babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
One would hope Dippers would respond to this is soon as what is going becomes apparent. And to my mind, as soon as the tax cuts were announced along with continuing deep austerity cuts- the same ones we had just barely been asked our opinion whether they should happen- people should have started smelling a rat.
On the other hand, if you are not a parent with kids in school, you likely would not have heard how bad the education cuts were going to be.... and therefore might have no reason to challenge the government's propaganda that it is just cuts in line with the year's enrollment declines.
The last week or two the various school boards have been coming out with the cuts. With at least some of the media reports relaying how much more the cuts are than enrollment declines, the reality gets harder to avoid.
But it is not just NDP members who have an easy time denying if that is what they want. All media reports that make general reference to the cuts just dutifully repeat the obfuscation that it is the reasonable sounding goal of cuts keeping up with enrollment declines.
As for fighting back, we'll see. I know a lot of angry people- but virtually all of them had given up on active involvement with the provincial party before the 2009 victory. And for the formerly most active, like myself, that has been 7 to 9 years now. [FWIW, among my similarly oriented and active peers, I was the last to bail out.]
Convention is early June. Convinced dissidents don't go to Converntion. That by no means leaves just Orange Kool Aid drinkers... but the brain trust has no problem containing people who ask polite questions and table questioning resolutions that are sidelined or voted down.
It is still a time for people to talk. Unfortunately that works both ways. The government has months to gear up the more detailed obfuscations, and now lots of salaried people to oozw out the party line in small conversations. Ironically, with loyal help from NSGEU staff- whose members are the most threatened.
I shouldn't have to do this, but I hate leaving denialists too easy an out.
And there it is: the malcontents who bailed on the Dexter crowd years ago, and have been out to get them ever since.
For one thing, when people bail, that's it. It does nibble away or eat away at you how well this works for them. You are helping them get away with what you find unacceptable, and they don't own the party. But neither do you, you're definitely in the minority, and most of all: life is too short for battles like this.
Despite all that, I was happy when they won. I could feel a part of it even if I wasn't included and was self-banished. The swearing in ceremony in June 2009 was a joyous occassion. I had a lot of fun talking to people, as did my similarly self-banished friends.
And even before winning, I was always hopeful. "Maybe we are wrong. Maybe they will do close enough to the right thing." And the swearing in amplified that feeling.
I defended the government against the predictable out of hand Babble rejection. Even with the benefit of hindsight how things have turned out, I still think that a social democratic government needed that space.
Here is a cynical dynamic going on that would be funny if it wasn't so close to home.
It turns out that one of the things going in the background was that back in Febrauary when it gave the school boards their funding allocation numbers, it also told them that it wanted cuts in positions handled as much as possible by attrition.
Perfectly reasonable. And even obvious- Boards are no different than other governments, they will tilt heavily towards attrition anyway. But the Boards were not told and did not figure out that they were meant to be religious about the attrition only business.
They found this out when my school board axed all the librarians. The government fumed and placed a bureauceat to review the budget and 'advise' the Board. His report made repeated reference to the Board not paying sufficient attention to this instruction about attrition.
Here is what the Board's did not 'get'.
The Boards know there are lots of baby boomer teachers retiring. They were already making big use of this to mitigate the pain, even though this impacts the classroom most.
But coming down on my school board brought down the government's message: you are not using ALL the teacher retirements. If not replaced those salaries can account for most of the cuts. If you do not use all those teacher retirements, it is going to mean bodies left in the hallways.
And the Dexter government does not want bodies left in the hallways. Least of all when for every teacher position not cut, that inevitably means an NSGEU member body in the hallway.
Can't have that. (Yet.) Not until after the election.
Just last year Premeir Dexter said that the cuts will not impact the classroom. Not only is that a lie, with class size caps rising. But the government has chosen FURTHER classroom cuts over non-classroom layoffs, so that they can say next year: "The school board is being alarmist again. Look what they said would happen, yet there were no layoffs."
Without getting into specifics about any particular government or policy- I think it is important to remember what kind of betrayal it is for a party to ignore its philosophical constituency.
A party states a position and a political philosophy and takes up room on the political continuum. When they fail to act from that area they are not only not doing what should be done from the perspective of their supporters, it is worse than a government that does not have the same constituency.
When the Conservatives muck up social policy, they at least are not occupying the space or creating the expectation that they will deal with it well. Other parties form, gather support and present an alternative. When a party betrays their own constituency, there is no room on the spectrum because they are still occupying it, there is no opposition on the topic because the force that would have created that opposition was used to elect them.
The opposition is important because a right wing government afraid of a left opposition will be somewhat careful to avoid losing power to it but one that lacks that opposition can do what they want on those files with impunity. One of the best examples would be the Martin budget of 1995. The Liberals ran on a progressive agenda, the NDP was shut out of party status. The opposition Reform party was happy to see the cuts and the BQ at the time was playing a sovereigntist rather than social democratic direction (led at the time by a Conservative, Bouchard). Martin produced the most right wing budget the country had ever seen.
One reason why NDPers tend to hate Liberals often more than Conservatives is exactly this point. The Liberals run to our base, compete with us for votes and efforts from people who share our outlook and philosophy and then let them down in government. At least the Conservatives are not looking for potential supporters of ours and usually represent at election time who they are if people care to listen. (At least when it comes to political philosophy.) I have never liked the so-called mushy middle for its lack of honesty and the inability to hold it to account as it skates around matters of principle.
So this applies to the NDP as well - when it campaigns on a certain outlook - it has a moral obligation to govern from that perspective.
This does not mean other things do not get taken into account but the government has to account for those things rather than simply ignore the base. For example, when an NDP government comes to power and does not deliver, it has a responsibility at least to recognize what is right, say what it wants to do and explain why it is doing something different. Then I, as I argued earlier in the thread, feel they should be given patience. So I would accept an NDP government to say -- well this is the right policy, however we can't do it because a) the population is not ready and we will continue the conversation and hope to build the consensus, here is a first step or b) the finances are not there but we will make them there by doing this and here is a first step or c) this is a specific policy that we were wrong about and this is how we will create social justice in this alternative way.
In all cases you see, I am saying the party must acknowledge when it is doing something that is not right and what it ought to be doing if it wants some slack and take some partial measure at least. This way at least the government is humbly admitting a failure and committing to find a way. By doing so the government is allowing a discussion about what should be done and is educating people moving them in that direction. It is fair to say that the argument that the population is not ready is false if the government is ignoring the topic and not doing anything to get the population ready.
Of course there is the additional damage of a betrayal as a party occupies a political space and then does not deliver as it forces people into fighting their allies as others want to be loyal and sympathetic. It leaves people without what they have built and shut out of their own movement.
So in conclusion I'll say that while I stand by my earlier statements and agree that a government should take into account all the practical issues I raised above, the government has a responsibility to explain any deviation from its program or principles. It must maintain the discussion about what ought to be done and provide credible reasons for a delay, a plan to get there and ongoing public education as to why we should go in that direction.
What we are hearing from Ken is the government of Nova Scotia has failed on all three and has not gone as far as it could have and in fact has gone in the opposite direction. This is a tragedy and as I outlined above-- the statements I have made do not excuse that behavior as there are alternatives to delivering everything if you really can't or ought not to.
I'll leave it to Ken and others from Nova Scotia to interpret these general statements in their own contexts and with respect to specific policies. I also hope that this will be remembered if the NDP forms a national government in the future. We must be accountable for when we do not faithfully deliver and, when we are, the people will understand.
I know it is long but I wanted to lay this out carefully.
Or like my wife said to a friend who is now a Minister- "I feel like I lost my political home." And that was before she paid the unexpected personal price of losing her own job in the cuts.
She's more representative of the base than me: barely even volunteered for the NDP, but the only party she ever did or would vote for, or care anything about.
I like how Sean puts it.
I'd be interested to hear some other Nova Scotians weigh in.
There are at least several babblers who are Nova Scotia Dippers.
If you don't feel up to commenting, you might think of sharing this with someone(s) and discussing.
Update.
She said that in an email.
The answer, taking into account hee criticisms, was that it sounds like she never an NDPer.
Choice.
Among other hoary nuggets, Tommy Douglas and the reality of debt was invoked.
I didn't know that the Douglas CCF was also slaying the deficit by offering tax cuts 2-3 years into balancing the books.
Obfuscating the NDP's Cuts to Schools: what is going on in Nova Scotia
This came up in the general NS thread. It is apropos here, and the titling seems to guarantee that fewer people check in to look at the thread.
Slumberjack wrote:
Dexter's Midnight Runners to the Health Sector Unions: Raises = Pink Slips
This is funny.
Ha. Ha.
I was planning on at some point introducing into the thread on austerity budgeting, that health care and health care workers are next. [But not until after the election.]
But the Premeir beat me to it, and said it himself.
Of course, if you want to just take his words literally, then he isn't threatening anyone... he's just saying there are certain realities.
And there are.
But as to whether what he says is the whole truth, this is the same guy who last year when there was a shocked initial reaction to the outline of the austerity future in schools, said unequiovacally "classroom teaching will not be impacted." Repeated many times by Ministers and MLAs speaking to concerned parents.
Not a hint of that promise this year. It obvioulsly flies in the face of reality. And they had the 3 year plan- including more cuts next year to pay for that tax cut- when Dexter made that promise last year.
I do think the plan was, still is, to leave the serious attacks on health care and health care workers until after the election.
Same recipe as with the schools: the government gets to keep some distance from the cutting process because the budget "choices" are leaft to the boards.
Lots of opportunities for blame shifting and obfuscation.
"It's the only responsible thing to do." Blah. Blah. Etc.
They could not afford politically to go after schools and health care at the same time. And there are fewer voting parents than there are people actively in health care needs, or able to picture themselves there soon.
So schools first. Health care in the second mandate.
But the amount of the collective bargaining settlements was not planned for. As if 2% per year is rich.
It isnt just the dollar amount. Allowing this to get in without protest from the government would make it look like an absolute 180 degree reversal if they waited to get vicious until after the election.
So they thought about it for a couple days after the settlement, and decided that in the context of the changes they would have the cake and eat it too:
Let the settlement go ahead, because they dont want the bad PR of an avoidable strike in the hospitals.
But tell the workers and unions now that you'll pay for this. Take with the other hand what they let the workers have in the settlement.
[Leave the full attack on the health boards and their budgeting until next year.]
If you want to see a discussion get going among Bluenose Dippers- or at least have people be aware there is something to talk about- maybe you could post to social media the links to this thread and Obfuscating the NDP's Cuts to Schools: what is going on in Nova Scotia
Since the Dexter government had a 45% level of support in the last public opinion poll taken, far ahead of the Liberals and Conservatives, I'd say that the public thinks the NDP is doing a good job.
'Nuff said!
I know, they're doing such a great job aren't they? No one could have imagined such things being attempted under the Liberals and Conservatives. If they had tried similar antics in office to that extent, we'd have many more voices speaking out against them, but since it's the NDP doing it, the traditional objections that we'd normally hear from in the public domain during times like these appear to have taken the vow of omerta. It's like a neoliberal PR dream come true.
And fuck the NDP membership, eh?
And if you think we are talking about the opinions and perspectives of a few cranks in the membership, take a look around the room at your next meeting of the South Shore Riding Association.
Is there a convention that this can be raised at?
Sorry I am not up on NSNDP calendars etc.
Convention is June 9, on the South Shore no less.
I've mentioned this before- it will be a good time for people to talk. But...
A lot of members are just waking up to the reality that something is going on, and the spinmeisters of Orange Tower still have the advantage.
Containing the formal discussions should be pretty easy. And even the talk in the hallways... there are an army of paid staffers totally versed on all the talking points. The material in question is ripe for snow jobs.
All that said, they are on the defensive. So the relevance of what develops is not just what percolates to the surface then and there.
And by the way, it is less than 20 years since a Premeir with high public approval ratings chose to retire before the term was out, dogged even after a succesful leadership review vote by a disgruntled membership.
[We dont have one of them there review things.]
Not that I think Darrell will be deterred by the opinions of some peasants. He doesn't have the class of his old buddy, John Savage.
Apropos of Dexter whining about the new health care union contract, and saying it will "inevitably" lead to job losses for union members:
Health care job cuts were already an inevitable consequence of the continuing wave of austerity cuts. First it was schools. Next is health care- but no blood until after the election, and Dexter has the free hand of being early in the second mandate.
The contract just negotiated for 2% instead of the 1% the government has been demanding and getting, comes to a grand total of around $2million in extra costs. Spread across a good size system, not the kind of costs that set layoffs in motion.
Dexter is just using this as an opportunity to scapegoat unions and their 'fat contracts' as the cause of the layoffs next year that will be required by the continuation of austerity budgeting so the government can do the tax cuts.
Dexter's layoff talk threatens bargaining, nurses head says
A little background:
The Nurses Union president quoted has run for the NDP, and continued her participation after that.
To say that Joan Jessome and the NSGEU are close to Dexter and the NDP is an enormous understatement.
Dexter's right hand man Matt Hebb was NDP to NSGEU senior staff [still running all federal and provincial campaigns] to government. Same cycle for another senior staff in the government. Matt Hebb's wife is the communications person for the union.
The relationship is so close that it raised eyebrows among NSGEU librarians facing the axe, seeing Jessome and the union going after the Board that made that cuts, while not criticising the government whose funding meant there had to be big job cuts.
If Jessome was disinclined to criticise the government then, I guess Dexter's unprovoked attack and scapegoating of health care workers ends that.
She is on the front lines of complaints by union members and activists. That will make for some interesting carryback to the inner sanctum of Orange Tower. [Numbering 5 people at the core.]
The government has already been getting pushback from parts of the base, even without coherence to those parts. I can see it in the hysterical defensiveness of the MLAs. They are primed before I say anything.
And the pace of good news emails to the membership is picking up. Branching out now to have some names and faces of back bench MLAs on them, rather tha the usual suspect: the Cabinet Ministers by now pretty strongly associated with spinning the bad news.
For the Nova Scotia Dippers out there, Convention is in 5 weeks.
Whether you are going or not, this is the time to be discussing this government among people you know.
So.
My family pays the price of working for years, decades, to bring the Nova Scotia NDP to where it is.
That removes the only reliable income in the household, so within a year we will be joining the trail west. With that, this house on the Bay of Fundy built over a hundred years ago by my wife's grandfather, will pass out of the family.
I ask that every Nova Scotia New Democrat and supporter read the thread on the education cuts that this government shamelessly spins.
No, I expect that you read it. We paid the price, the least you can do is read and reflect on the facts.
Obfuscating the NDP's Cuts to Schools: what is going on in Nova Scotia
Three more school borads announced their cuts last night, news on that begins with post#15.
I expect my head to be on the block any day at all now as well. But personally I'm not so much worried about that in terms of ever having worked in support of that outcome. On behalf of others facing similar circumstances, my conscience is clear at least with regards to that. I can only guess at the hell you and others may be going through, which causes me despair more than anything else the Dexter government might conjure up out of its bag of tricks.
I'm pretty depressed at the moment.
Which I guess is what happens when you get the bad news after a long time of being on the edge and angry. The anger gets burnt out.
About cuts to delivering services, Dexter and company will be as quiet as possible now. Especially, keep that bag of tricks (What The Future Holds) out of sight.
Count on burnout, numbness, and a stunned base to calm the waters.
As far as that 'What The Future Holds' Dexter bag of tricks has in it: big time health care cuts up next.
And that is going to be MUCH messier- more of the public will be touched and care personally, and there is no equivalent of retiring teachers to soak up all the cuts with the attrition rag.
Be lots of bodies lying around, much more visible than with the schools.
So we can't have that until after the election. And that perhaps is the single biggest reason why they will not wait on pulling the trigger until Budget 2013, or even pre-Budget run-up to. Because even though the cuts will be downloaded to the health boards to make, putting out budget numbers will make it too obvious what is coming.
Gallows humour: check out the caption that goes with the picture of Dexter in this story.
His words make a nifty juxtaposition with the headline of the story.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/05/10/ns-power-exec...
NS Power executives get double-digit raises
Emera CEO paid $2.99 million
"Premier Darrell Dexter says the raises coming to Capital Health workers could result in layoffs."
Yes, they'll have to pay with their jobs for those extortionist 2% wage increases.
And, hot off the presses:
Health districts feel pinch
WHAT a surprise. Now who would have predicted that?
A hard-hitting piece in this week's Frank magazine explores how the Dexter NDP has moved far away from the base of the party but still manages to keep solid polling numbers. David Young here on Babble similarly pointed to the NDP's solid polling numbers (post #43) and, despite the criticism of the Dexter NDP, this is in fact correct. Explanation? A combination of no available left alternative party, the NSGEU having not yet broken with the NDP government over the austerity agenda (few protests) and the undeniable policy appeal to the right -- Dexter is carrying out the program of the business community.
From the article:
The article says that because the opposition is weak, the Dexter NDP is dominating the discourse (eg "Balance", "Jobs Start Here", "Making Life More Affordable") and will likely continue to govern. I'm sure it helps that Dexter has largely co-opted the PCs/Libs platform. The fact that the NDP left-wing base has nowhere to go electorally makes for a winning combination alongside the business-friendly appeal of the Dexter austerity agenda.
A sidebar article says Colchester North NDP riding president James Stevens has quit, quoting him "I have been unhappy with the direction the NDP has taken under the premier. And my dismay increases with announcements from the government. I will not be re-offering for the presidency."
If there was ever "trust" placed by the base in the Dexter NDP, it is evaporating rapidly and for good reason.
Wanted to post this information to continue to chronicle the emergence of left-criticism to the NS NDP government.
Zombies