Harper has done it. He’s given the cheeky middle finger to Saskatchewan. What he’s doing is no different than the unethical union leaders in this province who tell unions that if they don’t vote NDP, they’ll wind up with a worse government.
Lance had a nice theory about Harper’s plan, but it seems to be flopping, just like Conservative MPs will be next election. It seems Brad Trost’s December “theory” that equalization would be “capped” was accurate. They sure put a cap in it.
Towns like 100 year old Buchanan are going to lose out on money. Oh who am I kidding, the NDP wouldn’t distribute any of that $800M we were supposed to get, outside of the urban centers anyway.
==
Blog technical note:
I reordered the comments on very long posts, so the new stuff is at the bottom where most people expect it on blogs. Keyvan recently wrote a fix for his Paged Comments Word Press plugin. He’s awesome, and if I had money in my PayPal account right now, he’d be getting a tip today.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
The Jurist | 16-Jan-07 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
Unless you can find an example of the NDP specifically promising unions something that it’s now denying them, there’s at least one massive difference between their actions and those of the federal Cons. (And is there actually any reason to think none of the 28% increase in municipal spending or $67 million in property tax relief for farms from the 2006 budget found its way outside the urban centres?)
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 9:01 pm | Permalink
“And is there actually any reason to think none of the 28% increase”
I was using mild hyperbole, obviously I thought.
“Unless you can find an example of the NDP specifically promising unions something…”
Well there was that [at least] one time they legislated strikers back to work. And there’ve been the past decade+ where they’ve given wage increases of less than the average increase in cost of living. And there’s the documentation I see of them using scare tactics about the Sask Party [which may be legitimate], but ignoring other governing options like the Sask Liberals, by specifically asking people to vote NDP. So it’s not like they are promising anything more than to be better than the potentially disastrous Sask Party, but I think unions should set their bar a little higher than to recommend what they see as a “not quite a disaster” party. Better still, they should keep their mouths non-partisan enough to give the facts of each party, and let members make up their own mind. Considering union membership isn’t exactly voluntary in many work places, it’s a crock to have the union leadership saying “thou shalt vote NDP”… even though they’ve been effectively cutting your salary through wage freezes.
Joseph Krengel | 16-Jan-07 at 9:41 pm | Permalink
While I can empathize with the plight of rural communities and the challenges facing provincial governments; and while I disagree with the details of Harper’s plan, the fact remains that equalization was never meant to exclude natural resources, and there is nothing in the constitution that provides for it either.
Robert McClelland | 16-Jan-07 at 9:48 pm | Permalink
the unethical NDP in this province who tell unions that if they don’t vote NDP
Oh my god, that’s just shocking. The nerve of the NDP telling voters to vote for them and not the other guy.
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
Thanks for pointing that mistake out Robert, I corrected it.
Unethical union leaders…
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
“Oh who am I kidding, the NDP wouldn’t distribute any of that $800M we were supposed to get, outside of the urban centers anyway.”
HUH!? Urban provincial income taxes are already carrying rural services. What are you referring to?
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
Leftdog have you driven on a rural SK highway in the last decade? Are you saying that the province doesn’t need agriculture as an economic engine for the province?
The NDP has been offloading the cost of governing the province onto municipal governments, and not increasing their budgets as required. Part of the blame is on the federal Liberals, but the buck can stop in Regina too. When you close “Rural Service Centers” in places like Assiniboia, and leave the ones in urban centers, you know your rural policy is total crap.
Remember the Plains Hospital? Not only did they close nearly every hospital outside of Regina/Saskatoon, they reduced the number of city hospital services too.
Maybe it’s good the NDP doesn’t try to spend money in rural SK. We might end up with more Spudcos and Meadow Lake Pulp mills…
The Jurist | 16-Jan-07 at 10:47 pm | Permalink
That response still doesn’t make any sense in context – based on the explanation, you’re completely failing to distinguish between specific promises actually made by a political party, and vague expectations (rightly or wrongly) placed on the party by outside actors. And in fact the “correction” makes the post even more nonsensical, since you’re now comparing a politician’s broken promise to the choice of endorsements of non-party actors which aren’t even in a position to make political promises.
As for any “hyperbole”, that gets fairly easily drowned out by the sheer partisanship when a post based on the wrongdoing of another party at another level of government gets twisted into a poor excuse to bash the provincial NDP and its supporters.
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Saskboy you continue to be blind to the FACT that the current government – on the day they took power – had to deal with a $14 Billon debt that initially cost almost $800,000,000 INTEREST PAYMENTS PER YEAR. The debt has been brought down to $10 billion and Interest payments I think are now about $500,000,000 per year.
Rural Saskatchewan had hospitals with no one wanting to have surgeries there (they wanted to go to Saskatoon and Regina) so that many rural hospitals were being used as old folks homes for people who weren’t sick. This kind of waste was unsustainable.
I continue to be amazed at the totally unrealistic expectations of my rural friends and neighbours. At coffee shops in many places, the NDP has been demonized by individuals (many of them quite vocal) who simply do not operate on facts of any kind – just whine and whine and whimper about trying to prop up city services in towns of 128. Unbelievable. They want a hospital and an elementary school and a high school and a first rate highway so that they can drive into Superstore in Saskatoon. (And then the blame the NDP when the Red & White store went broke a few years ago and shut down). Be realistic.
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
“Maybe it’s good the NDP doesn’t try to spend money in rural SK. We might end up with more … Meadow Lake Pulp mills…”
Saskboy – you want money spent in rural Saskatchewan yet here you are being negative about Meadow Lake when the mill and the Town are the gateway to North West Saskatchewan – it’s not just the jobs at the mills, its the thousands of other support jobs from North Battleford right up into the far north. If the mill went down, one of the largest employers in that part of the province would have rocked the entire RURAL REGION. You need to get consistent here. Karwaki is bad mouthing Meadow Lake without any concept of the economics and thousands and thousands of lives that would be affected by a closure.
The pulp and paper industry is struggling from N. Brunswick right thru to BC – the setor is in a bad dip – and you want to abandon an entire industry in a major economic quadrant of the Province? I just don’t understand Karwaki’s logic.
Lance | 16-Jan-07 at 11:19 pm | Permalink
LD: re Meadow Lake, it isn’t the place for gov’t to prop up business, it is the place of gov’t to create enough infrastructure that business can flourish.
By infrastructure I mean not being the third most regulated province in Canada,
By being competitive in taxes (last three budgets have helped there, drilling, mining and business).
I mean not penalizing a business if they can go off the grid (Weyerhauser in PA).
I mean having decent enough roads that shipping isn’t restricted (trucking companies charge more for bad highways, some refuse to even ship in some areas of Sk.)
Cheers,
lance
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 11:20 pm | Permalink
“you’re completely failing to distinguish between specific promises actually made by a political party, and vague expectations (rightly or wrongly) placed on the party by outside actors.”
I guess that’s because my sense of unions is derived from John Gormley’s view, which is essentially that there’s no difference between union/labour leaders in the province, and people who work on NDP campaigns.
Partisan, maybe. Fair? Quite possibly that too. I try to make my occasional partisan rants fair.
==
“you continue to be blind to the FACT that the current government – on the day they took power – had to deal with a $14 Billon debt that initially cost”
Yes, yes I know the NDP like to blame the government from 17 years ago for the problems of today. Just kidding, I’m giving you a hard time… Yes there was a problem with the Tories and their debt [which they also got some of from an NDP govt']. The NDP dealt with it in the 1990s, on the backs of rural SK primarily [my home town was a casualty of their blind cutting and reorganization, as were the larger towns in the region]. They needed to make changes, but in some areas they went to far, and without listening to the people telling them how they could save more money, without destroying systems and communities that worked.
I found it hysterical that Pat Atkinson was blaming Grant Devine last year for the price of Natural Gas going up. Hello, the NDP has been in charge how long, and they can’t make the economy work how they want it to in coming up to two decades?
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 11:23 pm | Permalink
Lance – you are merely spouting Preston Manning style extreme right wing rhethoric. That is what you believe, but it is wrong and is not born out by any facts.
It is mindless Brad Wallesque babblings that mean nothing.
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 11:27 pm | Permalink
“many rural hospitals were being used as old folks homes for people who weren’t sick. This kind of waste was unsustainable.”
Agreed. Then why didn’t they build an old folk’s home, and let the hospital return to the service it was intended, instead of shutting it all down, and forcing those old helpless people to move away, and create hardship for their families who could have been caring for them locally?
I continue to be amazed at the totally unrealistic expectations of my rural friends and neighbours. …just whine and whine and whimper about trying to prop up city services in towns of 128. Unbelievable. They want a hospital and an elementary school and a high school and a first rate highway”
Maybe because they saw it work for decades before the NDP of the 1990s arrived? Why did it work back then, and not now?
It’s more economically, and socially effective to have schools close to where children are, than to force kids onto a bus for an hour or more of their day. If you take away a town’s emergency services, then you HAVE to provide a decent highway, that’s just common sense. If it costs more to build the highway for people to drive 40 minutes to get a heart attack treated, then maybe it is cheaper to have a health provider in the smaller town, eh?
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
[my home town was a casualty of their blind cutting and reorganization, as were the larger towns in the region].Saskboy – the town I used to live in is not even on the map anymore. It went to a village then to a hamelet and then was annexed into a larger municipal area.
This is the curse of the Great Plains. Seriously. I know you travel and see this. I have driven from rural Texas up to Oklahoma – Nebraska – South Dakota – North Dakota – Saskatchewan. Young people have all gone to Tulsa, Omaha, Minneapolis and Calgary. It is sad. It is reality.
We should never feel bad for wanting our home towns to thrive. There used to be a large family on every 1/4 section in rural Saskatchewan. That is how Canada populated the west. There was NO way that that kind of scale of operation could be maintained.
This is a good thread.
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
“Saskboy – you want money spent in rural Saskatchewan yet here you are being negative about Meadow Lake when the mill and the Town are the gateway to North West Saskatchewan”
I don’t want to abandon a mill if it’s the only thing keeping a town alive. I was being sarcastic about the NDP not investing in rural SK.
I think there must be a way to provide alternate employment to Meadow Lake if milling isn’t where its at right now. What’s preventing the NDP from having the mill workers build windmill equipment for SaskPower, or have them replacing our aging power pole infrastructure? The market is controlled by what people, government or industries want. If the government tells industries that it needs to do something, something that saves them energy costs down the road, they might not leave for a place without a drive to improve, and they should support the required improvements to infrastructure.
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 11:41 pm | Permalink
“There was NO way that that kind of scale of operation could be maintained.”
Yes there is, but it requires a different way of thinking we’ve either lost, or lost the leadership for. We’re becoming so “efficient” that we’re creating bottlenecks of danger everywhere. When all of our food grown here has the same genetic code, it will only take one blight to wipe it [and many of us] out.
The thread from earlier today http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2007/01/16/trafficdenier/ is about that same kind of thing. All those buses are reducing the clog of cars, but there’s another obvious solution that not everyone thinks of [and certainly not Calvert] – don’t send everyone downtown, and the traffic jams go away. Stop forcing everyone to go into the cities to survive, and distribute whatever you can to places where people WANT to be, and you’ll have a more efficient and happy society.
Lance | 16-Jan-07 at 11:44 pm | Permalink
No facts? LD, what are you smoking. I have verifiable facts for each of the assertions I made in my post.
Please, stop reacting to everything that’s said with rhetoric.
leftdog | 16-Jan-07 at 11:50 pm | Permalink
“don’t send everyone downtown” I agree with that totally. But look at how capitalist systems work. In an oil boom like what is happening in Alberta, they grow – grow – grow – (like a pyramid scheme) until they CRASH because every pyramid operation does crash. Alberta has crashed before (the Preston Manningites will blame it on Trudeau – which is nonsense) a few decades ago. Big Business is build on growth – they have to grow and when it grows too fast , problems arise like now where the growth is being threatened by a lack of manpower.
Young people are going to Alberta from ALL OVER Canada, not just Sasktchewan. There is a big BUST coming soon in Alberta and when it crashes all of the Progressives will be able to mock and laugh at the Manningites, Wallite, Harperite, Kenneyite ideologues.
Saskboy | 16-Jan-07 at 11:54 pm | Permalink
“when it crashes all of the Progressives will be able to mock and laugh at the Manningites, Wallite, Harperite, Kenneyite ideologues.”… from our poorhouses in the new Depression.
leftdog | 17-Jan-07 at 12:00 am | Permalink
Saskatchewan is well positioned to NOT be affected by a crash in Alberta. The only time Saskatchewan has been in Depression mode was during the TWO times that the Conservatives were in power here. The Anderson government 1930’s and Devines in the 1980’s.
Alberta is a ‘one trick pony’ economy. If OPEC opened the flood gates and the price of oil crashed, Alberta would be in a complete and utter disaster. The real estate market is so artificilally inflated that if a cash flow problem hit the oil industry, and property rates fell back to their ‘real worth’ people would be walking away from their house in Calgary like they did 20 years ago.
The crash is coming to Alberta one way or the other because the growth is so unrestricted. Just like a pyramid scheme – a lot of net ‘worth’ will simply fall off the books and they are screwed. It has happened before.
The Jurist | 17-Jan-07 at 9:53 pm | Permalink
“(M)y sense of unions is derived from John Gormley’s view, which is essentially that there’s no difference between union/labour leaders in the province, and people who work on NDP campaigns.”
Taking Gormley too seriously is probably the first mistake there. As for the “no difference” question, it’s probably true that there’s plenty of overlap between union leaders and NDP campaigners, but it takes some serious wilful blindness to pretend that any major political party doesn’t have similar relationships with other groups. And if there’s nothing “unethical” about (for example) marijuana activists joining up with the federal Libs without the Libs giving in to the activists’ every hope and demand immediately, then there’s no reason to apply a different standard to unions and the NDP.
Saskboy | 17-Jan-07 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
I disagree (surprised? I bet not.). There’s no requirement for people to join the stoner class at their job, and then be lectured to at a stoner meeting about how they have to vote Liberal if they want to keep their job.
Lance | 18-Jan-07 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
Using Gormely as a reference on labour isn’t a bad thing. He is, after all, a lawyer whose focus is on labour relations.
That’s a fair more reliable resource than using anonymous or semi-anonymous bloggers as references.
Cheers,
lance