SO, WHAT'S WRONG WITH FOCUS GROUPS?

As they often do, a Twitter exchange has really got me thinking.  Here's how it all started....

Jeff Thompson, a gentleman well worth following @thomjeff , was kind enough to read a recent blog post of mine on economic management, and to offer up some words of praise.  After doing so, he asked a question -- why hadn't these ideas been raised, or heard from, during the Graham era? Did this mean the cabinet was ineffective?

I offered up, in explanation, the observation that Donald Savoie once made that cabinets have evolved into being focus groups for the Premier's Office. 

The observation is a general one, by the way, and true of the cabinet structure almost everywhere.  Ministers receive proposals that have already developed in the department, in consultation with the Premier's staff.  Ministers can offer thoughts, critiques and even attempt to stop these things, but the ability of, say, the Minister of Agriculture to steer a new idea for, say, health care reform through is very limited. She may debate the ideas that come, but there isn't a way for a new idea to come up unless it is adopted by the Department.  And since those departmental proposals don't usually come to cabinet until the department has worked on them for months, and the Premier is at least generally disposed to allow cabinet to pass it, an entirely new idea may be unwelcome at that late stage. This, structurally, may explain why you might see former ministers of health and/or education offering ideas today on economic development and natural resources that are new. 

After the keen-eyed Jacques Poitras retweeted my thoughts, my friend Chris Baker, who has sat in those rooms, offered an observation and a question.  First, he pointed out that I likely sat in the same room as BNB Minister Jack Keir and yet had expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the cabinet process.  He then asked, fairly, what is wrong with focus groups?

On the first point, I would simply say that two decent, thoughtful people can always sit in the same room when a decision is made and have differing levels of satisfaction.

No two sentient people, let alone folks as ornery as me and Jack --could deal with all those cabinet issues and agree on everything.  I would allow that I'd agree with Jack and other Liberals more than I would with the Alward team....and if I had to trust someone enough to disagree with them but have faith they might be right, there's no one I'd trust more than Jack Keir.

But that's not the big issue.....

Since I have allowed my name to stand among those who might aspire to sit at the head of that table, I figured it is fair to ask me just what I think is wrong with the cabinet structure.

I do believe that our governments have become too weighted in favour of the first minister and the unelected advisors that surround them.  Savoie's use of the "focus group" phrase is pretty fair. In the cabinet system, the Premier's Office and Executive Council determine which proposals are ready to go cabinet, and that means that issues that haven't yet won their support rarely get debated, and things on the agenda have largely already been vetted by the advisors and recommended to the Premier.

In general, if you have an idea on how to do things better, unless it is in your department, you would have a quicker route to get your idea heard if you were an advisor in the Premier's Office than to be a cabinet minister. 

(Let me say something VERY important here, and if anything here is quoted out of this context, then the quoter is trying to mislead you.This is true of how the cabinet structure works in Canada today, and that's what Savoie was saying.  This does not emanate from any particular event I witnessed while serving in cabinet in 2006-10, and it is not a veiled attack on anyone.  Our cabinet functioned like the others, and with men and women of good faith and high ability playing their roles in it -- the roles the system assigned to them).

The problem with the focus group model is that, in the end, it is all about influence on one person.  And that structure too often shields the premier from hearing real debate and diminishes the role elected people are meant to have.  To justify that statement, let me explain how cabinet works.

Cabinet works on consensus, in theory. Now, anyone who thinks about it for thirty seconds would know that this is a legal fiction....twenty politicians in a room won't agree on everything for four years with no debates or differences.  Consensus simply means that once the decision is made, those who got to have the debate at the highest level agree that they all support the decision publicly. This is done so real debate can happen in trust that people can be completely honest in the discussion, and so there is a cohesive executive running the government afterwards.

So, where does "consensus" come from?

You don't vote, by the way.  And no premier could possibly wait until every minister agrees before moving ahead -- a room with 20 vetoes can't work.  Once you accept that, you accept that there will be moments where a premier has to say "OK, we are moving forward, and this is our decision.". And, as you know, once a premier does that, then ministers must either support the decision or resign from cabinet (and in today's political reality, that often means leaving the caucus and party as well).  So, that's a big moment, and every premier can do it differently. 

A premier may try to involve many ministers in drafting the proposal, or try to broker a compromise at the table.  He may ask debating ministers to work out a proposal, or simply round off controversial parts of a proposal.  He may also tell the whole cabinet that he is the premier, and this is how it will be.  On different issues, the same premier may even take different approaches, willing to compromise on some things but insistent upon others.

Joey Smallwood was on one extreme.  He tended to assemble his cabinet, read the proposals and declare them passed.  In "No Holds Barred", his former minister John Crosbie tells of a new minister who joined the cabinet and was so excited he offered an opinion on every proposal.  Afterwards, Premier Smallwood asked him if he liked cabinet, and when the new minister expressed his love of the new job, Joey replied "Oh, you were talking so much I thought you weren't enjoying it.". The message got through.

That is an extreme example. But the thing with focus groups is that you only have to listen if you want to.  A premier can, in theory, tell a cabinet before an issue is debated that it will pass no matter what. He may bring limit debate and say he's heard enough. If she is tired of hearing complaining, she can even skip hearing the debate all together and leave instructions with a deputy premier to chair the meeting and declare the matter passed. Again, IN THEORY, that is how absolute a premier's power is.

There were checks and balances on this in a parliamentary system, but these have been lost over time.

The usual check and balance on this is that if a premier ignores caucus opinion, caucus may vote to replace the leader (in Britain, this is still the case -- Margaret Thatcher was deposed and her replacement elected by her caucus). But in the leadership convention era, caucus must accept the leader.  The selection is more democratic, but once selected, the leader's power is more absolute.

As well, in small legislatures, often over half of caucus is in cabinet and bound to silence after a matter passes.  That means that if a matter passes cabinet without full debate, caucus is likely neutered as well.  

So the only check and balance on a premier's power is the ability of a minister to quit.  However, this is obviously an extreme solution.  After all, most of us don't go to work believing we either agree with everything our boss does, or we quit. Most of us live in between.  That's especially true in politics -- after all, if you walk away from your job over one issue, you walk away from all issues. If you quit over the sale of NB Power, for example, you also quit on poverty reduction.  You quit, and that school you wanted to get built and that constituent whose mom needed help getting into a nursing home and that new policy you were working really hard on...it all goes.  And most issues allow you some reasons not to quit; there are often decisions you don't love but were made better because you were at the debate, or things that are bad but not as important as that project you've been working on for months.  And besides that, even if you disagree with your party today, would you disagree with another party more often? Governing isn't a buffet. 

Most people in politics care about the work they are doing, and would find it hard to walk away unless they've tried everything.  For me, there are issues where I would have to vote against my party -- but only at the very last minute, when forced to vote on the passage of the measure, and only after trying behind the scenes to kill the idea without a vote.  To leave to protest a matter that may never get voted on would be like a captain  bailing out of a ship because it might hit an iceberg an hour away.  So the premier's power to declare a matter settled has real power.

In the short term, the focus group model serves the premier well.  But in the long term, a party is not well served.  Because the premier is so powerful in determining if issues live or die, a culture sets in where people may not speak truth to power, and a premier can pursue an unpopular idea and be unaware of it. As well, since most premiers spend more time with advisors than with caucus, the unelected wing of the party grows more powerful than those who must get an earful at community breakfasts.  In a democracy, absolute power will get you killed eventually.

So, OK, smart guy....what would you suggest to break away from the focus group model, short of some pie-in-the-sky constitutional amendment?  

Here's what I would advise a premier to do.

Create a functional standing cabinet committee structure. Have some issue-oriented committees chaired by ministers, not the Premier.  Give them the power to review issues and develop new proposals, and let their chairs have day-to-day authority to direct research from deputy ministers. Involving more ministers in making policy, instead of just reacting to proposals, will broaden debate.

Give legislative committees a real role in studying issues and proposing solutions.  And create more legislative time for the study (not just choreographed debate) of private members' bills.

Get on social media for regular question periods with the public.  And, no, having your staff tweet for you doesn't count.

Ask the party to amend the party constitution to allow caucus a role in determining leadership reviews to restore their power to get your attention. 

One last point....don't read too much into this. This is about a structure that exists in all governments. I will never tell you who, on what issue, was pushing the issue forward or begging the team to stop.  I will allow that even if you knew, I make no claim it would make me look better....I made some big mistakes in argument in that room and benefitted from the debate and loving butt-kickings some colleagues gave me.  I will even say (because I can say this), on the French Immersion file you can credit the whole team for the courage to finally tackle the streaming issue, but blame me and me alone for a process that rushed the solution without bringing the public in on the problem and humbly asking for help.  Please read this essay as a structural critique, not some over-hyped tell-all.

In the end, though, it isn't all about structure. Premiers have to be able to make up their own mind and have their own values without being scripted by back room advisors, and confident enough to welcome debate and criticism.  You want to know that when you raise objections with a premier, you're actually debating them and not some advisor you'll never see.  That's why I've been telling audiences of Liberals that the leader we elect today must be the best person to be premier tomorrow, not just the right one to get elected.  It's also why any of us who run should be tested on ideas and values.  There is no one biography that makes one ready for the power of the Premier's Office...there are only individuals who the public has a duty to scrutinize closely.

THE FIRST DEFICIT-FIGHTING TOOL WE NEED IS..... HONESTY

We've seen this show too many times before - a candidate says whatever a pollster tells them to say on the campaign trail, often making unrealistic promises, and then they disregard these promises once faced with the hard realities of governing.

You can find examples of lots of politicians skimming the truth, but David Alward's Progressive Conservatives take the prize, with their repeated campaign pledges in 2010 to not raise taxes... only to have raised taxes in their first budget and now talk about raising taxes again in their second budget.

As this Bob Jones piece on the CBC shows clearly, the Tories' rhetoric was always to deny they would have to raise taxes. "We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem" was part of their written talking points, and they ran as the party of low taxes. When you hear the Premier now say when he said "we will hold the line on taxes that affect ordinary New Brunswickers" that he really, really meant only sales taxes, he makes the error worse because it is doubling down on a lie. He would be better to cop to the fact that he ran not knowing much about the job of Premier, and people were so mad at the incumbent that he chose not to think to hard about it.

The real problem is that politics-as-usual avoids the serious discussion we need in this province about our budget and about our economy. I've often said that I believed that in a global recession, New Brunswick was right to spend to keep people working and money flowing in communities. The capital budget and the enhanced social spending for working families (who tend to spend money in their communities) kept businesses afloat and families solvent. That's why every Western democracy -including the Harper government- did similar things. It's also why, as even Premier Alward acknowledged after he disposed of the Liberals at the polls, "New Brunswick weathered the recession fairly well". In many cases, like in the U.S. and Britain, governments who cut too quickly after saw the recovery swoon again and jobless numbers rise.

But I've also said that I think it was an error to keep the deep tax cuts (which are inefficient stimulus) for the wealthy, because it left a structure in place that would hurt our ability to repay that necessary stimulus.  It never weakened my resolve to be a Liberal - the Tory line then was to cut spending and keep the tax cuts, which was worse - but I do think we should roll back those tax cuts for folks like me who can share in the sacrifice.

But David Alward got to rail against deficits, promise more social spending, and say he would hold the line on taxes. He should be grateful he got away with it; mere decency would suggest he should acknowledge it now and thank people for the chance to put it right by governing with more intellectual integrity than he showed in the campaign.

The real weakness of Alward's approach -- that in the campaign he seemed to suggest government had failed if it made any decision that angered anyone; that with enough consultation no one need ever disagree -- is that it leads to bad government.  Alward's Tories want to please everyone, which ultimately means that those with the least voice - the poor and vulnerable - suffer, as seen with the Alward government's rolling back of our government's anti-poverty program.  It's a program David Alward proclaimed his support for on the campaign trail, but it harms those who don't have much power, so a weak leader who fears controversy will drift into picking on the weak, like school kids and the poor.

We need a frank and adult conversation about our province's finances, and we need to be honest. I have already put out my position that we need to look at new sources of revenue. I have proposed - in the spirit of bi-partisanship - to roll back the Graham tax cuts for those earning over $100,000 per year and use that money to invest in education (K-12 and post-secondary) which is vital if we are to have a growing economy, as a skilled workforce is essential in a 21st century global economy.

David Alward was never willing to have this discussion. But I say we challenge him, and ourselves, to rise above the tired politics as usual.  Let's attack the deficit without this doublespeak, and phony consultations where the Minister passively let's everyone vent and then says he's decided, say, that schools needed cutting because he's sure he heard that somewhere.

A short-term deficit was a tough, but necessary, decision to weather the recession together.  Now, let's come together as citizens to share in the sacrifice of paying for that necessity.  We can start by engaging in a public consultation process similar to that undertaken during the development of the poverty reduction strategy. We bring government, private business, and citizens together; we open the books and we work through solutions. When engaged as responsible adults New Brunswickers take to the task at hand and come up with solutions that are recognized and praised nationally.

We need to do this again for our finances. Let's get a citizen's assembly of 100 citizens together with business and NGO leaders.  Make sure teachers, and parents, and entrepreneurs, and those living in poverty are in the room.  Open the books.  Let citizens see what cabinet sees.  Make the deliberations live on the web and invite feedback and questions.  Develop a people's budget plan based on real, honest debate.

 And when asked how we will rein in a $700million deficit without more revenues or cutting expenses, let's be honest enough to say it will actually take both.  You can't find $700million by cutting the poor -- if they had it, they wouldn't be poor. You won't find it in schools that were the lowest-funded in Canada under the Lord government and only started to catch up under Shawn Graham.  But we will trust the voters with real information and engage, because citizens could hardly show less courage or do worse than the politicians are doing right now.

We need a serious discussion about New Brunswick's economic future. Mr. Alward did not run as a serious candidate, and he is losing time to act as a serious premier.  As Liberals, let's trust that the people grasp the seriousness of the moment -- and reward honest leadership.

Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 21st Century New Brunswick

Radian6's Fredericton Headquarters: An example to be emulated.

A recent news story about New Brunswick from the Globe and Mail caught my attention (you know it's a big deal when Canada's "national" newspaper actually notices us). The story was about a successful Fredericton entrepreneur, Chris Newton, who was behind the founding of two successful New Brunswick IT companies, Radian6 and Q1 Labs.

The article refers to these success stories as: <em>"Transforming the image of New Brunswick from a have-not province dominated by pulp, petroleum and potato barons to an innovation hotbed populated by smart young techies and risk-embracing entrepreneurs."</em>

The older industrial and agriculture sectors - pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and agriculture - are important parts of New Brunswick's economic heritage. Yet even these are changing; and a new emphasis on skilled labour will demand that we reward companies that invest in R&D and worker training. We need to look ahead, seize on new opportunities in bio-technology, green sectors, and information technology. On economic development, we have to move beyond the old smokestacks approach - something that was brought home with the failure of the second oil refinery in Saint John to materialize. We also cannot just recklessly throw money around in fits of crony capitalism.

Such a forward-looking approach also means we cannot pine over past industries, such as the building of wooden ships in the 19th century, and we cannot seek to get by on nice-sounding platitudes and generalities.

The internet and new communications technologies have opened up new opportunities away from major urban centres such as Toronto, Montreal, New York City, and Boston. Through "telecommuting", employees at Radian6 in Fredericton can have meetings with colleagues in New York, Toronto, or Tokyo. These are opportunities which Chris Newton has been able to seize upon, and which our province as a whole must now act to seize upon too.

Compared to larger cities, New Brunswick offers many quality of life advantages: shorter commutes (Toronto has among the worse commutes in the world), closeness to nature, outdoor recreational activities, beautiful scenery, historic cities and towns, and of course the friendliness of New Brunswick's people.

Smaller jurisdictions such as Vermont and Fargo, North Dakota (yes, THAT Fargo), have seized upon such advantages and built strong creative and high-tech economic sectors. We need to do the same in New Brunswick.

So what needs to be done? In an earlier post I offered some thoughts on economic development. Building on these themes, it is important to invest in education and post-secondary education (which includes promoting accessibility rather than limiting it as the Alward government has done through reintroducing the parental contribution requirement for student loans).

Also, we need to explore how our post-secondary institutions can work with young entrepreneurs and local businesses to foster new economic opportunities - as, for example, Waterloo University in Waterloo, Ontario has done in fostering the growth of a strong IT-sector in that city. These same universities will be instrumental in finding ways to modernize New Brunswick's traditional industries while our Community Colleges can help upgrade our current labour force while training young New Brunswickers with the necessary skills to work and build careers in forestry and manufacturing like so many before them.

We cannot take a laissez-faire approach of relying only on tax cuts - as the New Brunswick NDP would do with its plan to abolish Business New Brunswick. BNB desperately needs reform and refocus, and the next blog post will touch on that. But the idea that we don't need to build contacts in a global economy is naive in the extreme. We must promote programs that actively encourage, mentor, and provide support to new entrepreneurs. Radian6, in its early days, recieved crucial backing from the New Brunswick Innovation Foundation. We need to build on success stories like this.

The opportunties are there - Q1 and Radian6 prove that - but we need a provincial government that recognizes and seize upon these opportunities. New Brunswick a lot of potential, we cannot afford to waste it.

RENEWAL - WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A 'LIBERAL'

There is widespread talk among NB Liberals about the soon to be released renewal report. This report - and the following debates over its recommendations - will play a crucial role in charting the course for our party as we prepare for the 2014 election.

The renewal commission was formed out of concerns that, during the last government, it was clear many people who had been with us for years didn't see their liberal values reflected in some of the policy decisions made by the leadership. This included the decision to sell NB Power to Hydro Quebec despite a firm campaign promise against selling the public utility. It also included flattening the tax rate - drastically cutting taxes for the wealthy - which represented a hard-right turn that was a clear departure from the centre-left platforms of 2003 and 2006.

The Fredericton Fort Nashwaak riding association released its proposals on renewal, which highlighted the importance of policy in the renewal process. In particular, these proposals emphasized the need for the party's leadership to clearly reflect the values of its members in policy-development, something that would include engaging and listening to members rather than treating them as drones, used at election time and discarded soon after until the next election cycle.

Recommendations in the Fredericton Fort Nashwaak discussion paper included organizing the party along the lines of issues, to attract new members - and engage existing members - on concerns such as environmental conservation, poverty-reduction, and population growth.

I would encourage you to read the Fredericton Fort Nashwaak renewal paper and don't worry, it is a quick read at nine pages. Party renewal is an essential step moving forward if the Liberal Party is to be a viable force in 2014, one that can stave off a challenge on the left from a newly confident NDP while offering a clear contrast to the closed-door operations and muted caucus of the Progressive Conservatives.

Our party needs to seriously re-think how to engage members, and what being a 'Liberal' really means.

Newfoundland, Ontario, and Lessons for NB Liberals

I cannot say I am an expert on the politics of Newfoundland and Labrador, but one story struck me, one that shows that province's Liberals in third place, badly trailing the second place NDP and first place Progressive Conservatives. This holds a warning that New Brunswick's Liberals must heed, we cannot be complacent.

www.globeandmail.com

In the last provincial election, our party lacked a clear narrative, being all over the place ideologically and on policy. We lost badly, but at least retained official opposition. Next time we may not be so lucky, especially with an NDP aggressively looking to replace our party as the centre-left alternative.

This brings me to my second example, Ontario. Earlier this summer, many commentators were ready to write political obituraries for Dalton McGuinty, a premier no one has accused of having charisma or likeability. However, McGuinty, who initially badly trailed that province's Progressive Conservatives and had to fend off a strong challenge from the NDP, made an election that seemed a foregone conclusion against him highly competitive. He ultimately won on election day and while still one seat short of a majority – pending recounts – it is still an impressive result given earlier predictions of impending electoral doom.

It is also an impressive results given the electoral collapse of the federal Liberals only a few months earlier.

What is behind this amazing political comeback? McGuinty's Liberals had a strong narrative for their election. The Ontario Liberals offered a clear progressive agenda on the environment and education - outflanking the NDP while also providing a clear contrast to the Progressive Conservatives. At the same time, they tied this into an economic development agenda - green jobs, investment in education for a skilled workforce - understanding that the best social program is a good well-paying job.

Also, McGuinty’s campaign platform was not just words, he had been implementing these progressive policies – on the education and environment – in government.  McGuinty shows that a familiar face, even one with perceived baggage, can win if he projects competence, consistent values...and of course, the right ideas.

McGuinty's Liberals offer an example the New Brunswick Liberals must follow if we are to survive as a viable political force, or else the party of Robichaud and McKenna may be consigned to the dust bin of history.

ATTENTION LIBERALS....SENATE REFORM IS NOT OUR ISSUE

So as soon as I suggested that Premier Alward's economic approach was stuck in the 1970's, the man shows a determination to prove me wrong. The premier has now identified the business of electing senators is his top priority.  This clearly shows that the premier can update his thinking, because Senate reform is an issue from the early 1990s.  For some, this would be nostalgia; for the Alward Conservatives, this is actually progress.

www.globeandmail.com

Some commentators have suggested that the Premier's new agenda means that Liberals need to scurry over to this new topic and be prepared to debate this agenda. Some Liberals have joined in.  But I'm here to tell you, as Prince said, there's something else.

First of all, before New Brunswick joins in full-throated support of Stephen Harper's old Reform agenda for federalism, let's remember WHY conservatives love Senate Reform.

Forget the old canard about regional representation.  In different times, when politicians worked more across the aisles in Ottawa, having twenty-four senators instead of ten MP's may have mattered. Today, in the partisan circus in Ottawa, federal politicians are a function of their party’s central command, supporting and spouting the lines from their leaders. The quality and independent thought of our representative’s matter. The number of seats that can swing and decide who becomes Prime Minister may affect platforms. But anyone who thinks senators would form post-partisan regional blocs to defend the same issues regardless of political stripe is dreaming in technicolour. 

The real reason conservatives want a second elected chamber is because it will render the national government even more ponderous and dysfunctional, which is a good thing if, like Stephen Harper, you want a national government whose entire agenda consists of national defense and locking up young offenders. Watching President Obama's mandate to create a national health care plan for a nation that had millions without health coverage is instructive -- if you want to slow down the creation of national social programs and new shared endeavors, you'll love having two elected chambers squabbling over every step forward. 

It's rational for conservatives to want divided government.  It's crazy for Liberals and progressives. And for New Brunswickers, it is irrational.  New Brunswick benefits from having national standards in social programs. In a decentralized Canada, wealthier provinces can use their advantage to slash taxes and start a race to the bottom where New Brunswick will lose. Having a minimum safety net that every province has to maintain keeps social programs safe, and a weak national government can't do that. Sometimes, putting New Brunswick first also means putting Canada first. 

But, of course, the best way to deal with Premier Alward's sudden passion for constitutional minutiae is to let him have it. In a province where unemployment has never been lower than the day before he took office, where too many kids still struggle to read and too many parents are trapped in poverty, and where our Premier says things are so dire that we simply have to let environmental concerns go, families are not going to reward politicians who want to return to a debating society on Canadian federalism.

In the New Brunswick Legislature, there's a beautiful room upstairs where committees meet. Sharp-eyed observers will notice an old speaker's chair at the back. It's there because that room used to be our Provincial Senate, which was a second chamber. While New Brunswick is a bilingual province of diverse regions, I can think of no time when any serious person has suggested that the common good in jobs, schools or public safety would be immediately improved if we restored the New Brunswick Senate. We haven't missed it, and neither would Canada. To borrow a tongue-in-cheek quote from John Crosbie, a Triple E Senate isn't as good an idea as a Triple A Senate.... arthritic, alcoholic and abolished. 

Come on, Liberals.  We have a solid history and the right ideas for the future on jobs, education, and social progress. Falling in the polls, David Alward has every reason to distract New Brunswickers from these issues. Let's just make sure he doesn't distract us.

No, Premier. Fracking ISN'T The Only Way To Create Jobs

Premier Alward's recent comment that his government can only deal with poverty if gas fracking moves forward is not encouraging. Besides reinforcing the government's dubious choice to speed up fracking and slow down poverty reduction, it suggests that the Premier doesn't understand how modern economies work.

The things that Mr. Alward's government says it can't afford -- improving schools, raising literacy rates and lifting people from poverty to work -- are not things we do once the economy grows. They are actually HOW we help the economy to grow.

Mr. Alward is trapped in 1970's thinking -- that investment and jobs simply come to the place where it is cheapest to do business. In this model, if he slashes wages, cuts taxes for those already doing well, and short circuits environmental regulations, jobs will come.

Trouble is, going into the modern economic marketplace with that old philosophy is like heading to the club in a Nehru jacket and bellbottoms. You're telling the world that you didn't notice the last 40 years happening.

Today, with capital and information so mobile, low cost jurisdictions are places like China, India and emerging South American economies. They do cheap like we never can...and never should. To fight them on cheap is to choose only to manage New Brunswick's economic decline.

The jobs we're competing for go where there are people with the skills to work smart and learn quickly, and where there are markets for their products. - We're a small market with under a million people, and too many are sidelined by poverty, illiteracy, or a lack of access to post-secondary education. In a world where people and skills are the new currency, we need more of both.

Spurred by competition from emerging African economies, the countries that do cheap today are spending and working to get smart, too. Right now, we get the jobs they lack the skills to do. If they catch us on smart and stay cheap, we've got trouble.

The Alward approach -- cutting back on education and retraining, threatening more interprovincial trade barriers that keep our companies out of big markets, and making low wages an economic development tool -- is one that will make us easier prey in the new economy. If the Premier believes that skills and investment can wait until after the economy improves, he'll be waiting like sad Miss Havisham for the groom who never arrives.

Liberals can't just scream "more economic development" at the government. Here's six concrete suggestions to turn around a year of lost ground and stagnant job growth.

Fund people, not politics. The Premier has found money for political gimmicks like funding redundant courthouses and vehicle registration reminders...then says we can't afford better schools. Here's a non-partisan offer....roll back all the Graham government's tax cuts for those of us making over $100K per year, and put all the new revenue towards funding poverty reduction and access to college and university so that we can have a goal of having the most skilled, literate workforce by 2020.

Invest in growth sectors. Work with municipal governments to allow targeted regional tax credits in areas where a region has a competitive advantage. From ecotourism in the north to green manufacturing clusters in the Fredericton-Moncton corridor, we need to empower the regions where we have a headstart on the world in the sectors that are creating jobs.

Front-end tax cuts to improve access to capital. Competitive corporate tax rates are a must, but low rates alone only help your business once you have profits -- and many start-ups have trouble getting capital. Allowing companies to use future tax cuts for front-end capital (if approved by a private sector board like InvestNB) can help emerging companies survive to create jobs.

Be first in R&D. If we want green job clusters, we need the brand of having the most aggressive tax treatment of research and development. Let's work with industry to design a credit that allows the highest write-off of R&D expenditures and allows deferral of credits forward to a company's profitable years.

Create a Rural Entrepreneurship Institute. Too often, new businesspeople in rural areas lack the mentorship and help finding angel investors that all entrepreneurs need. We can challenge our private sector leaders to design networks that erase this competitive disadvantage for our rural communities.

Empower communities to win the skills race. A lost opportunity of the Non-Profit Secretariat was it only added a little money to the existing way non-profits work, I stead of rethinking their role. In areas where large government bureaucracies have failed to solve stubborn social problems, like illiteracy and homelessness, let's use UK Prime Minister Cameron's model of entrepreneurial government to allow local partnerships of community groups to bid for government funding to tackle these tough, community problems.

We don't have to sit around hoping the world will be kind. New Brunswick can win on jobs and growth -- if we have the courage to think of ourselves as competing not the cheapest, but the smartest place to do business.