Friday morning music December 4, 2009

For some reason I woke up thinking of this song today. And the title seems kind of appropriate following recent events. Greatest band that never really made it. Rockpile, Crawling from the Wreckage, circa 1980.

Radical pragmatist debates future direction of BC NDP

Wasn't expecting this, but anyone interested in the question of what the NDP needs to do to win the next provincial election should check out the conversation/debate with Bill Tieleman and me on the Globe and Mail's website, or check it out below. If you're able to see the debate live, feel free to send your questions, comments and ideas directly through the Globe, or just leave a comment here.

It's on. I guess.

The Most Important Speech in the History of BC Politics

Wow. The BC NDP's convention starts today, and Carole James is coming off the strongest opposition caucus performance in a legislative session since Joy MacPhail called it quits, her party is leading the BC Liberals by double digits according to polls, and after 6 years of her leadership, her own approval rating is finally moving in the right direction.

In other words, she's in deep, deep trouble, and if she doesn't morph into a combination of Tommy Douglas and Barack Obama by Saturday morning, she's toast. At least, that's what you'd think from recent comments by pundits and some New Democrats.

James will speak to the NDP convention tomorrow (Saturday) and some folks are hanging her entire political future on her speech. Not since Obama's speech on religion and race have expectations for a single speech risen this high. Bit over the top, if you ask me.

There's no doubt that the NDP's 2009 election campaign was seriously flawed (as I've written), and James has accepted the responsibility for the disappointing result. She is, and should be, accountable to all members of the party for the strategic decisions and policy positions that contributed to the NDP losing its third straight election. And the NDP has to convince jaded voters that it's a viable alternative to the BC Liberals--and that James herself is the best person to replace Gordon Campbell as premier.

And there's no doubt that the NDP's top vulnerability remains the perception that it's weak on the economy. That said, after eight years under the supposedly sound economic management of the BC Liberals, BC leads the country in child poverty, tens of thousands of forestry jobs have disappeared, and construction project budgets have soared out of control. (In this context it's hard to see how BC Liberals calling out the NDP on the economy can be taken seriously, but this is BC.)

The internal debate about the best future direction of the NDP has hit the national media in recent days, with the Globe running a four-part series on the issue. Predictably, the complex discussion has been narrowly defined in the media as being either the Party "turns left" or "moves to the centre." (My friend Bill Tieleman has written extensively on the former view, here. I don't share his enthusiasm for going to the base, so in the sometimes-bizarre world of the NDP that makes me a centrist. Uhm, ok.)

Here's a radical concept: James should reject these artificial labels and focus on developing a progressive vision for the province that fosters a solid economy (without which job growth tends to lag), delivers solid and efficient services, does our part to fight climate change and protect the environment, and works to ensure the most vulnerable don't fall through the cracks.

It's time to move on from the ideological constraints that stop us from hearing one another. Most voters aren't ideological. While New Democrats have a long and proud history of visionary accomplishments, both in government and in opposition, on this issue the voters are way out ahead of the party. It's time to catch up. That doesn't mean jettisoning long-held principles of social justice, or even compromising on them. It means making those values relevant to the vastly greater numbers of people who won't ever join a political party.

The NDP won't be made relevant again by a single speech, no matter how spellbinding. It's going to take a collective willingness to listen to points of view that have either been ignored or shut out by the Party in recent years, or that have drifted away from the Party for a wide range of reasons over a longer period.

Carole James' future rides far more on her listening skills than on her speaking style for 20 minutes tomorrow.

Full disclosure: I wrote several speeches for Carole James earlier this year, but I have not been involved in her convention speech.

Friday morning music Nov 13, 2009

By special request.

predictable perhaps, but it's the pogues

Remember the sacrifice in the form of your choice. Video is lame, but this is the best song ever written about the futility and nobility of war.

There's something missing here

I just re-read the government's news release announcing the "sweeping energy policy review" and it seems to me there's something missing. Shouldn't a review of energy policy include an independent examination of how much additional energy--if any--BC needs?

You'd think that--even if only for political cover--the Liberals would have tried to justify radical shifts in energy policy like kneecapping the BC Utilities Commission with at least a token examination of BC's energy requirements.

The problem of any Potemkin review, though, is that it would have to contend with the reality of energy requirement forecasts as described by the independent BCUC here, BC Hydro's own internal projections, and reams of independent analysis that all put the lie to the government's claims.

The Liberals say we have a looming energy shortage that will hurt our economy, while opponents say that with aggressive conservation measures (as championed by now-sidelined BC Hydro CEO Bob Elton) coupled with upgrades to existing BC Hydro generating facilities, BC is self-sufficient in electricity.

Does BC need more energy, or not? Without a thorough--and independent--examination of this fundamental question, the Liberals' "sweeping" review will have no credibility as anything other than political spin, and pretty lame spin at that.

Fox, meet henhouse; hens, meet David Emerson

I see the Premier announced a sweeping review of energy policy in BC, just what, 7 years since the last, ahem, sweeping review of energy policy in BC, to be completed in January.

Anyone who's ever worked anywhere near government knows the fix is in when "reviews" are given extremely short timelines. All four (4, yes, quatre) task forces have been mandated to report out in less than 3 months, with Christmas and New Years in the middle. And, if any further evidence is required to show the outcome is already pre-determined, I give you the newest apparent member of cabinet, one David Emerson. (Granted, the news release specifies he's "ex officio." Not an actual un-elected member of Cabinet or anything, just one voice in the room, I get it. Whew. That's a relief. I was worried he'd have influence.)

You may remember Mr. Emerson from such earlier works as "Oops, I Privatized BC Ferries" (chair of the board during the BC Liberals' first term), or his amusing foray into federal electoral politics and identity crisis. Prior to that, he was paid millions to run a forest company while tens of thousands of jobs were lost and entire forest-dependent communities practically disappeared. (Good for him, of course. I get that he was paid to deliver to his shareholders, not workers or towns, and that changing international market conditions and the failure of the industry to adapt and evolve were totally not his fault.)

I don't mean to bash David Emerson here. What did Kurtz say to Willard near the end of Apocalypse Now? "You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill."

I think Mr. Emerson is a little higher up the food chain than "errand boy," but, as he has throughout his career, he's just doing what the boss asks for.

But, in this case, the boss in question is the Premier, who was just re-elected with a third straight majority, meaning there is no question at all that whatever policy Mr. Emerson comes up with (or, more likely, cuts and pastes from Plutonic Power's shareholder prospectus) will be implemented. The Liberals have been looking like the wheels had come completely off, but it's looking like someone's waking up over there.

Friday morning music - September 2, 2009

This comes from one of the first movies I ever saw in a theatre. Absolutely brilliant song, killer guitar solo from Robbie Robertson and the (sadly, late) great Rick Danko on bass and vocals.

Shocking discovery: Unedited version of BC Throne Speech (excerpt)

Yesterday's BC Throne Speech included a remarkable sentence,as published:

"The fiscal cupboard is bare, and currently hangs on a wall of deficit spending."

The original, unedited version, as discovered by the radical pragmatist (ok, ok, imagined, gawd!) is even weirder:

"The fiscal cupboard is bare, and currently hangs on a wall of deficit spending, which itself separates the kitchen of higher taxes and the dining room of program cuts, while the open concept living room of debt leads into the hallway of borrowing and interest rates, itself leading to the stairs of business cycles and up to the three bedrooms of economic transition and the bathroom of lost jobs."

Friday morning music - August 21, 2009

What I said the other day about posting about actual, you know, issues? I'm getting to it, honestly.

In the meantime, play this loud.

Friday morning music - August 14, 2009

I actually saw this episode...more than 25 years ago. The outfits and the hair look pretty silly but the playing more than holds up. I love how weird it looks now to see Letterman holding up the LP of Murmur while he introduces them.

*Actual* posts coming soon, promise.

I'm baa-aack

It's been a long, long time since I posted last. Sometimes life takes weird turns when you least expect them; recent turns have been exceptionally weird, and even more exceptionally unexpected.

This summer has not quite gone the way I'd thought it would, to say the least. Regular programming to return soon.

Les Paul r.i.p.

No, there is no real link between the death (or life) of Les Paul and this clip of Bowie playing "Five Years" with Arcade Fire, but a) I wanted to acknowledge the death of Les Paul, even though I have never enjoyed playing the namesake guitar (too heavy, and I always associated it with Jimmy Page, and I hated Zeppelin) and b) I heard "Five Years" on the way to work today, wanted to share, and this was the best version I could find.

Real reason I never really liked Les Paul, the guitar? Embarrassment. In the late '70s, before we had French immersion in elementary schools, or French, period, my parents made me take after-school French lessons. A couple of years later in Grade 8, when everyone had to take French, I figured I knew a thing or two about French that my buddy James, who had not taken French yet, couldn't possibly know. Early into the year, we both walked into the band room for the first time, and saw--gasp!--an electric guitar leaning against an amp. From the doorwat, James said, "cool, a Les Paul." I walked over and looked closely at it and said, "oh man, you don't know anything. It's "lay paul."

Seriously, a really amazing guy. What a life. Check this out.

And here's Bowie. This version is a little too polished for my liking compared to the stripped-down original from 1972 (!), but he still sounds amazing.

Blogging interrupted by the real world

Wow. It's harder to keep this blog thing going than I'd thought when I started it up.

It's even harder when actual, paid work comes into the picture. Which, I'm happy to report, has been the case, leaving me with less spare time to work on posting.

Speaking of which, the post on "axe the tax" received way more hits/visits/pageviews than I'd expected, and seemed to generate at least a little debate. And that was the whole point of setting this blog up in the first place.

Belated musical selection

Computer challenges have prevented me from posting any tunes lately. Here's Neil playing Dylan. Awesome sideburns, if the music doesn't get you.

Comment on comments

In my very first post on this blog I said I welcomed comments and wasn't really interested in moderating them. That said, a few bad apples have forced me to moderate the whole barrel, to mangle a metaphor.

I have no problem at all if commenters disagree with what I say here; the entire point of this blog is to generate debate about the future of progressive politics in BC. That said, comments of a personal or potentially libelous nature aren't going to be posted.

So I've reluctantly enabled the "moderate comments" function, but I commit to posting everything that meets the definition of debate rather than slagging.

Thanks for visiting.

Axe me no questions, I'll tell you no lies

My friend and occasional colleague Bill Tieleman is back beating the “Axe the Tax” drum, arguing that the anti-carbon tax campaign was a success for the NDP in the last election because the party won 1 percent more votes in 2009 than 2005. (To be precise, 0.6 percent more votes.)

Uhm, that was the election the NDP just lost, right? And we’re still arguing about a strategy that was front and centre in an election campaign that increased the NDP's vote by less than 1 percent? If that’s how we define success in the NDP today, it’s no wonder we don’t talk about the economy.

Hey! Here’s an idea—not just for Bill, but for everyone who cares about the future of the NDP and BC. When we’re arguing about whether or not the NDP should drop the “axe the tax” campaign, let’s try to remember that 50 per cent of eligible voters stayed home on election day.

By restricting our post mortem analysis to looking only at whether the strategy won or lost votes and ignoring the much more important issue of how political positioning contributes to low voter turnout, we are perpetuating an approach to politics and governing that is fundamentally broken.

Whether you think “axe the tax” was a “brilliant strategy” (as Mark Jaccard called it post-election), a colossal blunder, or somewhere in between, it’s frankly too much inside baseball to only focus on the issue as a vote-winner or -loser. And that’s especially so when both main parties’ approaches to the issue failed to engage new voters.

Public policy developed by focusing on the electoral efficacy of “wedge issue” politics is one of the leading causes of the well-documented decline in voter turnout, and the increase in voter apathy. It may have seemed new and exciting when Republican political consultant Dick Morris brought triangulation to the Clinton White House, but this kind of politics has got to go. Triangulation can be focus-grouped and market-researched to find out the best way to move vote, but it doesn’t make it any less cynical.

Throughout his political career, Gordon Campbell has shown that he doesn’t “get religion” on any issue unless there’s a clear political upside to doing so. His change of tune on climate change is no exception, but frankly you could see the proverbial conversion coming well before he introduced the carbon tax. The New Democrats were caught off guard and never properly regained their footing.

There were three serious flaws in the Axe the Tax strategy.

First, by falling for Campbell’s political bait and switch and attacking an initiative supported by progressives and scientists around the world, the NDP allowed the Liberals to frame the debate as being a choice between their “painful-but-necessary” action to fight climate change (endorsed by Al Gore, back when that still mattered) versus no action and, fatally, no new ideas from the NDP. Many New Democrats were appalled that the axe-the-tax campaign left the NDP sounding more like Bush-era conservatives than Obama-era progressives.

Second, “Axe the Tax” had a significant impact on the NDP’s ability to develop a progressive alternative for the province. The commitment to eliminate the carbon tax was paired with a pledge to retain Campbell’s offsetting personal income tax cuts, effectively blowing a $1.8 billion hole in projected revenues, which could have been deployed in a more ambitious and visionary election platform.

Finally, the purely oppositional approach was not backed up by a clear, positive alternative. To me, this is the most critical flaw: too much emphasis on the negative attacks on the carbon tax and not enough, if any, emphasis on a positive alternative. Sometimes, maybe what people like Mark Jaccard call brilliant political strategy just makes no common sense.

On an issue like climate change, when so many citizens have made themselves informed, it’s fatal to insult their intelligence by making out like only big corporations and the rich will have to make sacrifices. More than ever, in tough times we all need to come together, and the old-school divide and conquer politics that have made half of us observers rather than participants is well past its due date.

Blatant self-promotion

as if a blog is anything else. Please enjoy A-Line Communications's first-ever web ad.

I recommend clicking on full-screen to avoid the YouTube logo covering up the ad text.

Swearing in before swearing begins

Congrats to all 85 BC MLAs being sworn in today, regardless of party. It's a tougher job--and a much, much more boring job--than most candidates bargained for, but it's an important one, no matter how much Mike Smyth or Keith Baldrey sneer at backbenchers.

That said, the election of an independent MLA should send a clear signal to Liberal members: if you back terrible policy in your own riding, watch it. Maybe after eight years of relentlessly autocratic rule, Liberal MLAs who watched the Premier lose the bet in Delta South will force him to remember that it's not just the big donors that count. Local issues can matter, no matter what the spin doctors in Victoria say.

But don't hold your breath on that.

Across the aisle, NDP MLAs have a critical role in determining the future of the NDP in BC politics. There must be a strong shift away from reflexive and reactive opposition to a positive and progressive government-in-waiting.

Beyond the work they do in the Legislature and in the constituency, the New Democrat MLAs must reach out to the majority of eligible voters who stayed home on May 12. And they'd be well-advised to read this.

My great-grandfather was a United Church minister, and his eldest daughter, my grandmother, was a church organist for most of her life, so I have (sort of) some authority to say this: If you don't stop preaching to the choir, the pews are going to stay empty.

Congratulations to all 85 new and re-elected MLAs and their families. Don't get caught up in the pomp; you're still the same person you were before you ran. And above all, don't forget that your job is to represent your community in Victoria, not the other way 'round. And good luck with that. You'll need it.

Friday morning music

As always, I encourage you to play it loud.

Who does the 'creative' for Subway ads?

What's the deal with Subway's ad campaign that features animated monkeys making sandwiches in some bizarre industrial setting? I'd hoped it would die a quick death, but they've kept it on air for more than a year now. They must have paid a lot for the animation.

I want to know: has a single person, anywhere, decided to buy a sandwich on the basis of this campaign?

Two things:

1. I don't really want a sandwich if it's made by -- or with -- a monkey.

2. If I really have to, I would prefer that the monkey that makes my sandwich not smoke a cigar while putting too much lettuce on the turkey, know what I mean?

Seriously, they have focus groups for a reason.

Turndown in turnout needs turning around

Lame alliteration notwithstanding, how can candidates for public office reverse the trend that sees fewer people choosing to vote in election after election?

I live in the provincial riding of Vancouver - Mt. Pleasant, home to what is almost certainly the highest concentration of social issues in BC, and probably the entire country. Arguably, then, and understandably, residents of Mt. Pleasant have the greatest degree of self-interest in the results of the election. Yet turnout here was just over 40 percent, even lower than the pathetic province-wide average of around 50 percent.

The fact that this riding is absolutely rock-solid for the NDP probably has a lot to do with it; there's simply no serious competition for votes in Mt. Pleasant, so what's the point in busting your butt to get to the polls? 

So it may be understandable for the election being tuned out in Mt. Pleasant, but it isn't acceptable. And it certainly isn't acceptable to sit back and do nothing about the fact that the decline in turnout is a province-wide trend.

The way we elect our governments is being rejected by voters. Premier Campbell's majority government was elected by just 25 percent (roughly) of eligible voters. That doesn't seem right (and I would say the same thing if the NDP had won.)

I don't know if a new system altogether is the answer (obviously the somewhat bizarre variant that was on offer May 12 was rejected), or even part of the answer, but we need to do something to increase citizen participation in elections.  

The BC NDP should push for a massive voter registration drive as part of a larger package of democratic and electoral reform. I'm not saying a political party should be in charge of signing up voters, but why not demand higher funding for Elections BC with the express mandate of increasing voter participation? 

There's a start. I've got more to say on this. 

Dumbing down, suppressing turnout

Why did only half of those of us eligible to vote choose to do so in the May 12th provincial election?

I don't claim to have the answers, but I think that the dumbing down of politics and political arguments over the past 20 years or so is a central contributing factor to reduced voter participation (the word "turnout," it seems to me, has the effect of de-personalizing the decision, or removing responsibility from individual citizens.)

It seems clear to me that political parties aren't connecting with citizens who have no partisan affiliation. In terms of identifying and moblizing their respective bases of support, the NDP and BC Liberals obviously both do a decent job, hence the near-identical results of 2009 and 2005. Instead of inspiring new voters to participate in our democracy, both main parties preach to the choir, hardening pre-existing support for the most part by demonizing their opponent. Anyone who's ever worked on a political campaign at a senior level can tell you that negative ads work; that is, they can motivate voters to make a decision based on what they don't like. But I've become convinced--not that I have any empirical data to back me up--that campaigns that focus too heavily on a negative message freeze out voters who aren't already predisposed to one side or the other. 

But let's take a quick look at the last campaign. In the midst of a worldwide recession/economic crisis, at a time when according to all the pundits the economy is the number one issue for voters, how much actual talk did we hear from either party about the subject that wasn't broadsides or platitudes? Or worse, pandering?

All the Liberals had to say on the economy was that Carole James has no experience (neither did Gordon Campbell before he ran up the biggest deficits in the history of BC) and the Liberals will "keep BC strong" (whatever that means.) Details? Don't worry voters, trust us, because you can't trust them.

The NDP's economic message, on the other hand, was that Gordon Campbell is a very bad man. Don't get me wrong, I think the Campbell government has been one of the worst in BC history. They've been extremely fortunate to govern during a time of unprecedented worldwide affluence and economic growth, but they haven't had the foresight to position BC to weather the inevitable downturn. That said, I wanted to hear a lot more detail about the NDP's plan to manage BC's finances.

So why don't we get the details before we have to make our voting decisions? Well, partly because the media looks forward to elections more for the increase in potential "gotcha" moments than for opportunities to provide informed debate. And, in a bit of grim symbiosis, it's because political strategists, like me, advise our clients to avoid details during campaigns so they don't inadvertently become a "gotcha" moment.

It's time for a new way of campaigning, and the only way it can work is for political parties to come to the realization that the old ways don't work any more. The continued reduction in the participation of eligible voters is unacceptable, and has to be considered a colossal, collective failure on the part of political parties, including their leaders and strategists, and the mainstream media in BC.

In other parts of the world, people literally risk death to get to the polls and mark their ballot. What's our excuse?

Your Friday musical selection

Just play it loud.

When things get weird, they inevitably get weirder...

Bi. Zarre.

How long has this been going on now?

What the world needs now....

....is a new blog, like I need a hole in my head (apologies to Cracker, who deserve better.)

What's this thing going to be? I don't really know yet. I have a vision-y thing in my mind about what I'd like it to become, but I'm not entirely sure yet how to describe it, never mind get there. So, in a move I would never recommend to a client, I'm just jumping in, and we'll see what happens.

The main idea is to encourage debate about new ideas for progressives in British Columbia, mainly. I don't buy the hype about "post-partisan" but I would really like to get beyond ideology, right, left or centre. It's more than past time to get beyond demonizing political opponents. When barely half of eligible voters can't be bothered to spend 15 minutes at a polling place on election day, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that something's wrong with the way we've been doing things.

I know, I know, we've got a corporate media focused on "maximizing synergies" and cutting costs and not on promoting a free and open debate on political ideas...but that's hardly breaking news. 

I'm no philosopher nor a political scientist (favourite Dave Barrett quote: "There's no such thing as political science...You book a room for 100, and you jam 200 people in. That's political science."). But I do think that politics should be a debate about ideas, not ideologies, and about people, not personalities, and I hope that in some small way this blog can help move us toward that goal.

I welcome comments. I just ask that commenters be civil, I prefer real names to "anonymous" but won't force the issue, and I'm not really interested in message box regurgitation...even if I wrote the message box in the first place!