Steve Jobs could save Detroit. Does he want to?

Steve Jobs’s return to the helm of Apple was nothing short of spectacular. The company was on the brink of collapse. Although the product lineup was not that bad it didn’t really appeal to the general public and even creative professionals, traditional and traditionally loyal Apple customers were considering leaving the Mac camp. Today, Apple’s products are the most copied in the industry and beyond; an iMac G3 like iron, anyone? Every so often a iPod/iPhone/iMac etc. killer appears only to become either an also-ran or, worse, a spectacular failure.

The situation Apple folks found themselves in the mid 90s is more than similar to the dire straits the Detroit Three find themselves in now. Following the firing of Jobs, Apple was poorly managed and almost didn’t survive the onslaught of the Wintel platform although at the beginning of the 1980s it was on its way to dominance.

Detroit used to dominate America and the Big 3 moniker was well substantiated. Then came the years of mismanagement, dubious product line-ups, new technology was well, there wasn’t anything new or revolutionary implemented for years, take multivalve engines as an example,… and quality went south. Also, the Detroit wasn’t really making cars, as BBC’s Jeremy Clarkson said, it was a pension fund with car making as a side business.

If the history doesn’t repeat itself, it surely does rhyme in these two cases. So it’s not really surprising that from time to time there’s voice coming up suggesting that Washington should deploy Steve Jobs to get Detroit out of its quagmire. Those suggestions always alarm all car fans in America – obvious cars vs. computers jokes are fired, opinions suggesting that Jobs’s cars would be expensive, made in China, run only on 5-7% of the roads etc. are voiced. Apparently, Jobs knows nothing about car making.

But does any of the current Detroit CEOs knows more about how to make, sell and market cars? Judging by the results and financial situation of GM and Chrysler, not really. Ford is doing a little bit better and doesn’t fight for mere survival, but it’s far from being safe. With Chrysler almost dead, let’s focus on GM.

It’s product lineup is abysmal, there are too many duplicates, too many brands, too many options. Technology is dated (hybrids do attract attention, but they are too marginal or too far away), degree of sophistication low, and although there are some flashy products such as sports versions of Cadillac models, they’re not going to generate necessary sale levels. By the way, Cadillac used to be a luxury brand while Pontiac was supposed to be more of a sporty brand. But there was also a Chevy Corvette…. So why there are suddenly Cadillacs targetting BMW’s M-series cars while Pontiac is about to become a niche brand. Saturn, a poor-man’s GM, was supposed to be saved by rebranded European Opels, which A) had almost premium feel to traditional GM brands and thus B) were too expensive and not just for the budget brand.

Detroit has been sinking for few years now and if it hadn’t been for the buy-domestic patriotism of the American public it could have been much worse. Yet nobody in Detroit had the will to change anything. Streamlining lineups and improving quality wasn’t on cards either. It’s so bad that Japanese cars manufactured in the U.S. or Canada can be made to lower standards than comparable models for the Japanese domestic market or Europe. To see what I mean try Canada-made Corolla or Civic and then compare them to Japanese European offerings. US Corollas’ interior could compete with Romanian Dacias (now owned by Renault). The look and feel is very cheap. But they still feel better and better made than US cars. Europe’s Honda Accord is sold as an upmarket Accura in North America. American Accord is, well, questionable.

All these issues, in their computing incarnations, had to be addressed by Jobs upon his return to Apple. But he did not hesitate to fire useless staff and cancel products that nobody bother to look at let alone buy. Mind, Apple was HIS company. Doing the same thing for a bunch of car manufacturers without the emotional ballast would be a piece of cake, wouldn’t it.

The question is whether Jobs would be willing to accept the post of the Car Czar. Not likely. And not because of his health problems. No doubt he would turn Detroit into a prosperous company – even if he had to do it via cooperation with Toyota (think Microsoft Office for Mac). But he would be the most hated human being in the US, because pushrod and carburetor mythologies die hard. Car manufacturing in America is different.

The thing is that people at Apple trusted Jobs, his technological and marketing visions and plans. Call it blind faith, but it paid off. It’s not that Jobs doesn’t understand Detroit. I bet he does. He drives a Mercedes although he should considered rotary-engined Mazda RX-8, as a think-different statement. The problem is that Detroit wouldn’t understand Jobs. It lacks the capability and will to understand. If it didn’t, there would be no need to consider Jobs for a job in the Motor City.

Sultan of swing or a marionette?

Counting Jim Flaherty’s fiscal pirouettes would be about as useful as counting on his economic expertise in a hope they would get Canada out of the economic crisis. A short recap. Canadian finance minister walked a long way from refusing even remote possibility of a budget deficit through his infamous economic update to the stimulus package. And he walked it pretty fast.

The $40 billion stimulus was supposed to be the Conservatives perfect answer to the storm. Now, the storm is perfect, according to Flaherty, “this is an emergency situation”. Globe and Mail, and I’m sure many others, rephrased Flaherty words as “dire straits”. Hence, Flaherty hurries things up and is willing to make mistakes just to get the stimulus package working as soon as possible. The same package which, in a way, exists only because the Conservatives needed it to stay in power. So why the sudden rush to implement its instruments?

The package could have been in the works and as a result could have been implemented much sooner had it not been delayed by the pointless politics of the November economic update and subsequent crisis which the Conservatives steered into, at that time, relatively tranquil waters of national unity debate. Or was it just a proof of incompetence on Flaherty’s part? A country can’t afford to have a finance minister who would, in about three months, swing from one extreme to another and take temporary occupancy of any imaginable position in between. Especially, if his opinions are presented as official government economic plans for the country. Prime Minister, being aware of this, would have sacked the sultan of swing by now. Of course, the general consensus seems to be that it was not Flaherty’s plan but Stephen Harper’s politics play in which Flaherty was just a human-sized marionette.

Did Harper play his game because he was, for one reason or another, in denial of the state of the economy? Or did he played it even though he was very well aware of what was going on? Both options are somewhat unsettling.

Mysterious invitation highlights deficiencies of Canadian political system

Did U.S. President Barack Obama invite Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean to Washington or not? GG’s spokesperson Marthe Blouin was quoted as saying that the US president would love to see the Governor in Washington. Since then, Ms. Blouin refused to comment on her own words. The PM’s office refused to comment on that. White House refused to comment on that. Globe and Mail voiced “the word of government circles” that apparently opined that the spokesperson might have exaggerated what Barack Obama actually said.

Under normal circumstances, the matter would be clarified without much ado and delays. If the GG’s spokesperson went overboard with her interpretation of what was said, it would only provide welcomed ammunition for the control-freaks in the PM’s office to use in the supposed conflict between the GG and the PM.

But if the U.S. President had said just what Ms Blouin said he had there’s nothing to clarify because the only party that exaggerated anything were Canadian media running in the overdrive induced in part by the Obama’s visit and in part by the fact they got used to speculate as the information flow from the Harper’s government is channelled with utmost care, i.e. very selectively.

Another point is that there wouldn’t have been a mystery to solve if the Governor General had refused to grant Stephen Harper prorogation of the House of Commons, setting up a very dangerous precedent. And of course, none of that would be an issue if Canada had a modern and democratic political system where all branches of legislative and executive bodies have their powers and competences clearly defined and can control one another by checks and balances.

Bad PR exercise in damage limitation

A taser to every police officer! The message that doesn’t fall far from proteins-driven one-egg-per-day campaigns of the yesteryears would make sense in Detroit gangland and some may argue that certain quarters of Toronto would qualify as well. Unfortunately it came from Canadian Police Association (CPA) and Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) representatives in the middle of not just widespread public and expert debates but also during an ongoing Braidwood inquiry into the taser related death of Robert Dziekanski.

There was a lot of “setting the record straight” and “addressing inaccurate and incomplete information” talk from all speakers on Tuesday’s press conference in Ottawa. The police are entitled to their opinion, and, let’s face it with all irony, it’s usually more acceptable to use a taser than a real gun. But that was never an issue. The only problem experts and the public share is the usage which appears to be rather arbitrary by sometimes trigger happy officers. The rate of taser is actually low, contrary to the popular perception. But blaming media as the CPA and CACP representatives did is not helpful. If a person dies after being shot with a taser, the story will be made public sooner rather than later and it’s up to the police forces to handle it – even on the mass-media battlefield.

But the failure of police forces, RCMP for example, to admit flaws or even to agree to a public discussion was so prevalent, that both public outrage and media backlash were inevitable. Has anything changed on Tuesday? No. It was same old plethora of arguments many of which were on par with drug users advocating the use of their substance of choice or smokers advocating their “right” to smoke in public places because car fumes are much more poisonous. According to the police representatives, there are 150 studies on taser use and none proves that conducted energy weapons caused any death. But there is growing medical evidence that they do contribute to fatalities, with or without using “excited delirium” as a supporting argument. Comparing tasers’ effects to those of a baton or a pepper spray and claiming that tasers do not require any more oversight as batons, sprays or weapons is flawed. Yes, a person may die as a result of Custody Death Syndrome even without force used against them. But that’s hardly a point.

Both Chief Tom Kaye of the CACP and Charles Momy, CPA’s president, suggested that tasers should not be used in cases of “passive resistance”, in other words, as a compliance device. Which are exactly cases that outraged the public the most – 14-year old girl tasered in a cell, a pensioner on a hospital bed or Robert Dzienkanski for that matter. Walking away and grabbing a stapler is hardly an active and dangerous resistance.

Had the police representatives came out and only said that they wanted to improve reporting and make it consistent across the country and ban the use of tasers as compliance device, they would have undoubtedly eased the tension. But no. Admitting fault is not in the PR guidebook which is all what Tuesday’s press conference was all about. Instead, tasers-are-not-lethal mantra was stepped up with a taser-to-every-officer slogan. Which is a classic PR stuff.

There’s one problem with that. Police is a public service, not a corporation, and the only PR they are supposed to do is through their work to make sure they earn public support and trust. People don’t want to see police officers doing PR to protect police’s interests a) in the media and b) during a major investigation. Which was exactly what Canada saw on Tuesday. It was nothing but a PR exercise in damage limitation. And a bad one, for that matter.

Blind faith or spend-to-save confidence?

Retail trade in Canada wasn’t really booming in the second half of 2008 and December was particularly bad. Most of the 5.4% slump was down to the automotive sector, especially new cars dealers, whose sales declined 4.7% in 2008. Retail is a mixed bag of volumes, prices, consumer preferences and, of course, sometimes elusive concept of consumer confidence.

Canadians who bought their cars in October (so far the last month during which new motor vehicle sales posted an increase) were thought to be overconfident given the state of the economy and falling stock prices (and their investment accounts, too). October new cars sales were more-less the only bright moment in both retail sales and consumer confidence as both have been falling almost in unison for the past few months.

However, it may not be that bad in the upcoming months. For a start, Statistics Canada preliminary data suggest that January’s new car sales will rebound by 6%. While most manufacturers reported year-over-year decreases in January, following abysmal December sales any increase will be a good news not to mention the fact, that January tends to be the weakest sale month. Any increase, in turn, will positively effect retail sales (fingers crossed).

Harris-Decima poll published on Monday just after the retail trade numbers supports the statistics. Confidence in economy rose from December to February to 67.0 which is the highest index has been since August last year. While in December, only 35% of Canadians thought it was a good time to make a major purchase, 50% thought it was a bad idea, as most car dealers would confirm. The bad-idea camp still wins in February but the margin is down to mere 2 per cent (43% – 41%). 27% of Canadians believe they will be better off in a year, which is a major improvement over December’s 20%. Bleak future is foreseen by 13%, down from 18% in December.

Interestingly though, 59% still await bad times for the economy. Although it’s down from 64%, it doesn’t really scream out an expression of confidence in the economy, especially when only 10% of those polled said there were good times ahead for Canadian economy in 2009.

“Restored consumer confidence is an important factor in any potential economic recovery” said Debbie Ammeter, Vice-President of Advanced Financial Planning at Investors Group, as quoted in the Harris-Decima release. The question is whether the confidence is based on blind faith in economy (or something else) or on believing everybody who tells them that spending money will save the economy. Or are Canadians just being, well, Canadian about it? That is, as Canadian as … possible, under the circumstances.

Is Harper in for a lesson from Obama?

Apparently, everybody who has grown a mouth in Canada has something to say about the upcoming Barack Obama’s visit to Ottawa. Among the cacophony of voices are, however, few with a point. And an agenda. Or, to be more specific, an idea of what the agenda of the US president should be.

Take Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and their report penned by Bruce Campbell, CCPA’s Executive Director. According to the CCPA, the net effect of Canadian stimulus package (worth $40 billion) will be only 0.7% of the GDP, which is quarter of the US package. The budget and stimulus package, though approved by the House of Commons, are more the products of political and economic necessity than general consensus, and it’s in a way normal that the Centre for Policy ‘Alternatives’ (emphasis mine) does not approve of the government’s work.

The CCPA concludes that the conservative government of Stephen Harper is taking a “free ride” on the US stimulus package. In other words, relying too much on the effects US package would have on Canadian economy. Given the “highly integrated and asymmetrical nature of the two economies”, a fancy way of saying that Canadian economy is totally and utterly dependent on the US economy, it will certainly have an impact. Moreover, it will not be limited to the effects of the remnants of “Buy American” clauses, initially inserted into the package by congressmen seriously challenged in geography, economics and common sense. To sum up, CCPA would like to hear Mr. Obama saying to Mr. Harper to do his bit in North American economic recovery.

In the same way, Climate Action Network Canada wants the US President to deliver a lecture on the environment. Stephen Harper has been know for having a very good mutual understanding with both oil industry and George Bush. The latter is now gone resulting in what only few months ago was an unlikely scenario. US President pushing for tougher environmental standards and really meaning it. Which is something that Stephen Harper is not very keen on doing.

In the past, under very different circumstances, Harper could afford to dismiss all similar suggestions coming from inside of Canada. Which was exactly what he did. The problem wasn’t with what all the NGOs, think-tanks, networks and centres were saying, but their suggestions were almost always delivered in a highly academic tone and were, again almost always, highly politically charged. That gave Harper room not for discussion but for dismissing them in an instant.

The way of delivery hasn’t changed. What changed, though, is the US policy which now, in essence, corresponds to what Canadian groups has been pushing for. Harper can afford to play politics in the Canadian parliament and outside, but can’t afford to play the same game with the current US administration. Certainly not on the fields of energy, environment and the economics. Well, Harper can. But Canada cannot.

Conquering West or conquering rural Canada?

While some people were busy falling in love over the Valentine weekend, Canadian Liberals revealed their crush on the West. Or at least that was the idea. Michael Ignatieff went to Saskatchewan, for the first time as the leader of the Liberal Party, with the clear message. The party must embrace the West, it cannot afford to succumb to temptation to run against it, against what it represents. Which means, cowboy values aside, the energy sector, oil, drilling and perceived capitalism.

Ignatieff has very good reasons for the love-thy-enemy approach. Poor showing in the last federal elections cost the Liberals 26 seats in the House. They lost Ontario, which certainly hurt, but west of the Canada’s largest province they managed to get exactly 7 seats – one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan and five in British Columbia. And zero seats in Alberta. Of course, the seat math distorts the real vote distribution due to the natural democratic deficit of Canadian first-past-the-post election system. Proportional vote would have resulted in a very different House of Commons.

Still, the Liberals would have lost. The Green Shift, or carbon tax plan, which was the lead of the Liberal’s campaign didn’t go down well in oil-rich provinces, for a start, not many people really knew what it was all about and second, it came from the Liberal party, therefore it is probably a socialist idea trying to undermine western capitalism. There’s no love lost and, occasionally, there are talks about Western Canada splitting from the rest of the country. Many dismiss the idea as too marginal, others say that it’s not meant for real anyway, and point out to the Quebec’s secessionist movement instead. With the Bloc Québécois, it is rather simple. Everybody agrees it’s a one province party. They don’t campaign outside Quebec so while other parties’ leaders and candidates are busy flying across 4 and half timezones, Bloc’s folks are enjoying bus trips within the province.

The Bloc Québécois is the only province-based party but they’re certainly not the only regional one. The Conservatives dominate in the West and while they’re not a single-region party, the West is certainly a single-party region. Unlike Quebec with surprisingly inspirational popular vote distribution (Bloc – 38.1%, Liberals – 23.7%, Conservatives – 21.7%, NDP – 12.1%). Compare that to Saskatchewan (Conservatives – 53.7%) and Alberta (Conservatives 64.6%)…

The Liberals were pushed, with the great help from themselves, out of the West. But they also lost touch with the most of Canada. With few exceptions, their main sources of votes were city centres. Urban jungle seems to be the winning battleground but there’s still Canada beyond the downtown quarters.

That Canada is very different. It may not have the western energy mentality, but it’s certainly less academic about everyday life. Embracing the West is good, but embracing Canada would be even better, for the Liberals and for the country. Michael Ignatieff, the impersonation of intellectual powers and academia, must find the way how to embrace the whole country without becoming Stephen Harper in the process.

Bus service in Ottawa is running like a well lubed machine again

Do you know why Ottawa’s buses are free until February 15? They spread the joy. Apparently, the bus drivers and/or the union leaders took advantage of the promotion of one the Ottawa’s adult shops.

Although, the first bus I saw on Saturday was being towed away. Broken.

Ignatieff won

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper did a perfect job in the past few weeks. For the most part of the time, he kept himself to himself. It may be hard to quantify the effects, nevertheless, it was a significant contributor to seemingly seamless sail the government had in paving a parliamentary road for the budget. Canada’s financial plan that forecasts a $33.7 billion deficit in 2009/10 fiscal year was passed by the House of Commons on Tuesday evening with only New Democrats and Bloc Québécois MPs voting against.

This is where things get interesting. OK, Harper got it right. Not necessarily when it comes to the budget itself because, thanks to his attitude and passion for power games, Canada lost few crucial months in getting the country’s finances adapted to the challenges of global economic crisis. But in the post-prorogation weeks, he stayed quiet. The proverbial bitter pill was digested during the winter break and Jim Flaherty partook most of it anyway. But it doesn’t mean that Harper lost control of the party.

Bloc’s Gilles Duceppe did his job perfectly, he stands for his party and Quebec. In fact, being in the opposition and representing his province, he couldn’t get it wrong.

Now, Jack Layton… By voting against the budget, even the New Democrats’ leader behaved as expected, but only from his partisan point of view. Few hours after Michael Ignatieff, a fresh leader of the Liberal Party, announced his semi-conditional, probational support for the budget, NDP launched an attack against Ignatieff. That was short sighted at best. Yes, Ignatieff appeared to have reject the idea of the coalition, but Layton decided to kill it off. Lack of maturity? Or just an example of petty partisanship?

There was more to the NDP-Liberal coalition than just the need to get rid of Harper, but that was apparently beyond the reach of Jack Layton. If only he could get up from his kitchen table for a while…

Finally, it was Michael Ignatieff who did the best job in the most complicated circumstances. There was the budget, then the coalition and finally Liberals’ MPs for Newfoundland and Labrador, a classic example of a conflict between the interests of a party and those of the MPs’ constituents.

Ignatieff managed to get the most of everything. He forced the Conservatives to submit themselves to the regular scrutiny, which is significant given the fact that they still have minority in the House of Commons. Using words such as “ransom” or “gunpoint” may be slightly overboard but, at the same time, let’s not forget that the Conservatives voted for the Liberals’ amendment.

As for the Coalition, it was supposed to be a second option and was supposed to stay hanging around as potential threat. It’s regrettable that short-fused Layton didn’t get it, but given his eagerness, he still may jump on board if the opportunity to form a coalition government re-appears.

Finally, by allowing Newfoundland and Labrador MPs to vote against the budget, Ignatieff confirmed, that unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party is not the party that revolves around a single man with, at times disturbing, authoritarian tendencies. Allowing the vote was, according Tom Flanagan, Harper’s former advisor, a sign of weakness. “Harper would never do something similar,” said Flanagan as quoted in the Globe and Mail.

Yes, he wouldn’t. And that’s the most important thing.

Enforcing the vote on the six MPs and alienating the province’s electorate would have done much more damage to the party. All mature political parties do contain factions but their leaders tend to have enough common sense to keep the party united when it really matters. Ignatieff’s decision didn’t change the outcome of the vote, in other words, it didn’t really matter how the “rebelling” MPs voted. In the whole budget tale, Newfoundland issue is the only Harper’s victory.