being badly mishandled.
NDP leader Carole James faced a leadership test on the weekend when the party�s governing council met in Victoria. A few NDP riding associations had called for a leadership contest next year.
Some New Democrat MLAs were unhappy as well. Last Friday, caucus whip Katrine Conroy gave up that position, apparently in protest. She was supported by MLAs Jenny Kwan, Lana Popham and Claire Trevena.
But none would say what they were actually unhappy about.
Partly, it was about James�s decision to kick Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson out of the caucus after he offered mild criticism of a speech she made. Or, in some cases, about the arbitrary way the decision was made.
That was a blunder. Simpson�s comments were mild. Leaders have lots of ways to communicate displeasure. And it was wrong and foolish for James to leave MLAs - especially one like Conroy, as whip, and Norm Macdonald as caucus chair � out of the decision.
But you have to think the dissatisfaction runs deeper. One bad call about a difficult member of caucus shouldn�t be such a grand offence.
James took on the dissatisfaction head-on. On Friday, the day before the meeting, she said she was �drawing a line in the sand.� Support her leadership and work together, or not. Get in or get out.
It worked with the council. The call for a leadership contest failed, with about 84 per cent voting to keep James.
But in a dumb move, someone in the James camp decided to put pressure on dissidents by handing out yellow scarves and buttons to signal support for her.
The result was that about a dozen MLAs were immediately identified as refusing to support James�s leadership - hardly a great result.
Why don�t they support James? The MLAs won�t say.
They could argue that such discussions should remain behind closed doors, except their discontent is highly public. (And if one-third of the caucus has doubts about a potential future premier, perhaps discussion of their views is in the public interest.)
From outside, James looks to have a good record. From two seats to 35, a significant lead in the polls and no big negatives. Her approval rating - 33 per cent - is lousy, but that might say more about the way we see politicians than her performance. Certainly it wasn�t helped by the Simpson affair and revelations that a handful of big unions have been chipping in to pay Moe Sihota a salary as party. The money isn�t a general donation to the party; it�s to pay Sihota. �He who pays the piper calls the tune,� the saying goes, which leaves the party playing second fiddle.
But you would hardly think those enough to persuade New Democrat MLAs to attack their own party when the chance of forming the next government looks so good.
MLAs have a balancing act - their own judgment, their commitment to constituents who voted for both a party and a candidate and to a shared vision.
The New Democrats attacking James should be candid about their concerns.
Footnote: Meanwhile. Moira Stilwell became the first Liberal leadership candidate. She stepped down as minister of regional economic and skills development. Stilwell�s a doctor who specializes in nuclear medicine and a political rooke elected last year. That�s likely a plus, given public antipathy to Gordon Campbell and those around him.
Or Children�s Minister Mary Polak�s bizarre claim that a 15-year-old girl with Down syndrome, found emaciated and raw with diaper rash after spending nine days alone with her mother�s corpse, might not have suffered any harm.
Or a lot of other issues that matter to people right now.
Instead, one more column about politics, thanks to the strange goings-on in the NDP.
That�s an indication the party has got lost. The Liberals are leaderless and wedded to unpopular policies. New Democrats should be focusing attention on problem areas and showing they could do a better job.
Instead, some sort of weird, secret internal rebellion is gripping the party, at the worst possible time.
And it�s being badly mishandled.
NDP leader Carole James faced a leadership test on the weekend when the party�s governing council met in Victoria. A few NDP riding associations had called for a leadership contest next year.
Some New Democrat MLAs were unhappy as well. Last Friday, caucus whip Katrine Conroy gave up that position, apparently in protest. She was supported by MLAs Jenny Kwan, Lana Popham and Claire Trevena.
But none would say what they were actually unhappy about.
Partly, it was about James�s decision to kick Cariboo North MLA Bob Simpson out of the caucus after he offered mild criticism of a speech she made. Or, in some cases, about the arbitrary way the decision was made.
That was a blunder. Simpson�s comments were mild. Leaders have lots of ways to communicate displeasure. And it was wrong and foolish for James to leave MLAs - especially one like Conroy, as whip, and Norm Macdonald as caucus chair � out of the decision.
But you have to think the dissatisfaction runs deeper. One bad call about a difficult member of caucus shouldn�t be such a grand offence.
James took on the dissatisfaction head-on. On Friday, the day before the meeting, she said she was �drawing a line in the sand.� Support her leadership and work together, or not. Get in or get out.
It worked with the council. The call for a leadership contest failed, with about 84 per cent voting to keep James.
But in a dumb move, someone in the James camp decided to put pressure on dissidents by handing out yellow scarves and buttons to signal support for her.
The result was that about a dozen MLAs were immediately identified as refusing to support James�s leadership - hardly a great result.
Why don�t they support James? The MLAs won�t say.
They could argue that such discussions should remain behind closed doors, except their discontent is highly public. (And if one-third of the caucus has doubts about a potential future premier, perhaps discussion of their views is in the public interest.)
From outside, James looks to have a good record. From two seats to 35, a significant lead in the polls and no big negatives. Her approval rating - 33 per cent - is lousy, but that might say more about the way we see politicians than her performance. Certainly it wasn�t helped by the Simpson affair and revelations that a handful of big unions have been chipping in to pay Moe Sihota a salary as party. The money isn�t a general donation to the party; it�s to pay Sihota. �He who pays the piper calls the tune,� the saying goes, which leaves the party playing second fiddle.
But you would hardly think those enough to persuade New Democrat MLAs to attack their own party when the chance of forming the next government looks so good.
MLAs have a balancing act - their own judgment, their commitment to constituents who voted for both a party and a candidate and to a shared vision.
The New Democrats attacking James should be candid about their concerns.
Footnote: Meanwhile. Moira Stilwell became the first Liberal leadership candidate. She stepped down as minister of regional economic and skills development. Stilwell�s a doctor who specializes in nuclear medicine and a political rooke elected last year. That�s likely a plus, given public antipathy to Gordon Campbell and those around him.
The New Democrats, and shadow tolls on the Sea to Sky
Two pieces worth your attention.
Ian Reid writes thoughtfully on the NDP's prospects in the aftermath of the odd weekend party meeting that saw Carole James win the support of voting members of the party's governing council - while 11 New Democrat MLAs are still apparently dissatisfied with her leadership. Read him here.
Their next moves will be critical. The MLas can find a way to work with the party, which is what voters likely expected when they elected them. They can quit. Or they can snipe from within. The Liberals are certainly cheering for the latter two options.
And Laila Yuile has been establishing, without a doubt, that the deal for the private companies who did the Sea to Sky Highway improvements and maintain the road includes payments based on "shadow tolls." Part of their annual payment depends on road use, but instead of collecting from drivers the province pays a toll on users' behalf.
That's consistent with the government's policy that there will be no direct tolls on roads for which there is no non-toll alternative. (Though the skyrocketing ferry fares violate that principle.)
What makes this fascinating is the Transportation Ministry's bizarre insistence that there are no shadow tolls, when as Yuile sets out, the companies are absolutely clear that their payment does include the tolls.
Ian Reid writes thoughtfully on the NDP's prospects in the aftermath of the odd weekend party meeting that saw Carole James win the support of voting members of the party's governing council - while 11 New Democrat MLAs are still apparently dissatisfied with her leadership. Read him here.
Their next moves will be critical. The MLas can find a way to work with the party, which is what voters likely expected when they elected them. They can quit. Or they can snipe from within. The Liberals are certainly cheering for the latter two options.
And Laila Yuile has been establishing, without a doubt, that the deal for the private companies who did the Sea to Sky Highway improvements and maintain the road includes payments based on "shadow tolls." Part of their annual payment depends on road use, but instead of collecting from drivers the province pays a toll on users' behalf.
That's consistent with the government's policy that there will be no direct tolls on roads for which there is no non-toll alternative. (Though the skyrocketing ferry fares violate that principle.)
What makes this fascinating is the Transportation Ministry's bizarre insistence that there are no shadow tolls, when as Yuile sets out, the companies are absolutely clear that their payment does include the tolls.
Children's ministry stumbles again
From today's Times Colonist:
"She was 15, with severe developmental disabilities due to Down syndrome. Her mother, with her own issues, died in the home they shared in a Cultus Lake mobile home park.
And for nine days, the girl lived beside her mother's corpse. She had been told not to go out alone.
When rescued, she was emaciated and filthy -- she was unable to use the toilet and had been wearing the same diaper for a week. Her legs and abdomen were raw with diaper rash. Pills and boxes of macaroni were on the floor, apparently left as the girl tried to bring her mother back to life.
The Minister of Children and Family Development had been involved with the family; in fact, the girl's brothers had asked that their sister be taken into care because of their mother's alcoholism and drug abuse and the filth in the house.
The law calls for deaths or such events that cause "serious or long-term impairment" of a child's health to be reported to the Representative for Children and Youth as soon as officials become aware of them.
But the ministry didn't do that. Nine weeks after the girl was discovered, Minister Mary Polak says it's still not clear to her that the girl suffered an injury that required reporting.
That's at once insulting and stupid. . ."
Read the rest here.
"She was 15, with severe developmental disabilities due to Down syndrome. Her mother, with her own issues, died in the home they shared in a Cultus Lake mobile home park.
And for nine days, the girl lived beside her mother's corpse. She had been told not to go out alone.
When rescued, she was emaciated and filthy -- she was unable to use the toilet and had been wearing the same diaper for a week. Her legs and abdomen were raw with diaper rash. Pills and boxes of macaroni were on the floor, apparently left as the girl tried to bring her mother back to life.
The Minister of Children and Family Development had been involved with the family; in fact, the girl's brothers had asked that their sister be taken into care because of their mother's alcoholism and drug abuse and the filth in the house.
The law calls for deaths or such events that cause "serious or long-term impairment" of a child's health to be reported to the Representative for Children and Youth as soon as officials become aware of them.
But the ministry didn't do that. Nine weeks after the girl was discovered, Minister Mary Polak says it's still not clear to her that the girl suffered an injury that required reporting.
That's at once insulting and stupid. . ."
Read the rest here.
Bill Bennett has it right
Cut Bill Bennett�s claims about life inside the Liberal government in half and it�s still ugly.
Reject them entirely and you still face the reality that Bennett is right when he says that each day Gordon Campbell stays as leader is one more blow to the Liberals� chances for recovery.
The East Kootenay MLA was fired as energy minister Wednesday for saying Campbell should step down now for the good of the party. Next step is expulsion from caucus.
The firing wasn�t unexpected. Bennett noted he had broken the �no surprises� rule by not warning the premier�s office.
But what happened next was surprising.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen maintained the cabinet had fired Bennett. They might have approved, but only the premier can hire and fire cabinet ministers.
And Hansen and others said Bennett had broken his cabinet oath. That�s not true. Ministers promise to maintain confidentiality about cabinet discussions, not to shut up about everything.
Bennett left the meeting and came to Victoria to face the media.
The scrum was about 35 minutes and, by the end, Bennett had carpet-bombed Campbell. The premier was a bully and autocrat who ignored cabinet, caucus and stakeholders. He had reduced MLAs to tears in meetings. One shouting incident had left Bennett wiping the premier�s spit from his face, he said.
�He�s lost the public entirely,� Bennett said. �He should just leave. Every day that Premier Campbell stays around is one less day we have to start a renewal.�
A lineup of ministers denied Bennett�s charges, as did Campbell. Health Minister Kevin Falcon said he had been in shouting matches with the premier, but that was just the way things were done in cabinet.
So who should you believe?
MLAs and ex-MLAs have complained, usually quietly, about Campbell�s bullying. The HST introduction, dropped on a surprised caucus with no discussion or consultation, confirms the tendency to one-man rule.
And Bennett, in my experience, has been a straight shooter.
Maybe he exaggerated or his perceptions were skewed. But if he sees the problems, they exist.
Certainly he�s right that Campbell�s long goodbye is doing great damage to the Liberals.
Campbell acknowledged the public doesn�t trust him. That�s why he�s leaving.
But by staying on until a new leader is in place, likely in March, he�s condemning the party to months of growing unpopularity and tainting the leadership selection process. Cabinet ministers considering a leadership run should be focused on demonstrating they offer a new vision and direction for the party and the government.
Instead, Falcon and George Abbott, both possible candidates, responded to Bennett�s comments by defending Campbell�s leadership and achievements. They stepped forward as apologists for a terribly unpopular premier, as ministers and MLAs have since the HST was introduced to such anger.
Bennett�s concerns about political life need to be addressed, no matter what people think about his criticism of Campbell.
Power has increasingly been concentrated in the leader�s office. MLAs have had little role in shaping policy; if they had, the HST debacle might have been avoided.
And cabinet ministers are often out of the loop. Bennett noted that the sweeping reorganization of resource ministries announced by Campbell was done without the involvement of the ministers responsible for those areas. The deputy ministers working on it were told not to let their ministers know what was going on.
Bennett spoke highly of most of his cabinet colleagues and the people working in government.
But his frustration came through in almost every sentence. And it was based, I�d argue, not on anger at being fired from cabinet but on years of disappointment. MLAs start their time in Victoria with great hopes of making a difference. Those hopes are often replaced by bitterness and disappointment.
�I�m tired of the bullshit going on in politics,� Bennett said.
He speaks for many British Columbians.
Footnote: Bennett recounted his first-term interest in starting an outdoor caucus - MLAs from both parties interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and snowmobiling issues that are often neglected. Campbell tried to bully him out of the idea, Bennett said, especially rejecting the idea that New Democrat MLAs could be involved. Bennett went ahead anyway.
Reject them entirely and you still face the reality that Bennett is right when he says that each day Gordon Campbell stays as leader is one more blow to the Liberals� chances for recovery.
The East Kootenay MLA was fired as energy minister Wednesday for saying Campbell should step down now for the good of the party. Next step is expulsion from caucus.
The firing wasn�t unexpected. Bennett noted he had broken the �no surprises� rule by not warning the premier�s office.
But what happened next was surprising.
Finance Minister Colin Hansen maintained the cabinet had fired Bennett. They might have approved, but only the premier can hire and fire cabinet ministers.
And Hansen and others said Bennett had broken his cabinet oath. That�s not true. Ministers promise to maintain confidentiality about cabinet discussions, not to shut up about everything.
Bennett left the meeting and came to Victoria to face the media.
The scrum was about 35 minutes and, by the end, Bennett had carpet-bombed Campbell. The premier was a bully and autocrat who ignored cabinet, caucus and stakeholders. He had reduced MLAs to tears in meetings. One shouting incident had left Bennett wiping the premier�s spit from his face, he said.
�He�s lost the public entirely,� Bennett said. �He should just leave. Every day that Premier Campbell stays around is one less day we have to start a renewal.�
A lineup of ministers denied Bennett�s charges, as did Campbell. Health Minister Kevin Falcon said he had been in shouting matches with the premier, but that was just the way things were done in cabinet.
So who should you believe?
MLAs and ex-MLAs have complained, usually quietly, about Campbell�s bullying. The HST introduction, dropped on a surprised caucus with no discussion or consultation, confirms the tendency to one-man rule.
And Bennett, in my experience, has been a straight shooter.
Maybe he exaggerated or his perceptions were skewed. But if he sees the problems, they exist.
Certainly he�s right that Campbell�s long goodbye is doing great damage to the Liberals.
Campbell acknowledged the public doesn�t trust him. That�s why he�s leaving.
But by staying on until a new leader is in place, likely in March, he�s condemning the party to months of growing unpopularity and tainting the leadership selection process. Cabinet ministers considering a leadership run should be focused on demonstrating they offer a new vision and direction for the party and the government.
Instead, Falcon and George Abbott, both possible candidates, responded to Bennett�s comments by defending Campbell�s leadership and achievements. They stepped forward as apologists for a terribly unpopular premier, as ministers and MLAs have since the HST was introduced to such anger.
Bennett�s concerns about political life need to be addressed, no matter what people think about his criticism of Campbell.
Power has increasingly been concentrated in the leader�s office. MLAs have had little role in shaping policy; if they had, the HST debacle might have been avoided.
And cabinet ministers are often out of the loop. Bennett noted that the sweeping reorganization of resource ministries announced by Campbell was done without the involvement of the ministers responsible for those areas. The deputy ministers working on it were told not to let their ministers know what was going on.
Bennett spoke highly of most of his cabinet colleagues and the people working in government.
But his frustration came through in almost every sentence. And it was based, I�d argue, not on anger at being fired from cabinet but on years of disappointment. MLAs start their time in Victoria with great hopes of making a difference. Those hopes are often replaced by bitterness and disappointment.
�I�m tired of the bullshit going on in politics,� Bennett said.
He speaks for many British Columbians.
Footnote: Bennett recounted his first-term interest in starting an outdoor caucus - MLAs from both parties interested in hunting, fishing, hiking and snowmobiling issues that are often neglected. Campbell tried to bully him out of the idea, Bennett said, especially rejecting the idea that New Democrat MLAs could be involved. Bennett went ahead anyway.
The Bennett tapes
I have always had time for Bill Bennett.
When he made it back into cabinet in a 2008 shuffle, I had this prescient comment:
"Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for their constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table."
Bennett was bounced from cabinet Wednesday for saying Gordon Campbell should step down as premier now to let the party begin rebuilding.
He did not go quietly, accusing Campbell of being a bully and one-man government. The Times Colonist has offered an audio file of his comments in a scrum here.
When he made it back into cabinet in a 2008 shuffle, I had this prescient comment:
"Back to good news, I'm glad of the return of Kootenays MLA Bill Bennett to cabinet, this time as tourism, culture and arts minister, and the addition of Peace River MLA Blair Lekstrom as community development minister (although that's not much of a job, except for the pine beetle responsibilities that are cobbled on).
Both are smart, will speak their minds and stand up for their constituents and are from outside the Lower Mainland. They will be valuable around the cabinet table."
Bennett was bounced from cabinet Wednesday for saying Gordon Campbell should step down as premier now to let the party begin rebuilding.
He did not go quietly, accusing Campbell of being a bully and one-man government. The Times Colonist has offered an audio file of his comments in a scrum here.
Recall ups destructive political uncertainty
Things are turning into a mess in B.C.
Recall, leadership squabbling, a lame duck premier who won�t go away, a referendum that might axe the HST � it�s a formula for political chaos.
And political chaos is a formula for government paralysis on issues that matter to British Columbians.
First, recall. The Fight HST forces announced their recall targets Monday. Universities Minister Ida Chong is first on the hit list.
She won her Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding by a skinny margin - 561 votes - in 2009. Lots of recall canvassers have signed up in her riding and nearby Saanich North. And Chong has not been effective in representing the riding on key local issues.
She is thus vulnerable, even given the tough threshold for a successful recall effort. Proponents will need to get signatures from 40 per cent of the people registered to vote in the last election - about 18,000 names. (Chong won with 11,877 votes.)
The recall campaign starts Monday. Proponents have 60 days to get enough signatures to oust the MLA and force a byelection.
The Fight HST crew plans campaigns against Terry Lake in Kamloop North and Don McRae in Comox starting in early January, with more efforts launched every month until the HST is gone or the Liberals bumped from power.
Chong�s recall has become the trial run for both sides.
Her first-day response made no mention of the HST. She said she had done a good job, the NDP was playing a big behind-the-scenes recall role (likely true) and the effort was an abuse of the recall legislation. Recall was supposed to be used against MLAs who acted unethically, Chong said.
That�s just untrue. The successful referendum on recall, which led to the legislation, asked if British Columbians should have the right to remove their MLA between elections. Voters would decide what constituted grounds for dismissal.
And the claim will be a tough sell, given the Liberals� history. Gordon Campbell was calling for recall campaigns against New Democrat MLAs within months of losing the 1996 election. Kevin Falcon�s Total Recall targeted all 40 NDP MLAs in 1999; he said it had nothing to do with the individuals, but was attempt to oust the government. (The effort flopped, but created big headaches for the New Democrats.)
The justifiable claim that the NDP is playing a political role in the campaigns might deter some people from signing.
Campbell is a big problem for Chong. He has announced he�ll leave after a new leader is selected Feb. 26.
But that�s three months away, And he�s still insisting that he - and Chong - did everything right in bringing in the HST. The only failure was not explaining the decision more effectively after it was a done deal, he says.
In fact, Campbell is a big problem for the party. Lame duck leaders always are. When they are unpopular and don�t recognize that they�re lame, things get really messy.
Campbell says he�s still the premier and in charge of the budget and throne speech. Nothing will change until the new Liberal leader is selected.
For the Liberal party, that�s terrible. Campbell is leaving because the public thinks he�s doing a bad job and doesn�t trust him. Yet he�ll be the face of the party for another three months and defend the budget and throne speech.
Chong and the Liberal party would be helped if Campbell stepped down as premier now. MLAs could select someone - ideally not running for the leadership - to be premier until the leadership was decided. Campbell could cart away some baggage and avoid some unpleasant months.
And the interim premier could announce the HST referendum would be held in February, before a new leader was selected. An earlier departure by Campbell might help the party and calm things down a bit.
But the months ahead - and perhaps until the next election - are going to bring uncertainty that slows investment and progress in B.C.
Footnote: The New Democrats are adding to the uncertainty as some party members continue to take aim at the leadership of Carole James. The issues are likely to be addressed at an NDP provincial council meeting this weekend.
Recall, leadership squabbling, a lame duck premier who won�t go away, a referendum that might axe the HST � it�s a formula for political chaos.
And political chaos is a formula for government paralysis on issues that matter to British Columbians.
First, recall. The Fight HST forces announced their recall targets Monday. Universities Minister Ida Chong is first on the hit list.
She won her Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding by a skinny margin - 561 votes - in 2009. Lots of recall canvassers have signed up in her riding and nearby Saanich North. And Chong has not been effective in representing the riding on key local issues.
She is thus vulnerable, even given the tough threshold for a successful recall effort. Proponents will need to get signatures from 40 per cent of the people registered to vote in the last election - about 18,000 names. (Chong won with 11,877 votes.)
The recall campaign starts Monday. Proponents have 60 days to get enough signatures to oust the MLA and force a byelection.
The Fight HST crew plans campaigns against Terry Lake in Kamloop North and Don McRae in Comox starting in early January, with more efforts launched every month until the HST is gone or the Liberals bumped from power.
Chong�s recall has become the trial run for both sides.
Her first-day response made no mention of the HST. She said she had done a good job, the NDP was playing a big behind-the-scenes recall role (likely true) and the effort was an abuse of the recall legislation. Recall was supposed to be used against MLAs who acted unethically, Chong said.
That�s just untrue. The successful referendum on recall, which led to the legislation, asked if British Columbians should have the right to remove their MLA between elections. Voters would decide what constituted grounds for dismissal.
And the claim will be a tough sell, given the Liberals� history. Gordon Campbell was calling for recall campaigns against New Democrat MLAs within months of losing the 1996 election. Kevin Falcon�s Total Recall targeted all 40 NDP MLAs in 1999; he said it had nothing to do with the individuals, but was attempt to oust the government. (The effort flopped, but created big headaches for the New Democrats.)
The justifiable claim that the NDP is playing a political role in the campaigns might deter some people from signing.
Campbell is a big problem for Chong. He has announced he�ll leave after a new leader is selected Feb. 26.
But that�s three months away, And he�s still insisting that he - and Chong - did everything right in bringing in the HST. The only failure was not explaining the decision more effectively after it was a done deal, he says.
In fact, Campbell is a big problem for the party. Lame duck leaders always are. When they are unpopular and don�t recognize that they�re lame, things get really messy.
Campbell says he�s still the premier and in charge of the budget and throne speech. Nothing will change until the new Liberal leader is selected.
For the Liberal party, that�s terrible. Campbell is leaving because the public thinks he�s doing a bad job and doesn�t trust him. Yet he�ll be the face of the party for another three months and defend the budget and throne speech.
Chong and the Liberal party would be helped if Campbell stepped down as premier now. MLAs could select someone - ideally not running for the leadership - to be premier until the leadership was decided. Campbell could cart away some baggage and avoid some unpleasant months.
And the interim premier could announce the HST referendum would be held in February, before a new leader was selected. An earlier departure by Campbell might help the party and calm things down a bit.
But the months ahead - and perhaps until the next election - are going to bring uncertainty that slows investment and progress in B.C.
Footnote: The New Democrats are adding to the uncertainty as some party members continue to take aim at the leadership of Carole James. The issues are likely to be addressed at an NDP provincial council meeting this weekend.
What's wrong with New Democrats?
I almost choked on my coffee when I read that Dale Lovick was calling for Carole James to be dumped as NDP leader.
What is wrong with this party?
Lovick is on the NDP riding association executive in Nanaimo-North Cowichan. He told Michael Smyth of The Province that the executive recently passed a motion calling on James to step down while a leadership contest takes place.
This from a cabinet minister who stayed loyal, at least publicly, to Glen Clark until the bitter end.
Lovick never called for Clark�s resignation or expressed doubts about the NDP government�s direction.
Now he thinks James should go.
His credentials aren�t great. Lovick was part of an NDP team - a cabinet minister - who ran the party into the ground. People saw the government as dishonest and incompetent and loathed the New Democrats. Lovick and company�s legacy was the NDP�s 2001 election performance - 22 per cent of the vote and two seats.
Today, a recent poll puts the New Democrats at 47 per cent, enough to win a big majority. James doesn�t great approval ratings, but she�s by far people�s first choice.
And Lovick and others are calling for a leadership change.
It�s good NDP riding associations feel free to express their opinions. It�s bad that they seem so foolish.
What is wrong with this party?
Lovick is on the NDP riding association executive in Nanaimo-North Cowichan. He told Michael Smyth of The Province that the executive recently passed a motion calling on James to step down while a leadership contest takes place.
This from a cabinet minister who stayed loyal, at least publicly, to Glen Clark until the bitter end.
Lovick never called for Clark�s resignation or expressed doubts about the NDP government�s direction.
Now he thinks James should go.
His credentials aren�t great. Lovick was part of an NDP team - a cabinet minister - who ran the party into the ground. People saw the government as dishonest and incompetent and loathed the New Democrats. Lovick and company�s legacy was the NDP�s 2001 election performance - 22 per cent of the vote and two seats.
Today, a recent poll puts the New Democrats at 47 per cent, enough to win a big majority. James doesn�t great approval ratings, but she�s by far people�s first choice.
And Lovick and others are calling for a leadership change.
It�s good NDP riding associations feel free to express their opinions. It�s bad that they seem so foolish.
Come on, folks, let's drink and drive more: Coleman
The weirdness of things in this province continue to amaze.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman � in charge of public safety and increasing alcohol consumption � has to be the first mainstream politician to urge a little more drinking and driving as a good thing.
And his advice that people should feel free to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home because they would be under the .05 limit is just flat-out wrong. (Coleman has a problem with stating things as fact that are simply not.) The reality is that people who take his advice could end up facing a lost licence, fines and an impounded car.
The Times Colonist looks at this in an editorial today.
Solicitor General Rich Coleman � in charge of public safety and increasing alcohol consumption � has to be the first mainstream politician to urge a little more drinking and driving as a good thing.
And his advice that people should feel free to have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner and drive home because they would be under the .05 limit is just flat-out wrong. (Coleman has a problem with stating things as fact that are simply not.) The reality is that people who take his advice could end up facing a lost licence, fines and an impounded car.
The Times Colonist looks at this in an editorial today.
Campbell's $2 billion doomed bet on keeping his job (with your money)
I thought the budget consultation process hit bottom in 2004.
But Gordon Campbell took things to a new low with his TV announcement of an arbitrary 15 per cent tax cut, a desperate, doomed move to hang on to his job at the expense of the Liberal party and the democratic process.
The legislature finance committee - six Liberal MLAs, four New Democrats - travels the province each fall to hear suggestions for the February budget.
It�s a big deal for many people. Business groups propose tax shifts, advocates make the case for spending on schools or health care. People send e-mails or briefs on what they think should be priorities. Many presentations are thoughtful and well-researched.
And the committee writes a report that, theoretically - though rarely practically - shapes the budget.
This year, the government noted that an improving economy offered opportunities. There was an extra $2 billion over the next three years available for initiatives.
"What would you do with additional resources?,� it asked. �Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?"
So chambers of commerce and arts groups and non-profits and individuals prepared their submissions. People already working 10 hours a day worked longer to offer their ideas.
Then Campbell went on TV and announced a 15-per-cent tax cut that wiped out that $2 billion, before the committee even started preparing its report.
It was a grand insult. The committee had travelled to 14 communities and done videoconferences with people and organizations in another nine. A lot of effort had gone into hundreds of submissions.
And Campbell gave the finger to them. He decided on a tax cut before he even heard from all those people across the province. The consultation was a sham.
There was no reason for haste. The tax cut doesn�t take effect until Jan. 1. The committee was to report by Nov. 15.
If Campbell had delayed his TV address three weeks, he could have read the committee report and learned what British Columbians believed the budget priorities should be. That would have been polite.
He didn�t, which speaks of a certain contempt for all those people and groups working on their budget submissions.
The New Democrat MLAs withdrew from the committee in protest.
The loyal Liberals defended the premier�s tax cut announcement. You would think, after listening to all those presentations and reading all the submissions, they would have urged the premier to wait a few weeks for the report.
If, as Campbell maintains, all decisions are backed by caucus, surely the Liberal committee members - John Les, Norm Letnick, Don MacRae, John Rustad, Jane Thornthwaite and John van Dongen - would have suggested the tax cut announcement could wait until the public was heard.
But either they weren�t consulted, they were silent or they were ignored. I�m keen to know which.
The previous low point in budget consultation came in 2004, when the government sent out a pre-election campaign flyer/budget consultation document to every household in the province. About 26,000 people responded with budget suggestions. But the flyer went out late, time was tight and the government threw 23,500 of the responses in the garbage and looked at 2,550 - one in 10.
Campbell, seeking political salvation, went farther and ignored every single submission.
Liberal supporters should be the angriest.
If Campbell hadn�t bet $2 billion on a doomed effort to rebuild his personal popularity, the new Liberal leader would have had the chance to announce tax cuts or measures to reduce surgical waits or investments in economic growth.
This isn�t a partisan, or left-right issue, whatever that means.
It�s about bad behaviour, contempt for citizens, docile elected representatives, abuse of power and the reckless spending of $650 million a year.
And it brings shame on the government, and all those who went along with the abuse.
Footnote: First Call, an advocacy group for children and youth, probably speaks for a lot of the organizations - business groups, non-profits, community organizations - who presented to the committee. First Call encourages members to engage in the democratic process, the group noted. But it asked why people should spend time preparing recommendations if the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Campbell�s answer should be interesting.
But Gordon Campbell took things to a new low with his TV announcement of an arbitrary 15 per cent tax cut, a desperate, doomed move to hang on to his job at the expense of the Liberal party and the democratic process.
The legislature finance committee - six Liberal MLAs, four New Democrats - travels the province each fall to hear suggestions for the February budget.
It�s a big deal for many people. Business groups propose tax shifts, advocates make the case for spending on schools or health care. People send e-mails or briefs on what they think should be priorities. Many presentations are thoughtful and well-researched.
And the committee writes a report that, theoretically - though rarely practically - shapes the budget.
This year, the government noted that an improving economy offered opportunities. There was an extra $2 billion over the next three years available for initiatives.
"What would you do with additional resources?,� it asked. �Would you fund new programs and services, would you reduce the debt, or would you cut personal income taxes?"
So chambers of commerce and arts groups and non-profits and individuals prepared their submissions. People already working 10 hours a day worked longer to offer their ideas.
Then Campbell went on TV and announced a 15-per-cent tax cut that wiped out that $2 billion, before the committee even started preparing its report.
It was a grand insult. The committee had travelled to 14 communities and done videoconferences with people and organizations in another nine. A lot of effort had gone into hundreds of submissions.
And Campbell gave the finger to them. He decided on a tax cut before he even heard from all those people across the province. The consultation was a sham.
There was no reason for haste. The tax cut doesn�t take effect until Jan. 1. The committee was to report by Nov. 15.
If Campbell had delayed his TV address three weeks, he could have read the committee report and learned what British Columbians believed the budget priorities should be. That would have been polite.
He didn�t, which speaks of a certain contempt for all those people and groups working on their budget submissions.
The New Democrat MLAs withdrew from the committee in protest.
The loyal Liberals defended the premier�s tax cut announcement. You would think, after listening to all those presentations and reading all the submissions, they would have urged the premier to wait a few weeks for the report.
If, as Campbell maintains, all decisions are backed by caucus, surely the Liberal committee members - John Les, Norm Letnick, Don MacRae, John Rustad, Jane Thornthwaite and John van Dongen - would have suggested the tax cut announcement could wait until the public was heard.
But either they weren�t consulted, they were silent or they were ignored. I�m keen to know which.
The previous low point in budget consultation came in 2004, when the government sent out a pre-election campaign flyer/budget consultation document to every household in the province. About 26,000 people responded with budget suggestions. But the flyer went out late, time was tight and the government threw 23,500 of the responses in the garbage and looked at 2,550 - one in 10.
Campbell, seeking political salvation, went farther and ignored every single submission.
Liberal supporters should be the angriest.
If Campbell hadn�t bet $2 billion on a doomed effort to rebuild his personal popularity, the new Liberal leader would have had the chance to announce tax cuts or measures to reduce surgical waits or investments in economic growth.
This isn�t a partisan, or left-right issue, whatever that means.
It�s about bad behaviour, contempt for citizens, docile elected representatives, abuse of power and the reckless spending of $650 million a year.
And it brings shame on the government, and all those who went along with the abuse.
Footnote: First Call, an advocacy group for children and youth, probably speaks for a lot of the organizations - business groups, non-profits, community organizations - who presented to the committee. First Call encourages members to engage in the democratic process, the group noted. But it asked why people should spend time preparing recommendations if the government is going to do whatever it wants anyway. Campbell�s answer should be interesting.
Campbell dragging party down with him
Gordon Campbell's decision to stick around as a lame duck party leader is terrible news for the Liberals.
Campbell took questions from reporters on the day after he announced he would step down.
It was an odd performance. Campbell talked like a popular premier leaving at the top of his game, rather than a liability for his party.
He said he wouldn't step aside for an interim leader. Instead, he'll stay on as leader and premier until a leadership convention is held - within the next six months or so, according to the party's shaky constitution.
That wouldn't be awkward, he said. It's not as if any of the leadership candidates would be questioning the Liberals' past choices on the HST or other issues.
"The new leader, certainly if they're from inside government, will have been part of those decisions," Campbell said.
Bad news for Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon or anyone else in the current government looking to run for leader on the promise of a new direction.
Even if outside candidates came forward, Campbell said, they surely would accept his priorities.
"They believe in strengthening the private sector economy," he said. "They'll believe in leaving more money in people's pockets. That's what the party has always stood for, and frankly, it's a continuation of that."
Leadership campaigns can be a chance for unpopular parties - like the Liberals - to make a fresh start. They can distance themselves from an unpopular leader - like Campbell - and offer a new vision and style.
Unless the old leader sabotages that opportunity by insisting that it will be business as usual no matter who emerges as Liberal leader.
So Campbell will be peering over the shoulders of leadership candidates, frowning at challenges to the status quo or any concerns about the party's past efforts.
Meanwhile, the Liberal party has apparently been caught off guard by the first leadership contest in 17 years.
The Liberal constitution sets out a leadership vote process. Anyone who joins the party at least seven weeks before the leadership contest gets a vote. Low-polling candidates are dropped until someone gets majority support. And the constitution seems to contemplate a series of mail ballots - kind of a slow motion leadership process.
The Liberals are now considering new rules, according to Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com.
The one-member, one-vote model has appeal. But it also encourages the mass sign-up of instant party members by candidates - religious and ethnic communities are often targeted - and places candidates outside the Lower Mainland at a huge disadvantage.
Holman reports some Liberals are advocating a leadership selection process like the Ontario Conservatives used last year. Each riding had 100 votes; those were allocated based on the party members' choice in a constituency ballot.
That makes it worthwhile to sign up new members, but doesn't let the leadership choice rest on instant Liberals gathered in bulk. (Though it does give the same weight to a riding with 40 members and no hope of electing a Liberal MLA as it does to a powerhouse of party support.)
Meanwhile, the leadership race has begun. Rich Coleman has promised to look at the new drinking-driving laws to see if they're too effective in keeping drivers who have had a glass or two of wine off the roads. George Abbott says he'd step down from cabinet if he runs, to avoid conflict. Coleman says he won't. Kevin Falcon says he hopes Carole Taylor runs. And that's just the early jockeying.
Campbell's decision to hang around, the ghost of Olympics past, does the Liberal party no favours.
And a slow-motion leadership campaign would do the province no favours. Business and consumers hate uncertainty; a long campaign - along with the wait for the HST referendum - create months of political and economic uncertainty.
Footnote: Meanwhile, some New Democrats continue to grumble about Carole James. That seems bizarre - the NDP has a two-to-one lead in the polls and a good chance of forming government no matter who the Liberals select. Plunging the party into a potentially divisive leadership fight makes little sense.
Campbell took questions from reporters on the day after he announced he would step down.
It was an odd performance. Campbell talked like a popular premier leaving at the top of his game, rather than a liability for his party.
He said he wouldn't step aside for an interim leader. Instead, he'll stay on as leader and premier until a leadership convention is held - within the next six months or so, according to the party's shaky constitution.
That wouldn't be awkward, he said. It's not as if any of the leadership candidates would be questioning the Liberals' past choices on the HST or other issues.
"The new leader, certainly if they're from inside government, will have been part of those decisions," Campbell said.
Bad news for Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon or anyone else in the current government looking to run for leader on the promise of a new direction.
Even if outside candidates came forward, Campbell said, they surely would accept his priorities.
"They believe in strengthening the private sector economy," he said. "They'll believe in leaving more money in people's pockets. That's what the party has always stood for, and frankly, it's a continuation of that."
Leadership campaigns can be a chance for unpopular parties - like the Liberals - to make a fresh start. They can distance themselves from an unpopular leader - like Campbell - and offer a new vision and style.
Unless the old leader sabotages that opportunity by insisting that it will be business as usual no matter who emerges as Liberal leader.
So Campbell will be peering over the shoulders of leadership candidates, frowning at challenges to the status quo or any concerns about the party's past efforts.
Meanwhile, the Liberal party has apparently been caught off guard by the first leadership contest in 17 years.
The Liberal constitution sets out a leadership vote process. Anyone who joins the party at least seven weeks before the leadership contest gets a vote. Low-polling candidates are dropped until someone gets majority support. And the constitution seems to contemplate a series of mail ballots - kind of a slow motion leadership process.
The Liberals are now considering new rules, according to Sean Holman at publiceyeonline.com.
The one-member, one-vote model has appeal. But it also encourages the mass sign-up of instant party members by candidates - religious and ethnic communities are often targeted - and places candidates outside the Lower Mainland at a huge disadvantage.
Holman reports some Liberals are advocating a leadership selection process like the Ontario Conservatives used last year. Each riding had 100 votes; those were allocated based on the party members' choice in a constituency ballot.
That makes it worthwhile to sign up new members, but doesn't let the leadership choice rest on instant Liberals gathered in bulk. (Though it does give the same weight to a riding with 40 members and no hope of electing a Liberal MLA as it does to a powerhouse of party support.)
Meanwhile, the leadership race has begun. Rich Coleman has promised to look at the new drinking-driving laws to see if they're too effective in keeping drivers who have had a glass or two of wine off the roads. George Abbott says he'd step down from cabinet if he runs, to avoid conflict. Coleman says he won't. Kevin Falcon says he hopes Carole Taylor runs. And that's just the early jockeying.
Campbell's decision to hang around, the ghost of Olympics past, does the Liberal party no favours.
And a slow-motion leadership campaign would do the province no favours. Business and consumers hate uncertainty; a long campaign - along with the wait for the HST referendum - create months of political and economic uncertainty.
Footnote: Meanwhile, some New Democrats continue to grumble about Carole James. That seems bizarre - the NDP has a two-to-one lead in the polls and a good chance of forming government no matter who the Liberals select. Plunging the party into a potentially divisive leadership fight makes little sense.
The leadership race begins...
B.C.'s solicitor-general mulls changes to tough drinking and driving laws
BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN
VICTORIA - Solicitor-general Rich Coleman said Monday his government is planning to review B.C.'s tough new drinking and driving laws, suggesting any changes could be introduced as early as this coming spring.
"This [the drinking and driving law] has certainly got some issues with it and quite frankly we're going to look at those," Coleman, who has been solicitor-general for just two weeks, said Monday.
Interesting that Coleman says he believes he'll stay in cabinet if he enters the Liberal leadership race, while George Abbott says he won't.
BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN
VICTORIA - Solicitor-general Rich Coleman said Monday his government is planning to review B.C.'s tough new drinking and driving laws, suggesting any changes could be introduced as early as this coming spring.
"This [the drinking and driving law] has certainly got some issues with it and quite frankly we're going to look at those," Coleman, who has been solicitor-general for just two weeks, said Monday.
Interesting that Coleman says he believes he'll stay in cabinet if he enters the Liberal leadership race, while George Abbott says he won't.
The Liberal leadership campaign rules
Leadership campaign rules and their application can help or hurt candidates.
The Liberal constitution - supplied helpfully by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com - gives the party executive four weeks to set a date for a leadership vote after they get a resignation letter.
They have to set a date for the vote within the next six months. Assuming Gordon Campbell wrote a resignation letter today, the leadership vote would have to be held no later than June 1.
All paid-up party members get a mail-in vote if they have joined at least 41 days - say six weeks - before the date of the leadership convention.
So, if the executive set a Dec. 12 leadership vote, only the people who were already party members could vote.
But parties like leadership races because the candidates rush around signing up new party members who will support them, theoretically building the membership base. (Though instant party members tend not to stick around after the leadership vote.) A later date would give leadership candidates a chance to persuade more people to buy memberships and support them.
This is all uncharted territory. The last leadership contest, which Campbell, of course, won, was 17 years ago and used a telephone voting system the party has abandoned.
To win, a candidate needs a majority. It's not clear, to me anyway, whether that must mean a succession of mail ballots or some form of voting that lets members rank all the candidates.
The Liberal constitution - supplied helpfully by Sean Holman of publiceyeonline.com - gives the party executive four weeks to set a date for a leadership vote after they get a resignation letter.
They have to set a date for the vote within the next six months. Assuming Gordon Campbell wrote a resignation letter today, the leadership vote would have to be held no later than June 1.
All paid-up party members get a mail-in vote if they have joined at least 41 days - say six weeks - before the date of the leadership convention.
So, if the executive set a Dec. 12 leadership vote, only the people who were already party members could vote.
But parties like leadership races because the candidates rush around signing up new party members who will support them, theoretically building the membership base. (Though instant party members tend not to stick around after the leadership vote.) A later date would give leadership candidates a chance to persuade more people to buy memberships and support them.
This is all uncharted territory. The last leadership contest, which Campbell, of course, won, was 17 years ago and used a telephone voting system the party has abandoned.
To win, a candidate needs a majority. It's not clear, to me anyway, whether that must mean a succession of mail ballots or some form of voting that lets members rank all the candidates.
Resignation brings a new set of problems
Gordon Campbell's resignation was inevitable. He lost the confidence of British Columbians and, finally, of at least some within the Liberal ranks.
But the timing was a surprise and leaves the party, government and province in a tough spot.
I expected Campbell to stick around and defend the HST in the run up to next September's referendum. Then he could leave and a new Liberal leader could declare the tax battle in the past, say lessons had been learned and pledge a fresh start.
That didn't work. Campbell faced increasing internal discontent - note Energy Minister Bill Bennett's criticism of the premier's autocratic decision-making on resource minstry restructuring - that increased when his televised address last week was a failure.
The early departure creates big problems. The Liberal party executive has six months to call a leadership convention. The latest date would be in May.
The HST referendum is set for Sept. 24. That means a new Liberal leader faces months either campaigning in favour of the HST or dodging questions about the tax. Either way, public anger about the tax and the incompetent way it was introduced would fix immediately on the new leader.
The leadership race will also be run with the tax still a live issue. That's bad news for potential candidates from within the current cabinet, like Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike de Jong.
They have all defended the HST and backed the government's position that it was not possible or necessary to consult the public. They have all supported the claim the tax "wasn't on the radar" during the election campaign, even though talks on implementing it started days after the vote. They have supported, they insisted, Campbell's actions.
The same actions that so angered the public that he had to resign.
Those are problems for the Liberal party. (Although they could be eased by moving the referendum date up to the spring.)
But months of uncertainty are also bad news for the government and the province.
The government had big, if vague, plans for changes to the education system, for example. Those are stalled. The major shuffle of resource industries to speed project approvals announced last week will slow as all involved wait to see what the new leader thinks.
And work on next year's budget, to be presented in February, will move into high gear in coming months. Absent a leader, decisions on everything from health spending to tax policy will be put off.
This is all coming as the province emerges from a recession and businesses and consumer wait to see if the HST will survive the referendum (or, for that matter, whether the Liberal government will survive recall attempts).
The uncertainty will be damaging.
It's a sad end for Campbell, no matter what people think of his time in government. He rode into office with considerable goodwill in 2001 (in part because the former NDP government was so loathed). And he was re-elected twice. No one has ever challenged his work ethic or commitment to the job. His enthusiasms - for First Nations treaties, health reform, action on climate change and all those other great goals - were compelling.
But they were also short-lived. And as time went on they were overshadowed by broken promises and a sense that this was a one-man government not much interested in the views of anyone outside a like-minded inner circle. It was not just the public's views that were discounted; Liberal MLAs weren't consulted about the HST or a host of other policy directions either.
That was too bad. Leaders, unless they are careful, ended up surrounded by people who think like they do and are far more likely to say "great idea, chief" than they are to raise concerns - either their own or their constituents.
So premiers come to believe, for example, that the reason people oppose the HST is that they are just too dim to recognize the premier's wisdom.
And eventually, they stand in front of the TV cameras offering their resignations.
Footnote: The Liberals should be looking ruefully at that 15 per cent tax cut. It reduced revenue by $1.2 billion over the next two years without saving Campbell's job. That's money a new leader could have used to build quick public support, either through tax cuts or an expansion of needed services.
But the timing was a surprise and leaves the party, government and province in a tough spot.
I expected Campbell to stick around and defend the HST in the run up to next September's referendum. Then he could leave and a new Liberal leader could declare the tax battle in the past, say lessons had been learned and pledge a fresh start.
That didn't work. Campbell faced increasing internal discontent - note Energy Minister Bill Bennett's criticism of the premier's autocratic decision-making on resource minstry restructuring - that increased when his televised address last week was a failure.
The early departure creates big problems. The Liberal party executive has six months to call a leadership convention. The latest date would be in May.
The HST referendum is set for Sept. 24. That means a new Liberal leader faces months either campaigning in favour of the HST or dodging questions about the tax. Either way, public anger about the tax and the incompetent way it was introduced would fix immediately on the new leader.
The leadership race will also be run with the tax still a live issue. That's bad news for potential candidates from within the current cabinet, like Rich Coleman, Kevin Falcon, George Abbott or Mike de Jong.
They have all defended the HST and backed the government's position that it was not possible or necessary to consult the public. They have all supported the claim the tax "wasn't on the radar" during the election campaign, even though talks on implementing it started days after the vote. They have supported, they insisted, Campbell's actions.
The same actions that so angered the public that he had to resign.
Those are problems for the Liberal party. (Although they could be eased by moving the referendum date up to the spring.)
But months of uncertainty are also bad news for the government and the province.
The government had big, if vague, plans for changes to the education system, for example. Those are stalled. The major shuffle of resource industries to speed project approvals announced last week will slow as all involved wait to see what the new leader thinks.
And work on next year's budget, to be presented in February, will move into high gear in coming months. Absent a leader, decisions on everything from health spending to tax policy will be put off.
This is all coming as the province emerges from a recession and businesses and consumer wait to see if the HST will survive the referendum (or, for that matter, whether the Liberal government will survive recall attempts).
The uncertainty will be damaging.
It's a sad end for Campbell, no matter what people think of his time in government. He rode into office with considerable goodwill in 2001 (in part because the former NDP government was so loathed). And he was re-elected twice. No one has ever challenged his work ethic or commitment to the job. His enthusiasms - for First Nations treaties, health reform, action on climate change and all those other great goals - were compelling.
But they were also short-lived. And as time went on they were overshadowed by broken promises and a sense that this was a one-man government not much interested in the views of anyone outside a like-minded inner circle. It was not just the public's views that were discounted; Liberal MLAs weren't consulted about the HST or a host of other policy directions either.
That was too bad. Leaders, unless they are careful, ended up surrounded by people who think like they do and are far more likely to say "great idea, chief" than they are to raise concerns - either their own or their constituents.
So premiers come to believe, for example, that the reason people oppose the HST is that they are just too dim to recognize the premier's wisdom.
And eventually, they stand in front of the TV cameras offering their resignations.
Footnote: The Liberals should be looking ruefully at that 15 per cent tax cut. It reduced revenue by $1.2 billion over the next two years without saving Campbell's job. That's money a new leader could have used to build quick public support, either through tax cuts or an expansion of needed services.
Tough to see economic case for tax cut
Gordon Campbell's TV speech bombed, according to the one public poll done in its aftermath. Even the 15 per cent income tax cut wasn't a runaway success.
The Ipsos Reid poll, done for Global TV, found one-third of British Columbians disapproved of the tax reduction.
That still leaves a majority - 62 per cent - in favour of the tax cut.
But the fact that one in three British Columbians didn't think the tax cut was a good idea is interesting.
The Liberals have spent a decade arguing taxes are bad. "We think you make better choices about how to spend those dollars than the government can," Campbell said last week, sticking with a familiar theme. "You all want to have critical services but you know the individual issues that you face as a family, it's better for you to choose where you want your dollars to go."
It's just political talk, crafted to play well on TV. But Campbell did appear to suggest that if you want "critical services" you should pay for them yourself, rather than expect the government to collect taxes and ensure that health and education, for example, are available for everyone.
It's tough to draw too many conclusions from the poll. It could be that the one-third of British Columbians who think the tax cut is a bad idea just dislike Campbell so much that anything he proposed would be tainted.
Or they could be the people who won't benefit from the tax cut. About 40 per cent of British Columbians don't earn tp pay provincial income tax. For someone with $20,000 income, the tax cut is worth a little over $1 a week. (They will benefit from the low-income HST rebate of up to $230 a year.)
But it could also be that man people don't think a tax cut is a good idea when the government is running a deficit. Paying for the tax reduction means borrowing money our kids will have to pay back or cutting more services.
It is a puzzling bit of public policy. Campbell has said deficits are an abomination, but he plunged the province deeper in debt - the tax cut will reduce revenues by $568 million next year, more the year after.
And he once again justified the snap imposition of the HST by saying B.C. desperately needed the $1.6 billion the federal government was offering as an inducement.
But the government is booking $580 million of that payment next year - almost exactly the revenue lost because of the tax cut. The HST incentive payment doesn't look quite so essential as a result.
The tax cut also opens the door to an unending litany of what-ifs. The government is moving people with developmental disabilities out of group homes and programs that have been part of their lives for years to save $22 million. That wouldn't be necessary with the tax cut.
In September, Health Minister Kevin Falcon announced an extra $23 million in health funding that would help 33,000 patients get speedier treatment. On that basis, the money the government gave up could have helped hundreds of thousands of people to get better access to needed health care.
Campbell made a brief reference to the economic benefits. The theory is that people will spend the money they get as a result of the tax cuts (and that government won't cut its spending because of the reduced revenue).
Some of that spending will result in jobs and economic growth in the province. The cuts will pay for themselves
But the business case is weak. A Central 1 Credit Union "preliminary impact assessment" estimated the 15 per cemt cut would increase economic growth from 2.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent next year.
That, according to the budget documents, translates into about $20 million in additional government revenue, compared to the $568 million given up as a result of the tax cut.
Even the 62 per cent who welcome the tax cut must wonder about the decision-making process.
Footnote: The poll found 11 per cent of British Columbians had an improved opinion of Campbell after the speech; 43 per cent thought worse of him. Thirteen per cent said they were more likely to vote Liberal; almost half - 46 per cent - said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals.
So who thought it would be a good idea to deliver that speech on television?
The Ipsos Reid poll, done for Global TV, found one-third of British Columbians disapproved of the tax reduction.
That still leaves a majority - 62 per cent - in favour of the tax cut.
But the fact that one in three British Columbians didn't think the tax cut was a good idea is interesting.
The Liberals have spent a decade arguing taxes are bad. "We think you make better choices about how to spend those dollars than the government can," Campbell said last week, sticking with a familiar theme. "You all want to have critical services but you know the individual issues that you face as a family, it's better for you to choose where you want your dollars to go."
It's just political talk, crafted to play well on TV. But Campbell did appear to suggest that if you want "critical services" you should pay for them yourself, rather than expect the government to collect taxes and ensure that health and education, for example, are available for everyone.
It's tough to draw too many conclusions from the poll. It could be that the one-third of British Columbians who think the tax cut is a bad idea just dislike Campbell so much that anything he proposed would be tainted.
Or they could be the people who won't benefit from the tax cut. About 40 per cent of British Columbians don't earn tp pay provincial income tax. For someone with $20,000 income, the tax cut is worth a little over $1 a week. (They will benefit from the low-income HST rebate of up to $230 a year.)
But it could also be that man people don't think a tax cut is a good idea when the government is running a deficit. Paying for the tax reduction means borrowing money our kids will have to pay back or cutting more services.
It is a puzzling bit of public policy. Campbell has said deficits are an abomination, but he plunged the province deeper in debt - the tax cut will reduce revenues by $568 million next year, more the year after.
And he once again justified the snap imposition of the HST by saying B.C. desperately needed the $1.6 billion the federal government was offering as an inducement.
But the government is booking $580 million of that payment next year - almost exactly the revenue lost because of the tax cut. The HST incentive payment doesn't look quite so essential as a result.
The tax cut also opens the door to an unending litany of what-ifs. The government is moving people with developmental disabilities out of group homes and programs that have been part of their lives for years to save $22 million. That wouldn't be necessary with the tax cut.
In September, Health Minister Kevin Falcon announced an extra $23 million in health funding that would help 33,000 patients get speedier treatment. On that basis, the money the government gave up could have helped hundreds of thousands of people to get better access to needed health care.
Campbell made a brief reference to the economic benefits. The theory is that people will spend the money they get as a result of the tax cuts (and that government won't cut its spending because of the reduced revenue).
Some of that spending will result in jobs and economic growth in the province. The cuts will pay for themselves
But the business case is weak. A Central 1 Credit Union "preliminary impact assessment" estimated the 15 per cemt cut would increase economic growth from 2.4 per cent to 2.5 per cent next year.
That, according to the budget documents, translates into about $20 million in additional government revenue, compared to the $568 million given up as a result of the tax cut.
Even the 62 per cent who welcome the tax cut must wonder about the decision-making process.
Footnote: The poll found 11 per cent of British Columbians had an improved opinion of Campbell after the speech; 43 per cent thought worse of him. Thirteen per cent said they were more likely to vote Liberal; almost half - 46 per cent - said they were less likely to vote for the Liberals.
So who thought it would be a good idea to deliver that speech on television?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
