submitted to GlobeandMail

The Editor,
Dear Sir,

Your front-page pensions story, which suggests public sector defined-benefit pension plans may be headed for the same fate as many private-sector plans (it appears to this non-economist) misses an important point: my teachers' pension plan was fully paid for by me and my employer. It was part of my salary, and administered by an independent body, not my employer. My compulsory contributions were raised when the plan's actuaries determined that there were problems ahead, and when I retired my part of the plan was already fully-funded.

As I understand it, many private-sector pension plans, such as the Air Canada pilots' one cited, are administered by the company and are in trouble because the employer replaced actual investments with what were essentially promissary notes. Consequently, when such employers run into trouble, the pension plan is among the first things to go.

A simple law requiring all employers to put the money up front (or, better yet, increasing the contributions and payout of the Canada Pension Plan) would go a long way to solving this issue.

Horgan for BC

I've now seen John Horgan and Adrian Dix in person, have watched a number of the all-candidate debates on the BCNDP website, and have followed the campaign in the press avidly. Here's what I know so far:
1    All 5 candidates are excellent public speakers. All have a firm grasp of the issues and the politics. All are convincing when speaking extemporaneously. None speaks in "talking points".
Purely from that point of view any of them would present a more convincing public face of the BCNDP than our last leader.
I would judge John Horgan the most comfortable, the funniest, and the most loquatious.
2    Only three have a realistic chance: John Horgan, Adrian Dix, and Mike Farnworth. Nicholas Simons, while strong on social concerns, doesn't look or sound like a prospective Premier Simons. Dana Larsen, an unexpectedly effective and engaging candidate, cannot get a reference in the press that doesn't also reference his marijuana activism: not Premier material.
3    There is no evidence of a split in the party. All the leading candidates stayed with Carol James until the end; all the leading candidates have attracted and welcomed endorsements from dissident MLAs.
4    The campaign has been so civil that John Horgan is frequently quoted in the press when he characterizes the debates as "another NDP love-in". Some columnists would like to see fireworks, but most acknowledge that only very small differences separate the candidates. The candidates appear to genuinely like and respect each other. This is not normal for BC politics.
5    Of the front-runners, as must be pretty clear by now, I like John Horgan the best. He's not as well-known as the other two, but I think that would dissipate very quickly were he to become the voice of the NDP. I suspect he's the most able of the three to point out Premier Clark's foibles and weaknesses in a humorous way, and I think that's the way to beat her and her machine.
    My second choice has to be Mike Farnworth. He clearly has the confidence of large segments of the party, and according to polls, is the most liked by the electorate at large. I suspect his justice issues stance, which has been widely covered in the press over many years, is largely responsible for his good name recognition. Unfortunately I don't agree with this stance; fortunately he's solid on the other issues near and dear to me, especially on the environment.
    I've admired Adrian Dix for years, ever since he was the BC head of Canadian Parents for French. He's also obviously the best-organized of the candidates and has an uncanny ability to summon at will statistics for every occasion: it's quite dazzling. Unfortunately, I've seen no evidence of a sense of humour, and I do think that's an important political tool: I'm tired of our perpetual righteous indignation. We really haven't been amused by BC politics since Dave Barrett, who took down an iconic WAC Bennett by pointing out how ridiculous his platform was, given the problems the province was facing at the time.
    But the biggest problem with Adrian Dix is that he has baggage. Vaughan Palmer's column of January 19, 2011, laid out the case: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinion+Liberals+have+lots+common/4130156/story.html
I also wonder about the judgment of some of his supporters: Mable Elmore's activities in recruiting new NDP members on his behalf represented the one blot on the entire leadership process. Everything may have been perfectly above-board, but the new memberships looked fishy, and the press sensed blood.
    You cannot just shuck that kind of record, irrelevant as it may be to present circumstances, as Christy Clark and the BCLiberals (Christy's role in the BC Rail fiasco: look it up!) are going to find out eventually.

    So that's it: one of the least consequential political endorsements of all time!
    But all mine.

Update: regarding white elephants

In December 2009 I wrote letters to both our local papers. There was a proposal to a upgrade the Campbell River Airport, purportedly so it would attract larger aircraft. Federal money was involved; local taxpayers would have to pony up 'only' several hundred thousand dollars.
I pointed out that the Comox Airport, second in BC only to Vancouver International, is only 45 minutes away. I compared the airport project to our infamous cruise-ship terminal, which hasn't seen a cruise (or any other kind of) ship for several years.
No letters on this subject were published, fewer than 100 ratepayers complained, and the upgrade was completed last year. (One can find the letters archived on this blog.)
Yesterday Dan MacLennan, the Courier-Islander's principal reporter, had a story about Council's budget deliberations.
Oh look! We're paying $26,000 a year to maintain a cruise ship terminal that cannot attract cruise ships. Otherwise our $2 Million (of $20 Million!) investment will deteriorate.
Councillors were "surprised", and claimed that "George is working on it".
MacLennan also revealed, for the first time apparently, that the Campbell River Airport has lost money every year of at least the last five. In other words, since well before Councillors decided to expand it:

Meanwhile the Campbell River Airport, downloaded by Ottawa onto the city in 1996, has been losing money for several years. At the time, city officials pledged the airport would not be a burden to the taxpayers. It would have to stand on it's own.

Budget documents, however, show taxpayers are on the hook. 

- Passenger movements have been dropping from a spike in 2000 close to 80,000, down to about 50,000 in 2009
- Aircraft movements peaked in 2008 then dropped sharply in 2009. Fuel sales dropped with them.
- Airport expenses have exceeded revenues for the last five years.
- Airport operations lost $183,374 in 2010. The 2011 operational deficit is projected at $168,169.

Please! This "build it and they will come" mythology needs to be laid to rest.
Now, before it bankrupts us.

(published in Courier-Islander of April 8, 2011)

Don, Terry, and Ida

Don McRae, Terry Lake, and Ida Chong: what do they have in common?
Well, they're all MLAs, all BCLiberals, and all generally considered to be rather light-weight, in a caucus not usually recognized for intellectual heft.
They all had relatively small winning margins, and were or are the subjects of Recall campaigns. 
They are the only subjects of such campaigns, so far.
Since Christy became Premier, they're also all Ministers of the Crown, respectively Minister of Agriculture, Minister of the Environment, and Minister of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development. Only Ida has been a Minister before; however, googling reveals that she has never shown any particular talent.
Guess we now know where those portfolios rank in the current administration's esteem.
And what it takes to become a Minister in Christy's new, slimmed-down BCLiberal government.

UPDATE 23 March:  Two items of news: 1)  The Comox recall of MLA McRae was unsuccessful, gathering only about 5000 signatures. 19,000 were required. No surprise there.
                                                                   2)  There's another recall campaign underway: http://www.donewithdalton.com/  But, like the others, it won't succeed, even though the MLA for Maple Ridge-Mission, Marc Dalton, wasn't elevated to Christy's Cabinet, possibly because he holds views too odious even for most BCLiberals and isn't shy about expressing them.
Next election, people!

John Horgan, HST, and Recall

John Horgan wants to be the next leader of the BCNDP. Assuming his performance in front of a room of North Island NDPers yesterday was representative of his abilities and beliefs, I'd have no trouble voting for him.
Part of the unease I had with Carole as the visible face of the BCNDP was that, although she improved somewhat over the years, she was not a natural in front of an audience or the camera. When she did well, my first reaction was invariably relief. It's not a good if your partisans are always slightly worried when you have the stage.
Not so Horgan: he's extremely comfortable speaking extemporaneously and, perhaps more importantly,  has an ability, rare in public speakers, to make all the people in a room feel as if they're a part of a conversation among friends.
Of course he was among friends, and I haven't yet decided; it's still early days, and I haven't heard Mike Farnworth.

Someone asked him about taxation, and specifically the HST. As I'm still planning to vote in favour, I thought his reply interesting, especially given his audience, many of whom are quite sure the HST is an evil conspiracy. He said, of course he planned to vote against the HST in the upcoming referendum. However, he pointed out, consumption taxes aren't necessarily bad taxes. He mentioned visiting his son in Helsinki, where the consumption tax is over 20%, and pays in large part for the social services for which Finland is famous. The difference, he noted, is that the tax is built into the price of things, so there aren't constant irritating reminders.
That strikes me as a very reasonable, informed response. It appeared to go down well with the North Island audience as well, but he might want to consider ducking the issue if he's talking to his (judging from Facebook, many) partisans in Oak Bay, some of whom have invested literally months in the anti-HST cause.

Which is a nice segue into the Oak Bay Recall Campaign, which got only just over half of the signatures it needed before it timed out.
I think we dodged a bullet there, which is not to say no harm was done.
For one thing, look what it did for Ida's profile! (Who had ever heard of Ida Chong before this?)
And then there are the optics: her nice Asian lady face is all over the front pages today, having trashed the campaign against her led by an old, myopic white guy, also pictured.

Last week I was on the way to visit my dad when I saw a gaggle of elderly ladies and one gentleman flooding out of the Zocalo Cafe and Gallery on the corner of 5th and Cliffe, right in the middle of downtown Courtenay. They were turned out in yellow vests that said "RECALL". Although obviously embarking on the Comox Recall Campaign, they looked like a tour group of pensioners, out on an expedition.
You had to laugh.
There's no reason to think this campaign will be any more successful than the one in Oak Bay, even though there will be few provincial civil servants (who apparently refuse to sign because they're afraid!) or apartment dwellers (access is difficult) to complicate the task.
For reasons I've explored in a previous post, I'm with those who will not mourn the failure. I just wish the Comox NDP was not going to be tarred with it.
However, it will not help that the Zocalo Cafe is well-known in Courtenay as owned and operated by Catherine Bell, former NDP MP. And the recall Proponent plus (no doubt) many of the workers are prominent NDP partisans. Don McRae, a thoroughly-minor-league MLA (you may remember an earlier post that attributed his victory largely to the criteria by which the NDP candidate was chosen) will inevitably benefit from the publicity. I'm pretty sure he gains credibility and the NDP stands to lose.

That's two seats we'll have trouble winning back, I suspect..

Of ironies, bullies, and Carole

Ironies

A few days ago the front page of the Victoria Times-Colonist featured a photo of Bill VanderZalm, opening the campaign to recall the insignificant Ida Chong, MLA for Oak Bay.  There, front and center, looking splendidly earnest, was my good friend, colleague, and fellow-NDPer, Mike Hayes.
And was Mike (identified by that same Times-Colonist in an earlier edition as a member of the Oak Bay NDP Constituency Association and member of the BCNDP Provincial Council) carrying a placard denouncing VanderZalm's notorious libertarian and social conservative views?
Was he hell!  He was there in his capacity as one of the lead organizers of the recall campaign.
Should that campaign succeed the politics of BC will almost certainly never be normal again.  And should Ida be replaced by an NDPer in a future NDP government (there are precedents: her predecessor was, after all, Elizabeth Cull, NDP!) guess who will be the first target in the recall campaign that will follow just as soon as the government is forced to raise taxes to implement even a small part of their electoral platform.
Welcome to the Tea Party, BC version.
I sincerely hope they're not successful.

*****

In the November, 2005 convention Carole James promoted a change to the BCNDP constitution that reduced the influence of unions on the party.  Although this upset many of our members, she was ultimately successful, and this change, among other initiatives, allowed her to try to mend fences with the small business community, so critical for developing new employment.
All the evidence is that she made some headway, and it is undeniably true that the BCNDP became a less dogmatic, more electable party as a result.
Then the party elected Moe Sihota as its president.  He negotiated a secret deal with various union organizations to provide him with a salary so that he could do justice to the job.  This fact was, of course, revealed.  The press loved it.
And there went all our credibility on that file.
Personally, I have no problem paying for the president; in fact, I'm astonished that that we haven't done so all along.  But there's a difference between the party paying someone to do a job and having unions pay him under the table to do it, and I'm astonished that apparently nobody realized this could undermine the leader and shoot us in the foot electorally.

Bullies

Let's all agree that Carole James was under almost intolerable pressure, and that such pressure excuses a lot.  Even so, her last days as leader of the BCNDP weren't pretty.  Unfortunately for her and the party she ended up proving her detractors right, with unflattering displays of pettiness, vindictiveness, and rigidity.
For me the first real inkling that she would not be living up to the image I had formed of her was when she wouldn't accept any responsibility for the events leading to her resignation, and instead complained about the "bullies" who opposed her.
That's an interesting term for her to use, echoing as it did Bill Bennett's criticism of Gordon Campbell.  But Claire Trevena and Lana Popham bullies, just like Gordon Campbell?  No, Carole: that's just offensive and illogical!
As a public school teacher I have seen and dealt with more than my share of bullies and their victims.  In every case the perpetrators felt contempt for the powerless and immune from consequences.  So who kicked Bob Simpson out of Caucus without apparently consulting anyone?  Whose supporters attempted to bludgeon the dissidents into line by publicly outing them at the Council meeting?  Whose camp prevented the Council from even debating the issues that were at the basis of the disagreement?  Who escalated the threats of force, and wouldn't bend at all when the dissidents tried mediation?
If there is a bully in this case it's not the people who were forced to band together to speak to power.

A tale of the times

Once upon a time there was a politician who went around giving Speeches.  He gave Speeches to groups of ordinary citizens, and Speeches to members of his own party, and Speeches to the Rotary Club, and Speeches to the Board of Trade, and even Speeches to other politicians.  He gave Speeches to anyone who could be gathered into a room to listen.
It was a life full of Speeches, and in almost every case his Speech followed this simple pattern:  "I am not like that Friend of the Rich who is presently doing bad things.  If you elect me I will be on your side, and I will do only good things.  So elect me."

Elections came and went, and each time most of the electorate voted not for the Politician Who Gives Speeches but for the Friend of the Rich, who said, "Vote for me and you will become rich.  But if you elect the Politician Who Gives Speeches, the paupers will take over."

Each time the gap narrowed, however, while the Politician Who Gives Speeches got better at delivering his Speech.

Then the Friend of the Rich did some things which almost everyone could see would not make them rich, so a vocal minority complained.  They complained and complained.  They even circulated petitions, which they all signed.  The Polls started to drop for the Friend of the Rich, and then for his Party.

So the Politician Who Gives Speeches said, "I am not like that Friend of the Rich who is presently doing bad things.  If you elect me I will be on your side, and I will do only good things.  You now NEED to elect me."
At which point a Northern Colleague of the Politician Who Gives Speeches said, "Do you not have another speech?  You always give the same one, and it's starting to sound vacuous."
To which the Politician Who Gives Speeches replied, "Not only are you going to bed without dessert, but you're also no longer welcome at the Party."  And kicked him out.
Friends of the Northern Colleague said, "Why should saying what has been obvious for years get you kicked out of the Party?  We should ask to Party Council to tell us.  There's a Meeting coming up; we'll ask them then."

Meanwhile, the Friend of the Rich was losing the confidence of his own Party, so he made one last, desperate, move.  He said to the voters, "Here, have some of your own money.  That will make you feel rich and vote for me."
But the jig was up, and the gambit didn't result in even a small bump in the Polls.  The Friend of the Rich had become the least popular politician in the Land, so his Party turned on him, and he was forced to resign.

The Meeting of the Council of the Party was held in private, so we don't know exactly what was said.  We do know that it was a splendid affair, complete with yellow ribbons and badges demonstrating love for the Politician Who Gives Speeches and trust in his Speech, and that there was much Press speculation about strategies and coup attempts.  When it was over the Council reported that the Politician Who Gives Speeches only needs one Speech, which will get him elected next time.  They also said nobody could force them to listen to the Northern Colleague or his friends, and that if those people didn't like his Speech, they should just shut up about it.

By the way, since the Friend of the Rich resigned, his Party has gone back up in the Polls...

...To be continued. 
(Clearly, this story hasn't ended yet; it has too many loose threads!)

Paean to polyurethane

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a retired man in possession of a good pension will eventually be in want of a greenhouse.

When one retires, people you hardly know apparently start to worry.  You meet them in a store or while walking, and they invariable greet you with, "So how're you doing?  Keeping busy?"
Of course you are, but even if you aren't, particularly, you're obliged to say, "Never busier!" because that puts most such interlocutors at their ease, and then you can get on with phase two, the expressions of envy, followed by the real conversation, which is about them.
But sometimes, maybe anticipating some lacuna in their own and future retirements, you'll be pressed on the point: "So what are you up to?"
And then you have to try to explain.
When I first retired, no problem.  I could talk about writing projects, which are so obviously all-consuming that they're just like a real job.  Especially if you've managed to publish a few times.  Besides, this explanation merged seamlessly with the stereotypical retirement of anyone who has managed an entire career in the English-teaching trenches.
But then, before the first year was out, that phase ended, along with the need to talk about some of the things I'd learned in my career.  And I wasn't planning to start a new career, or even to fill my days with either charitable or academic endeavours.  I had papers and books to read, a dad to look after, and a dog to walk; I was going to retire, properly.
Normally, that would mean a good deal of gardening, but I'm an indifferent gardener.  That is to say, I like our garden fine, and I don't want to annoy the neighbours needlessly.  I'm willing to put some time and effort into garden maintenance, but I'm a long way from fanatical.  My idea of landscaping is mostly rhododendrons, fruit trees, woodchips, a lawnmower, and some vegetables, while Sandy does flowers in pots and in a few designated areas.
Definitely not fanatical.
This was a fact noticed by our new neighbour.  Shortly after he had moved in and was busily chopping the trees, planting the lawns, and having a concrete driveway complete with retaining wall built, he remarked that he found our yard "interesting", and (digging to the very bottom of his drawer of words one uses in the presence of someone who could easily have been one's English teacher) "eclectic".
Of course he was spot-on, and consequently we have been the best of neighbours ever since.  I even got into the spirit a bit, and dug out the bamboo.
Clearly "gardening", in my case, doesn't cut it as an explanation of how I manage to fill my days and I had a dilemma.
Then, last spring, I saw a greenhouse in the catalogue.
It was not terribly expensive, and the photo in the catalogue was very promising, as was the text, a charming dissonance featuring words like "Victorian", "aluminum", and "polycarbonate".
So I ordered it.
It came promptly, in two boxes, one of which also contained excellent instructions.  I could see immediately that I would have no particular trouble putting it up.
Did I mention I'm also an indifferent carpenter?  Fortunately not so indifferent that I didn't know that the base would have to be both square and level.  Consequently, I made it so.  Then I drilled holes in that base, and pounded in rebar to anchor it securely into the glacial till which passes for soil where we live, because, particularly in winter, we also have Southeasters, to which this greenhouse would be fully exposed.  I had no wish to be the author of the Flight of the Greenhouse.
Installation went relatively quickly and much as anticipated.  When it was done, I moved a number of large containers planted with patio tomatoes into it, and provided a water supply.  Let the growing begin!
Next morning, there were several panels on the ground, accompanied by their plastic "secure strips".  Naturally, I assumed I hadn't gotten them in quite right, so undid the relevant nuts to loosen the frame a bit, replaced the panels, clicked in the strips, and secured the nuts.
Later that day, several other panels were on the ground.
You get the picture, and I don't want to bore with the details.  Suffice it to say that over the next several months, as I tried the many "fixes" I had concocted in the middle of the night or that had been proposed to me by bemused observers, choice words were spoken on the subject of greenhouses designed in Israel, where obviously it doesn't get windy. Before long the whole saga was starting to remind me of a tent I'd owned in my youth, made by Taiwanese who had obviously seen pictures, but had never needed to shelter from the elements in one... Anyway, do Israelis even need greenhouses?
And then, after a recent wind storm, having collected more than half a dozen panels from the park across the road and as I was contemplating leaving the bare aluminum bones unclad until spring, I had a flash of inspiration: I remembered that in the basement I had a tube of polyurethane construction adhesive left over from another project.  And I remembered that polyurethane glue isn't repelled by moisture; it likes it!  Not only that, but it bonds to almost anything (my hands still bear the proof), can fill gaps, and sets up hard.
Definitely worth a try.
Flash forward a few weeks: we've had several real winds, the kind where every part of the house creaks.  The greenhouse is still standing, hasn't lost even one panel.
I have every intention of filling it with tomatoes again next spring.
And when people want to know how I fill my days, I say "greenhouse", and that explains everything!

BC politics: Two Caroles, HST, and Recall

Two Caroles

OK, I admit it: I was almost certainly wrong when I explained, a year ago last September, why Carole Taylor would be the first elected female Premier of BC.
But I couldn't have known then that she would get that irresistible Simon Fraser University Chancellorship offer or that the BCLiberal brand would become tarnished almost beyond recognition.  So it's not really my fault.
However, I still think I'm correct in saying that Carole James won't be the next Premier, whether that Premier is female or not.  Last year's argument is merely butressed by the way she bounced Bob Simpson out of Caucus, without either consulting the Caucus or confronting the legitimate issues he had raised.  And then, by way of cementing our impression that she's tone-deaf politically, accusing him of once having been a Liberal.
As if we don't want ex-Liberals in our camp!
As if Carole James is convincing as a tough guy.
I don't know if it's Carole, or her advisors, but either way I haven't changed my mind: we're probably not going to be government with her as our spokesman.

Harmonized Sales Tax

Rumour has it there are many NDPers involved in the anti-HST campaign.  Apparently they think it would be good if this tax were defeated in the referendum next September.
I don't get it.
With what would they replace the HST?  Or do they imagine that the social programs we desperately need to rebuild in this province won't need to be financed?
I know the HST is not a very equitable tax, and I agree that the way it was implemented was underhanded, perhaps even dishonest.  However, western-European countries with far more equity and far better social programs than ours manage with their own versions of the value-added tax, all at a much higher rate than the HST.  We could do much worse; we could become California.
The BCNDP cannot afford to become the "no tax" party, and we need to be honest about the HST. 
Imagine for a minute that the HST is rejected next September.  Does that give the Liberals the tools to sell off crown assets like BC Hydro and ICBC?  Does that give them carte blanche to to start disassembling public health care and public education?  Do they raise personal income taxes enough to cover the loss?
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't take the opportunity to raise corporate income taxes!
And what could we do if we became government shortly after such a vote?  Pass the hat?
No, we'd better hope the HST passes the referendum, and we'd better say so publicly.  Because if it does, and we haven't, the Liberals will have won, and so will their chances in the next election.

Recall

In 1999, when we were the government and the Premier was a guy named Glen Clark, another guy named Kevin Falcon tried to organize the province-wide recall of all 40 NDP members.
He wasn't successful, but his campaign created a lot of heat for, and sucked up a lot of resources of, sitting NDP members.  It also kept attention away from the Opposition of the day, led by a guy called Gordon Campbell.
I've always believed we were against recall.  I thought that's one of the reasons the Mike Harcourt government (obliged by a legacy of the Bill VanderZalm government) made it so hard to clear the hurdles.
In a representative government style of democracy, the kind we have, you don't want your MLA to be constantly looking over his or her shoulder, worrying where the next threat is coming from, unable to commit to anything the least bit controversial.
That's what elections are for.


  

Mixed-metaphor skiamorph...

... just astonishing on so many levels ...