Former NS NDP treasurer Pamela Harrison has quit the party and has blasted the Dexter government as being unresponsive to social justice issues.
Quote:
I believed that the party's stated vision of 'a better deal for today's families' actually included those with mental health concerns, lesser ability in the areas of both physical and mental health, single moms and their children, the homeless and women experiencing violence and abuse in their lives," she wrote in an opinion piece submitted to The Chronicle Herald.
"Wrong again . . . and how foolish I feel, to have imagined that the hundreds of resolutions passed at provincial council were actually more than an exercise in the creation of 'NDP Believers.' "
Harrison, a long-time social activist focusing on women's issues, said in an interview that she saw the same lack of decorum in the legislature last fall as with past governments, and criticized the government for looking at raising the harmonized sales tax.
"That is the most regressive tax that anybody could put on the citizens of Nova Scotia, and those who have the least will be impacted the most by that tax," she said.
I read the whole letter and I was confused by it - the emphasis seemed more on the governing style of the Dexter government, rather than any specific policy concern per se. Any NS babblers in particular provide some context or analysis for this attack from within the ranks?
For my part, I was dismayed by the NSNDP campaign promise to balance the budget in one year and not raise taxes, and I am very glad the Dexter government has reneged on those reckless and right-wing commitments.
»
Pamela Harrison and I would both be essentially aliented from the Dexter led NS NDP for the same several years by the time of the decisive victory last summer.
When I read the letter, I see only policy direction concerns... I don't really see where WCL reads it as not whether that is the concern, or it's about 'governing style'.
Like me, Pamela probably did not expect a lot out of this government. Where we would apparently differ, is that since they have been governing, I've seen enough that I like, that they at least have my qualified support.
That may have a lot to do with my greatest concern being environmental issues. That is what I actually spend my time on. The Cabinet choices and other initial indicators did not encourage me at all, and I was more outspoken about that than people I work with who had no particular or strong connection to the NDP.
But the government has been quick and decisive, and is moving in directions where it is going that are going to lead to things like higher electricity costs.. places the previous government balked at going and I didn't expect this one to be eny different.
So that understandably puts a different light on the government than someone like Pamela who works every day on social justice issues.
To wit- if they never do anything on those files, I won't be pleased either. But now I'm more willing to wait and see.
[Some useful context: it takes time for a government what it wants to actually DO on any file. On environmental, energy use, and climate change issues the background work was done... the previous government just did not have the will to proceeed. What to do about social issues is not rocket science, but a government that speaks about what it wants to do before it does the extensive research about capabilities and readiness, will pay a steep price for speaking too soon. And this outfit is definitely cautious- even when they are 'doing the right thing.']
That's good context, KenS. I too am focused on environmental and climate change/energy issues, and have been very pleased at what I've seen so far from Dexter on that front. Removing the HST on electricity was a stupid promise but as you note, the price of electricity will be rising due to other policy measures.
My comment on process comes from this key quote from the full letter from Pamela Harrison:
Quote:
I had the simplistic idea that once a "good party" was elected, that party would understand and exemplify the difference between politics and governance, and that their claim of a government that would be open, transparent and accountable was actually a commitment, instead of simply campaign rhetoric.
I believed that the party's stated vision of "a better deal for today's families" actually included those with mental health concerns, lesser ability in the areas of both physical and mental health, single moms and their children, the homeless and women experiencing violence and abuse in their lives. Wrong again......and how foolish I feel, to have imagined that the hundreds of resolutions passed at provincial council were actually more that an exercise in the creation of "NDP Believers."
Let me be clear. I am not talking about money. I am referring to a deliberate decision to keep those of us who work (both voluntarily and for pay) in the social justice community, from experiencing a different kind of process, a process whereby up front clear communication is the rule, not the exception, and collaboration and negotiation are the norm. You promised this, again and again and again, and you did not deliver
So it's not about money or funding for a specific program, she doesn't reference any election commitment or policy direction per se - so I interpret the critique as focusing on lack of inclusion, transparency, due process, etc. These are crucial issues but I would have thought they would be linked to decisions not to increase welfare rates, cuts to programs, etc.
I'm just curious if there are particular Dexter decisions on social policy that would have led to this resignation.
I don't think its anything they've done, and would be what they have shown little indication of what they will do.
I may be wrong, but I interpret those general things of Pamela's that you quote, as essentially extensions of 'doing little or nothing'.
From a distance, it looked like she's written them off awfully quickly. It takes a lot of effort to turn around an aircraft carrier, a wise person who was once a backbencher in an early NDP government once told me.
Although, I do understand how people working in her particular field do see the urgency in their everyday work. It's hard to be patient when people are in crisis, and the system is moving so slowly and you're feeling like you're outside and can't see why it has to.
But our folks also need to learn that there are a lot of other avenues to pursue before engaging in public sabotage of a government. And our government needs to hone its listening skills to catch issues such as this before they break out into apparently irresolvable impasses.
OO, with respect, you have no idea what precipitated this extraordinary action, and given the rarity of such public denunciations, I wonder why you would draw some general lesson without knowing more about what happened.
Pamela Harrison is Provincial Coordinator for the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. Their website featured a report on September 9, 2009, which appears (not sure about this) to have been removed - but it's still available in Google's cache:
Transition houses need cash now, say supporters
Cash-strapped Bryony House in Halifax, the province's largest transition house, cut its only outreach worker just over a week ago and is trying to deal with a debt of $120,000. [...]
"Shame on the government," Ms. Westhaver said. "It just shows how much they devalue women and children."
Premier Darrell Dexter's NDP government has promised $500,000 to women's shelters in next year's budget, but that money has to be moved up to the current year, Ms. Walton said.
"We're also asking the government to pay off Bryony House's $120,000 deficit and pay for an outreach worker."
There's also Friends of Transition House Blog [8], with a letter-writing campaign to ask Dexter to provide the urgently-needed funding.
Doesn't sound like an aircraft carrier problem to me, OO - more like a lifeboat.
The Blog also features the responses of the NDP and the Liberals to Transition House's request to pledge to provide needed funding. The Liberal leader signs the pledge, but the NDP says it would be against the law to tie its hands:
OO, with respect, you have no idea what precipitated this extraordinary action, and given the rarity of such public denunciations, I wonder why you would draw some general lesson without knowing more about what happened.
Knowing my way around the left, I'm reasonably certain a number of people would be more than happy to instantly draw the opposite conclusion from me, with even less evidence.
Raising holy hell, fine. Publicly quitting the party after less than a year in government ... ? That just looks like going straight to the thermonuclear option, and doesn't leave many other options afterwards.
I'm not going to go into why I disagree with Pamela- shes not here.
And while we have worked together, and share a lot of underlying experience and perspective... I would chalk up some of the depth of her reaction to her specific and understandable dissapointment over what has happened around the issues she deals with.
I would never say to anyone in her position- "oh, get some perspective." To say I respect her position doesn't say enough- its more than that. But I don't agree with her statement as a general summary of this government.
Ken, any insight on the issue of funding for transition houses? Is that in fact the issue that drove Pamela Harrison's decision? If so, what I find odd is that the NDP appeared not to have made any specific promise, at least if I'm understanding the above correspondence.
I read the letter from Dan O'Connor the opposite way, Unionist (and thanks for doing the digging to uncover the transition house funding issue as at least one of the reasons for Harrison's letter). He says the commitment to fund transition houses is in the NDP platform, and from what I gathered from the other material you posted, the $$ are in fact set to flow in the 2010/2011 fiscal year to increase the funding, but Harrison wanted the money to come right away, for totally understandeable reasons.
The issue for the May 2009 letter during the election campaign was whether Dexter should sign a written pledge as an election candidate to deliver the funding - and there are conflicting interpretations of the Elections Act as to whether it is legal or appropriate for a candidate to sign such an undertaking. That's a process issue, totally distinct from the substantive commitment to fund the transition houses, which was in the platform and is being met, but not as quickly as Harrison and others would like - at least, that's my understanding based on the information on this thread to date.
Well, that's my understanding also WCL. Transition House needs the funding now - not in next year's budget. Seems very clear. But I still don't understand what triggered Harrison's action. She's talking as if she was lied to.
If anything, I would say that Pamela Harrison is a quick learner.
Personally, I think we always get into tricky issues when as social activists, we start thinking of governments as "our government". For a while I thought the Manitoba NDP was my government - then tuition for international students went up. Then ancillary fees went up. Then my tuition went up by 38%. Then international student tuition went up again. Then the tuition freeze was removed and tuition started going up again. At some point, sometime after the 2007 election in which I regrettably volunteered for a candidate, I realized that the NDP simply wasn't my government. Now, it may be that education issues were my thing because I was a student at the time (and still am for a couple more months), but along the way there have been a lot of other issues which have frustrated me and other people, and the whole direction just doesn't seem to be the right one. We can talk about turning an aircraft carrier around, but it's been ten years without any sign of a change in direction, and a change of direction was rejected at a leadership race. Not to mention that for some reason, whenever the barbarians at the gates get in this aircraft carrier which the NDP says takes a while to turn manages to spin around on a dime. Meanwhile, I've waited ten years, and the aircraft carrier hasn't turned. It's definitely slowed down, but it hasn't turned around.
I'm not an expert on NS politics, but from what I've gathered the Dexter government has a lot in common with the Doer government.
I think Harrison hits on something when she says that convention resolutions were "an exercise in the creation of ‘NDP Believers'". There have been a lot of convention resolutions completely ignored over the past ten years in Manitoba. The NDP governs in a certain way, so they need to manage the wishes of their supporters who want to see it govern differently. And there are a lot of ways they do that, and it is aided by some supporters who (no offense to anyone) delude themselves.
I think if we want to be social justice activists, we shouldn't be thinking of one party as our party, because denying political realities and the basics of how the state works will lead to strategic and tactical decisions made on what is essentially faulty intelligence and will inevitably lead to subsequent let-downs - I think Pamela is getting at that in her letter. I've seen things like this happen in my experience - tactical decisions made with crappy intelligence, which usually ends up with some variation on "lets try to save the NDP from itself"
Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?
I'm just floating possible hypotheses.
Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?
I've found that people who attribute motives to total strangers are usually revealing their own motives in life.
Maybe she's pissed off that she didn't get offered a job as a ministerial assistant?
No. Not the remotest of chances.
I'm just floating possible hypotheses.
"Just". No particular reason?
Why bother?
I'm just floating possible hypotheses.
"Just". Randomly? No particular reason?
Why bother?
See my explanation above.
Wonder how the other parties who have run NS for decades have been on this and would be on this were they in power?
The 2010 budget would be starting next month, but she quits now?
It all seems pretty damn phoney to me......
People get frustrated and disillusioned with the NDP all the time, including people who have been involved for a while, especially when the NDP gets elected and doesn't live up to their expectations. I don't know why this would seem "phoney", I personally know tons of disgruntled and ex-NDPers.
It sounds like it is also not just about specific policies, but the way the government operates. It sounds like she is also angry that people in the social justice community worked hard to elect the NDP and were promised more input and positive communication with the government than with previous ones, but that hasn't materialized.
Harrison says she started writing her letter in December, then held off, then decided to send it after the expense scandal broke last week, involving expense claims by MLAs of all parties, including the premier:
Audit finds inappropriate MLA spending
The Conservative MPP for Yarmouth who was named as one of the worst offenders in the expense "scandal" just resigned his seat in the Nova Scotia legislature. I know that the NDP won Yarmouth back in 1998 - should set up an interesting byelection.
Yeah, Hurlburt is the first - I wonder if there will be more to come. I also wonder what this expense scandal had to do with Harrison's decision. I'll try to find where she related the two events...
ETA: Oh yeah, here it was:
Harrison said she began writing her letter to Dexter in December but held off sending it, to speak with other New Democrats.
After this week's revelations by Nova Scotia Auditor General Jacques Lapointe, she said it's time to speak out.
"It's a relatively new government but they've been practicing for this for 10 years," said Harrison. "They've had the chance to know and think about how they would do things differently."
I still don't get it.
I don't get it either.
Either shes not being clear about the connection, or was not quoted in a way that would make it clear.
Quote:Cash-strapped Bryony House in Halifax, the province's largest transition house, cut its only outreach worker just over a week ago and is trying to deal with a debt of $120,000. [...]
Premier Darrell Dexter's NDP government has promised $500,000 to women's shelters in next year's budget, but that money has to be moved up to the current year, Ms. Walton said.
"We're also asking the government to pay off Bryony House's $120,000 deficit and pay for an outreach worker."
MLAs are entitled to spend $45,000 a year in payments that require no receipts. The auditor general's report examined the claims they did submit between July 2006 and June 2009.
"The extent to which system weaknesses, processing errors, innocent mistakes or conscious decisions by members contributed to these expenditures is unclear," Lapointe told reporters.
"What is clear is that ambiguous rules have contributed to irresponsible practices and questionable expenditures."
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/02/03/ns-mla-expenses-audit.html#ixzz0f4TkzZ3S
Imagine this activist not understanding that "her" government couldn't find the equivalent of 4 or 5 MLA Expense funds to solve a short term desperate situation for vulnerable women.
Let us all vilify her for abandoning the cause after running into a brick wall on what she sees as an issue of life and death. Let us not question why there is not a couple hundred grand immediately. Is she abandoning the party or has the party abandoned her?