DEXTER GOVT: Managing Communications with the Base on a Diet of Austerity Budgets and Tax Cuts

Thats a good question just as it is, but I'll make it more concrete.

Here's what the other political parties are offering.

The NDP when it came in raised the HST the same 2% points the Harper government had cut it.

They had a strong consenus across ideological lines and general wide approval at the time that the need for this was not really debateable.

Opposition parties being the barking dogs they are, of course 3 years later they are reminding everyone that the NDP broke its promise to not raise taxes.

The follow-up questions are: do the opposition parties hae any traction? Do they have any credibility in this beyond their own respective diehard bases who vote for them anyway? Is there any degree of public clamour from anywhere else for cutting the HST?

Quote:

When setting out to eliminate the substantial and structural provincial deficit they had inherited on coming to power....

Road on the Left Offered:

** Three years of substantial but relatively moderated service delivery cuts to eliminate the inherited, chronic, and accumulating annual budgetary deficit.

** After the last of these corrective budgets is delivered, the Dexter government still has a year within which to choose the time of the election in which they seek their second mandate.

Road on the Right Offered:

** Eliminate the deficit in two years instead of three, with an increase in service delivery stress even greater than the monetary difference. With the greatest amount of cuts implementation downloaded to local boards in a state of perpetual crisis.

** Then take the vastly intensified and downloaded service delivery cuts of two years to eliminate the deficit, and add at least two more years of equivalent service delivery cuts so that the government can offer a tax cut in time for the election.

 

Which road would a social democrat take?

.

Can we agree on this much:

Obviously, the first alternative is the one much preferred by all social democrats. Hugely preffered.

But at least in principle, there could be compelling reasons to choose the second alternative.

It is a perfectly valid and defensible position if you think the second option should NEVER be chosen by a social democrat... or if you think as genstrike that you can expect when governing that social democrats will need little push to choose the second option. But if that is your assessment, frankly I don't know why you want to be part of this particular discussion. There doesnt appear to be anything to it than the kicks of 'making a point' [again].

At any rate, I at least in principle except that there might be compelling reasons for a social democrat to choose the second 'road' / option.

Then the question is whether the Dexter government, and by extension Nova Scotia New Democrats as a group, had compelling reasons to choose the second option.

'There arent and maybe never have been many social democrats in the NS NDP.'

I guess that puts you in this realm:

Quote:

It is a perfectly valid and defensible position if you think the second option should NEVER be chosen by a social democrat... or if you think as genstrike that you can expect when governing that social democrats will need little push to choose the second option. But if that is your assessment, frankly I don't know why you want to be part of this particular discussion. There doesnt appear to be anything to it than the kicks of 'making a point' [again].

Beg to differ with you, but I've been a social democrat since decades before I was involved with the NDP, and I am a member. And I think that includes a lot of people who defend this government.

Now, Dexter and Steele themselves. That's another matter. I don't know....

Not to mention that you are overlooking for what people see as a compelling reason for choosing the second option the little thing of wanting to be re-elected.

Count me as among the many who would never sneer at people for the fact of wanting to be re-elected... as if that in itself proves some fundamental moral or ethical shortcoming.

But I will always question, and be questioned, on whether just because I or somelse thinks something is necessary for being re-elected, that it is as true as thought. And if at least true to a degree, that still leaves whether a sacrifice is being made that is not worth it.

So thats the background that brings us from 3 years ago to March. The NDP Caucus sent out a survey to members that asked if we thought cutting the HST back the 2% points was required, and if there should be wide consultations on this. You can see the "Your Ideas Matter" survey here. There had been no prior discussion of this in the party, let alone in any public media.

Within 2 weeks- before replies to the survey could have been compiled, let alone providing us as promised with the results... Dexter and Steele started musing that given how well balancing the books was going, 'maybe' it was time for a tax cut.

And just days later, there was the 2% tax cut pegged for the second mandate, in the Budget.

Keep in mind that this is after the books have been balanced, the deficit is gone, and the Schhol Baords have been told at least as far back as November, with continuous reminders, that in planning for this years' budgets, Board members need to keep top of mind that there will be funding cuts next year of the same order as last year and this year. Which means that the cuts in funding that were required to balance the provinces books would go on.... unbeknownst to Board members that there would be no deficit to balance next year, but that there would be tax cuts creating just as big a fiscal hole as was caused by eliminating the deficit.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

3) The Dexter government is the first NDP government in NS. It has a greater responsibility than any other NDP government to come in the future to establish that it can be trusted with the finances. While you can argue that it has been overzealous in this, it is fair to observe that this is an important motivation if you want to avoid a return to Liberal-Conservative dynasties. (I am concerned by some of the direction the government is following but am willing to judge them over a longer period given this political reality.)

They were elected on a mandate of getting the provinces books back in order-- whether they are doing that in a prudent manner consistent with social democratic principles is of course worthy of debate...

It is not a betrayal to govern amid political realities. In fact it could be called a betrayal to squander a historic opportunity by refusing to acknowledge those. The NDP in NS, I hope are trying to change the political culture there rather than impose a new one that will only be rejected. They have so far maintained the confidence of the public but they have in so doing hurt their closest allies and friends in labour.

Taking all that into account is both wise, and to be expected if you are going to have a sustainable participation in electoral politics.

This discipline and patience in the trust of the NDP base gives this government a lot of breathing room. Which it must have.

I am suggesting that this government seriously abuses that trust.

And engages in manipulation of communication with the base that goes way beyond the spinning we all have come to expect.

The inner circle of this government consistently practices structured obfuscation in managing communications with the base.

They are good at it. I regularly watch the effects here on people who generally tend to be anything but Kool Aid drinkers.

I'd like to point out that there are two distinctly different discussions/arguments going on here.

There is whether the justifications that Sean is suggesting, can never be valid. [As Unionist for example is saying.]

Then there is what you could characterize as criticism from within the party [plus those outside who do not typically reject 95% of the NDP's actual positions taken].

My criticism is in the spirit of the latter- where Sean's reasons the NSNDP government should be given qualified trust are accepted as valid considerations.

But especially writing from Ontario, even paying attention to whatever information comes along, Sean and others could not possibly know all the requisite context and events that bear on these questions.

That said, a lot of this is not visible to most people in Nova Scotia. As noted above, everyone here can see for themselves the almost universally high rating this govt gets on fiscal and economic management, that what the opposition parties criticisms are utterly ignored, and that the public has never been told nor seen the HST increase as temporary.

But the machinations of this government that prove the cynism in continuing this "Back to Balance" charade... that is all very much opaque and kept well out of sight of everyone except those who have to make it their business.

The comparison to Rae though becomes a distracting red herring. Both sell-outs: fine, as far as it goes. At best, what does that tell you?

At worst, intentional or not, it becomes another smoke screen the Dexter government can use to prey upon that tolerance in the support base.

"Careful, or we'll end up like the Rae government."

NOBODY has ever seen this government like either the critics of the left OR the right saw the Rae government. And now 3 years down the road, not a chance.

The pissed off crtics here in Nova Scotia are NOT re-hashing the questions of 3 years ago whether we should have gone down the path of austerity cuts at all. We're questioning the later backroom decision to put into play the sneaky shift of continuing and deepening austerity budgeting so we can have tax cuts, and doing it under the cover of continuing the "Back to Balance."

There is one major propaganda obfuscation element from the government that is dished out the same for both the base as it is for general population: that the education cuts are all about matching spending with declining school enrollments.

What puts the lie to that is when the school boards announce their budget cuts, the classroom teacher cuts are 3 or 4 times greater than what is accounted for by enrollment declines. And that is on top of even larger cuts to non classroom functions, like typically 20% cuts in administration spending, substantial cuts to maintenance and busing, whole support programs axed....

The Halifax Board has not announced its budget yet. But they will be announcing some classroom teacher cuts as well- with no enrollment decline.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

Or like my wife said to a friend who is now a Minister- "I feel like I lost my political home."

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.

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

Darrell Dexter wrote:

Unions, when they're negotiating, know or should know that increases in wages sometimes lead to reductions in staff.

Joan Jessome, NSGEU wrote:

We didn't negotiate a raise at the cost of people being put on the unemployment line," she told CBC News on Tuesday. To now put on to the shoulders of workers that if they get a raise it's going to be at the cost of others losing their jobs? I think that's actually shameful.

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.]

David Young wrote:

I'd say that the public thinks the NDP is doing a good job.

'Nuff said! 

And fuck the NDP membership, eh?

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.