On the possible privatization of the BC Ambulance Service: "Although the system would continue to be publicly funded such a change may be perceived as a privatization of health care."
(From the "Implications" listed in the "Private Sector Model" section of Industrial Inquiry Commissioner Chris Trumpy's report on the BC Ambulance Service, released yesterday.)
"May be"? Y'think?
This could get interesting.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, December 4, 2009
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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
It's on. I guess.
Friday, November 27, 2009
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.
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, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)