Posts
For a while now we have been hearing how awful it was for the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. Both the Liberals and the NDP have been jumping up and down full of sound and fury. For them this represented the decline of democracy in Canada. Mr. Harper was not acting like the leader of a democracy but a dictator. Canadians were treated to political ads that accused Mr. Harper of having something to hide. They accused him of closing Parliament for his own narrow political interests.
The people responded in anger. There were protests and the Conservative Party dropped dramatically in the polls. A majority of Canadians opposed the shutting down of their Parliament. The opposition that never seemed to be able to get a handle on the government, finally had an issue to fight for.
So you would expect there to be an election, wouldn't you? I mean, democracy is at risk; Parliamentary democracy as we know it will be doomed if Stephen Harper continues to be Prime Minister. So shouldn't the leader of the opposition thus do everything in his power to remove such a poison. Or at least put the question to the people to see if they think that Mr. Harper has abused his power.
Nope.
It seems fighting for democracy is not a good enough reason for Mr. Ignatieff to force an election.
For the record I thought that the proroguing of Parliament was inappropriate but that the Liberals were over the top in their rhetoric. Still if they actually believed what they were saying instead of trying to score cheap political points, I would expect them to...well you know...actually fight for what they believe in.
The Liberal Party of Canada once again proving just how spineless they are.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Not banning the burka is the right move
The Conservative government has made it clear that they have no intention of banning the practice of Muslim women wearing burkas. It is heartening to hear the government promising not to interfere with at least this much individual liberty.
Personally I find the burka to be unsettling. Not because it is a symbol of Muslim faith, it isn't really. The burka is unsettling because it is often a symbol of feminine oppression. It is a way to keep women isolated from the rest of society. It is a way to keep them subservient.
Yet it isn't the place of the government to combat this particular travesty. As Liberal MP Marlene Jennings said:
"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka. As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."
It may seem contradictory to accuse the burka of being oppressive and say that people should have the choice to wear it, but it isn't really. Some women may legitimately prefer to wear the burka. They may do it for cultural, religious, or any other personal reason. In such a case the woman chooses her own isolation.
The harm comes from when a woman if pressured or forced to wear it by their husband or father. The general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Nathalie Des Rosiers said it well when she said:
"It goes without saying they should not be subjected to pressures from their communities, but neither from their government."
The issue of the burka is an issue that we should face as a society. It is not an issue for the strong arm of the state.
Personally I find the burka to be unsettling. Not because it is a symbol of Muslim faith, it isn't really. The burka is unsettling because it is often a symbol of feminine oppression. It is a way to keep women isolated from the rest of society. It is a way to keep them subservient.
Yet it isn't the place of the government to combat this particular travesty. As Liberal MP Marlene Jennings said:
"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka. As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."
It may seem contradictory to accuse the burka of being oppressive and say that people should have the choice to wear it, but it isn't really. Some women may legitimately prefer to wear the burka. They may do it for cultural, religious, or any other personal reason. In such a case the woman chooses her own isolation.
The harm comes from when a woman if pressured or forced to wear it by their husband or father. The general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Nathalie Des Rosiers said it well when she said:
"It goes without saying they should not be subjected to pressures from their communities, but neither from their government."
The issue of the burka is an issue that we should face as a society. It is not an issue for the strong arm of the state.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Trash Talk the TTC
I hate the TTC. When I went to the University of Toronto I use to walk 30 to 40 minutes (sometime in a blizzard) just to avoid using the TTC. It seems that I am not alone. There is now an entire website dedicated to "trash talking the TTC."
I encourage everyone living in the Greater Toronto Area to check it out.
I encourage everyone living in the Greater Toronto Area to check it out.
Bailout Nation: a review
I just finished reading Barry Ritholtz’s book titled Bailout Nation. It is an investigation, one of the many such books, into the causes of the credit crises in late 2008. As the title suggests the book was primarily concerned with the moral hazard that was caused not just by the recent bailouts but government bailouts going back to the 1970s. This is an interesting read from a non-libertarian perspective interested in issues of moral hazard and unintended consequences.
There are three themes that I’ve identified throughout the book:
1. Allan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve deserve a great deal of the blame for the credit crisis.
Mr. Ritholtz points to Mr. Greenspan’s interference in the market on several occasions, in particular he describes in detail the 1987 market crash and the dot.com burst of the early 2000s. He points out that Mr. Greenspan’s policy goals were not aimed at stabilizing the economy, the job that Mr. Rtholtz feels is appropriate for the Federal Reserve, but in saving the collective asses of Wall Street Traders.
It was pointed out that Mr. Greenspan thought of himself as a free market ideologue but that he constantly interfered with the market. Both Mr. Ritholtz and I are a little confused how a man who is called the "Maestro" of the economy could be a Free Marketer. Mr. Ritholtz had the decency to express his sympathy to the ghost of Ayn Rand.
2. The CEOs of the large financial institutions were incompetent.
He seems to get very passionate on this point. He proclaims the idiocy of lending money without checking the ability of the recipient to repay the money. This is hard to argue against. It is clearly true that these corporations acted foolishly, which is why they deserve to fall. Mr. Ritholtz thinks that is why they deserve to be regulated, which brings me to the next theme.
3. The free market has failed to regulate itself.
Mr. Rtholtz describes the deregulation and claims that they made the crisis far worse. He moves back and forth on if the deregulation itself was a cause of the crisis. In the first half of the book he points exclusively to bailouts as the cause. Large firms knew that they could take massive risks because tax payer money or the Federal Reserve would likely rescue them. In the second half he says that deregulation allowed firms to do whatever they wanted which led to chaos. It is bizarre that someone so thoughtful seems to have failed to connect these two facts. Deregulation may have allowed them to take greater risks, but government action encouraged them to do so. How is this a failure to self regulate?
It is particularly puzzling that he seems to have missed this in his analyses because in an “Intermezzo” Mr. Ritholtz makes the explicit counter argument to his assertion that markets have failed to self regulate:
“As a nation we have a choice to make: Either we place some reasonable regulations upon the banks and investment houses or we allow the vagaries of the free markets to punish those who trade with, or place their assets in, the wrong institution...There is no middle ground; it is an either-or choice. But for God’s sake, we cannot suffer the worst of both worlds...”
The credit crises was not so much a result of the market’s failure to self regulate as it was a result of the government not allowing the market to self regulate. For the government to self regulate firms have to be allowed to suffer or die.
Over all, though there are several points that Mr. Ritholtz made that I disagree with, Bailout Nation is an easy to read, generally well thought out, and interesting book.
There are three themes that I’ve identified throughout the book:
1. Allan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve deserve a great deal of the blame for the credit crisis.
Mr. Ritholtz points to Mr. Greenspan’s interference in the market on several occasions, in particular he describes in detail the 1987 market crash and the dot.com burst of the early 2000s. He points out that Mr. Greenspan’s policy goals were not aimed at stabilizing the economy, the job that Mr. Rtholtz feels is appropriate for the Federal Reserve, but in saving the collective asses of Wall Street Traders.
It was pointed out that Mr. Greenspan thought of himself as a free market ideologue but that he constantly interfered with the market. Both Mr. Ritholtz and I are a little confused how a man who is called the "Maestro" of the economy could be a Free Marketer. Mr. Ritholtz had the decency to express his sympathy to the ghost of Ayn Rand.
2. The CEOs of the large financial institutions were incompetent.
He seems to get very passionate on this point. He proclaims the idiocy of lending money without checking the ability of the recipient to repay the money. This is hard to argue against. It is clearly true that these corporations acted foolishly, which is why they deserve to fall. Mr. Ritholtz thinks that is why they deserve to be regulated, which brings me to the next theme.
3. The free market has failed to regulate itself.
Mr. Rtholtz describes the deregulation and claims that they made the crisis far worse. He moves back and forth on if the deregulation itself was a cause of the crisis. In the first half of the book he points exclusively to bailouts as the cause. Large firms knew that they could take massive risks because tax payer money or the Federal Reserve would likely rescue them. In the second half he says that deregulation allowed firms to do whatever they wanted which led to chaos. It is bizarre that someone so thoughtful seems to have failed to connect these two facts. Deregulation may have allowed them to take greater risks, but government action encouraged them to do so. How is this a failure to self regulate?
It is particularly puzzling that he seems to have missed this in his analyses because in an “Intermezzo” Mr. Ritholtz makes the explicit counter argument to his assertion that markets have failed to self regulate:
“As a nation we have a choice to make: Either we place some reasonable regulations upon the banks and investment houses or we allow the vagaries of the free markets to punish those who trade with, or place their assets in, the wrong institution...There is no middle ground; it is an either-or choice. But for God’s sake, we cannot suffer the worst of both worlds...”
The credit crises was not so much a result of the market’s failure to self regulate as it was a result of the government not allowing the market to self regulate. For the government to self regulate firms have to be allowed to suffer or die.
Over all, though there are several points that Mr. Ritholtz made that I disagree with, Bailout Nation is an easy to read, generally well thought out, and interesting book.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
UK Supreme Court protecting Parliament not liberty
The United Kingdom's Supreme Court still is a new institution and many people feared that it would lead to the end of the old convention of the supremacy of Parliament. The Supreme Court in Canada (for ill or for good) certainly changed the political balance of power. Yet in a recent decision the UK Supreme Court seems to be reinforcing the power of Parliament.
According to the BBC, the Supreme Court ruled that a Treasury order (ie a regulation made by the Treasury Department that did not go through Parliament) which freezes the assets of terrorist suspects is unconstitutional. Lord Hope, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, declared the following:
"Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty."
Before you start cheering you should take note of something very important here. Lord Hope also said this:
"This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament,"
and this:
"Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Parliament. On the contrary, it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country."
So basically what this decision means is that government is free to launch "unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty" just as long as it has the permission to do so by about three hundred people. I feel more free already.
By the way, the civil servants that put made the Treasury order in the first place are now saying that it is going to be fast tracked through Parliament. Any guesses on how much debate there will be? Anyone want to bet me, party discipline being what it is, that it won't pass on the nod?
Thank you Supreme Court for making sure that Parliament retains sole rights over the taking away of freedom from the British people.
According to the BBC, the Supreme Court ruled that a Treasury order (ie a regulation made by the Treasury Department that did not go through Parliament) which freezes the assets of terrorist suspects is unconstitutional. Lord Hope, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, declared the following:
"Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty."
Before you start cheering you should take note of something very important here. Lord Hope also said this:
"This is a clear example of an attempt to adversely affect the basic rights of the citizen without the clear authority of Parliament,"
and this:
"Nobody should conclude that the result of these appeals constitutes judicial interference with the will of Parliament. On the contrary, it upholds the supremacy of Parliament in deciding whether or not measures should be imposed that affect the fundamental rights of those in this country."
So basically what this decision means is that government is free to launch "unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty" just as long as it has the permission to do so by about three hundred people. I feel more free already.
By the way, the civil servants that put made the Treasury order in the first place are now saying that it is going to be fast tracked through Parliament. Any guesses on how much debate there will be? Anyone want to bet me, party discipline being what it is, that it won't pass on the nod?
Thank you Supreme Court for making sure that Parliament retains sole rights over the taking away of freedom from the British people.
I don't care who Stephen Harper appoints to the Senate
Don Martin has written a column full of vile pointed at the Prime Minister's practice of appointing easily controlled partisan hacks to the Senate. He attacks the practice in general, but he seems to feel a particular anger towards Stephen Harper. This anger is justified because Mr. Harper both promised to reform the Senate and promised not to appoint any unelected Senators.
Now anyone who reads this blog regularly likely knows I'm not Mr. Harper's greatest fan. My complaints against him are mostly in line with Gerry Nicholls' points, though with a much less personal tinge to it. That being said I think that Mr. Martin is being a little bit silly in singling Mr. Harper out for his Senate appointments.
There are two ways to look at Mr. Harper's Senate reversal that makes it reasonable.
1. He tried to reform the Senate but failed (at least for the moment).
Around a hundred years ago, Wilfrid Laurier also tried to reform the Senate. Much like Mr. Harper, Laurier stacked the Senate with his own cronies at the same time. When asked why he would do this he pointed out that he didn't make up the rules of the game (paraphrasing). Why should he play by different rules and artificially put himself at a disadvantage?
Laurier made a fair point and it is easily applied to Prime Minister Harper. Control over the Senate will allow him to more easily drive through his agenda. It is unreasonable to think that he wouldn't thus try to take over the Senate. Yes he promised not to do it, but Senate reform itself clearly demonstrates the degree that he was at a disadvantage. He could not move forward on a Senate Reform bill because he was being blocked by the Liberal controlled Senate.
This brings me to the second perspective...
2. Stuffing the Senate full of pro-reform Senators is a strategy to keep his promise on Senate Reform.
Mr. Harper's vow to not appoint new Senators is secondary to his promise of making that Senate elected. Once it became clear that reform was impossible without taking control of the Senate it was clear that the strategic situation had changed. So if you want reform (and for the record I don't), you should support these appointments.
Each of Mr. Harper's new Senators have vowed to resign once the Senate is reformed. I know, the difficulty of holding these Senators to account for this promise just underlines the difficulty of holding Senators accountable for anything. Still I prefer to believe someone rather than call them a liar before they are proven to be one.
All in all I find Mr. Martin's outrage against Stephen Harper to be unmoving. He clearly disapproves of the Senate. But I do not think it is fair to blame the player for the rules, especially if that player is trying to change the rules.
Now anyone who reads this blog regularly likely knows I'm not Mr. Harper's greatest fan. My complaints against him are mostly in line with Gerry Nicholls' points, though with a much less personal tinge to it. That being said I think that Mr. Martin is being a little bit silly in singling Mr. Harper out for his Senate appointments.
There are two ways to look at Mr. Harper's Senate reversal that makes it reasonable.
1. He tried to reform the Senate but failed (at least for the moment).
Around a hundred years ago, Wilfrid Laurier also tried to reform the Senate. Much like Mr. Harper, Laurier stacked the Senate with his own cronies at the same time. When asked why he would do this he pointed out that he didn't make up the rules of the game (paraphrasing). Why should he play by different rules and artificially put himself at a disadvantage?
Laurier made a fair point and it is easily applied to Prime Minister Harper. Control over the Senate will allow him to more easily drive through his agenda. It is unreasonable to think that he wouldn't thus try to take over the Senate. Yes he promised not to do it, but Senate reform itself clearly demonstrates the degree that he was at a disadvantage. He could not move forward on a Senate Reform bill because he was being blocked by the Liberal controlled Senate.
This brings me to the second perspective...
2. Stuffing the Senate full of pro-reform Senators is a strategy to keep his promise on Senate Reform.
Mr. Harper's vow to not appoint new Senators is secondary to his promise of making that Senate elected. Once it became clear that reform was impossible without taking control of the Senate it was clear that the strategic situation had changed. So if you want reform (and for the record I don't), you should support these appointments.
Each of Mr. Harper's new Senators have vowed to resign once the Senate is reformed. I know, the difficulty of holding these Senators to account for this promise just underlines the difficulty of holding Senators accountable for anything. Still I prefer to believe someone rather than call them a liar before they are proven to be one.
All in all I find Mr. Martin's outrage against Stephen Harper to be unmoving. He clearly disapproves of the Senate. But I do not think it is fair to blame the player for the rules, especially if that player is trying to change the rules.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Keynes vs Hayek: The rap version
This is actually a good presentation of the two theorists:
(thanks to TM for posting this in the Western Standard comments section)
(thanks to TM for posting this in the Western Standard comments section)
Glen Murray - The Million Dollar Toilet
There is a provincial by-election in Toronto Centre happening now to replace George Smitherman. Glen Murray, the former mayor of Winnipeg, is running for the Liberals.
Glen Murray has made a big deal about how his record as mayor of Winnipeg. However, he seems to be relying more on his reputation than his achievements. There’s a good reason for this. Glen Murray was responsible for a number of scandals during his tenure. Two Murray scandals made a Winnipeg Sun list of the top 50 Manitoba news stories of the last decade (I’ll save the second one for another time). Here’s #19:
Glen Murray has made a big deal about how his record as mayor of Winnipeg. However, he seems to be relying more on his reputation than his achievements. There’s a good reason for this. Glen Murray was responsible for a number of scandals during his tenure. Two Murray scandals made a Winnipeg Sun list of the top 50 Manitoba news stories of the last decade (I’ll save the second one for another time). Here’s #19:
19. The million-dollar toilet
Glen Murray’s dream of dining at a French bistro located on a $20-million footbridge overlooking the Red River quickly morphed into a debate over plumbing. Turns out it cost about $1 million to hook up plumbing to the plaza at Esplanade Riel, leading the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to dub the project as the one with “the million-dollar toilet.” Things only got worse when our Tom Brodbeck noted the phallic nature of the span, calling it the “dinkbridge.”
Prison ships?
David Cameron, the leader of the UK Conservative Party is considering bringing back the practice of prison ships. I had no idea that this practice existed in the first place, but according to the BBC the last prison ship was sold in 2005.
Mr. Cameron is floating (heh) this idea as a cost saving measure that will allow the government to end the early release program. I think that there is a valid case to be made for ending the early release program. After all criminals aren't deterred if they aren't actually punished.
Still I don't see how building a prison ship would be cheaper than building a prison. Plus you'll have a constant cost of fuel. My mother gets sea sick, and I assume that many criminals do as well. Wouldn't it be cruel then to force them to live on a boat for 20 years? Also if the ship gets caught in a storm...well that scene from Ben Hur comes horribly to mind.
I'm not saying that the idea is unworkable. I would, however, be interested to know why the prison ship was previously sold and hopefully Mr. Cameron will flush the idea out more.
Mr. Cameron is floating (heh) this idea as a cost saving measure that will allow the government to end the early release program. I think that there is a valid case to be made for ending the early release program. After all criminals aren't deterred if they aren't actually punished.
Still I don't see how building a prison ship would be cheaper than building a prison. Plus you'll have a constant cost of fuel. My mother gets sea sick, and I assume that many criminals do as well. Wouldn't it be cruel then to force them to live on a boat for 20 years? Also if the ship gets caught in a storm...well that scene from Ben Hur comes horribly to mind.
I'm not saying that the idea is unworkable. I would, however, be interested to know why the prison ship was previously sold and hopefully Mr. Cameron will flush the idea out more.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Joe Pantalone hates progress
Toronto Mayoral candidate Joe Pantalone has long opposed the development and enrichment of Ossington. This according to a National Post article a few days ago:
The issue on this part of Queen West, much like a section of Ossington Avenue, was "too much change, too fast," said Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, who represents a portion of the affected area. "And therefore a sense of equilibrium was lost, and there has been push back that the residents want to protect their quality of life."
By this he means that the people who voted for him are unhappy. Never mind what it may do for the rest of the community. Government should stop development and progress because Mr. Pantalone's political base is threatened.
Mr. Pantalone, in short, would destroy Toronto.
The issue on this part of Queen West, much like a section of Ossington Avenue, was "too much change, too fast," said Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, who represents a portion of the affected area. "And therefore a sense of equilibrium was lost, and there has been push back that the residents want to protect their quality of life."
By this he means that the people who voted for him are unhappy. Never mind what it may do for the rest of the community. Government should stop development and progress because Mr. Pantalone's political base is threatened.
Mr. Pantalone, in short, would destroy Toronto.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Conservative MP Shelly Glover has never heard of Tom Flanagan
I'm sure that lots of people haven't heard of Tom Flanagan. I would be surprised if his name recognition was as high as 2% for Canadians. But come on, you're a Conservative Party MP; shouldn't you know who the big names are in your own party?
Also, no one asked you if you had ever met Dr. Flanagan or if he worked on Parliament Hill. We know that he doesn't and it is pretty clear that you hadn't. Trying to use those facts to discredit his opinion merely discredits you.
As one more general statement, the phrase, "you are entitled to your opinion," or some variant is never ever an appropriate or intelligent response to criticism. Yes I am entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that you are a ultra-light weight who will never be anything but a backbencher even if you spend the next hundred years in Parliament.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Alberta cabinet shuffle not good enough
The Calgary Herald is reporting that the Alberta Premier Stelmach's cabinet shuffle represents a shift towards fiscal conservatism. There may be truth to this because well known fiscal conservative Ted Morton is being placed as Finance Minister. This is being viewed as a signal that the Albertan government is serious about cutting costs.
Personally I'm not sure how much weight to give Mr. Morton's appointment. Mr. Flaherty also was once viewed as a strong fiscal conservative, but he has brought in the largest budgets in Canadian history. Truth be known it doesn't really matter how wonderful Mr. Morton is or is not (same with Mr. Flaherty), the budget is ultimately directed by the first minister. It is the first minister not the finance minister that needs to be replaced in Alberta.
As a side note I would like to congratulate the Wildrose Alliance. They have managed to crawl out of the political wilderness to have a real impact. It is almost certain that Mr. Stelmach would not be making any move towards restraint if it wasn't for the threat of Ms. Smith.
Personally I'm not sure how much weight to give Mr. Morton's appointment. Mr. Flaherty also was once viewed as a strong fiscal conservative, but he has brought in the largest budgets in Canadian history. Truth be known it doesn't really matter how wonderful Mr. Morton is or is not (same with Mr. Flaherty), the budget is ultimately directed by the first minister. It is the first minister not the finance minister that needs to be replaced in Alberta.
As a side note I would like to congratulate the Wildrose Alliance. They have managed to crawl out of the political wilderness to have a real impact. It is almost certain that Mr. Stelmach would not be making any move towards restraint if it wasn't for the threat of Ms. Smith.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Liberal attack ads on Proroguing Parliament miss the mark
A few days ago the Liberal Party released two ads taking the Conservative government to task for proroguing Parliament. I am on record saying that I think it is inappropriate to prorogue Parliament. Still, these ads display the incompetence of the Liberal communications team.
As much as the Liberal's tactics seem to have improved, they still lack a good strategy. The attacks on Mr. Dion, calling him "not a leader," worked because they were very plausible. Mr. Ignattieff being a tourist in Canada is slightly less plausible, but still plausible enough to be damaging.
Looking at this ad I am left wondering what image of the Prime Minister the Liberals are trying to sell. Are they trying to convince Canadians that Mr. Harper is some sort of Emperor Palpatine? Because I doubt many would fine that to be plausible.
It doesn't help that the ad is badly written. The opening few lines are lame and the assertion that all this was done in secret is absurdly untrue. This cuts away at the credibility of the attack and weakens any potential damage that could have been done to Mr. Harper's reputation.
The other ad is not much better:
I don't see proroguing Parliament as a cover up and I don't understand how that accusation can seriously be made. If there really was a scandal then a couple of months shouldn't make a difference. It didn't make a difference for the sponsorship scandal. This whole ad's premise is just fundamentally flawed.
What should the Liberals have done? They should have attacked Mr. Harper for being arrogant, Machiavellian, and untrustworthy. These things may or may not be true but at least they would be plausible.
As much as the Liberal's tactics seem to have improved, they still lack a good strategy. The attacks on Mr. Dion, calling him "not a leader," worked because they were very plausible. Mr. Ignattieff being a tourist in Canada is slightly less plausible, but still plausible enough to be damaging.
Looking at this ad I am left wondering what image of the Prime Minister the Liberals are trying to sell. Are they trying to convince Canadians that Mr. Harper is some sort of Emperor Palpatine? Because I doubt many would fine that to be plausible.
It doesn't help that the ad is badly written. The opening few lines are lame and the assertion that all this was done in secret is absurdly untrue. This cuts away at the credibility of the attack and weakens any potential damage that could have been done to Mr. Harper's reputation.
The other ad is not much better:
I don't see proroguing Parliament as a cover up and I don't understand how that accusation can seriously be made. If there really was a scandal then a couple of months shouldn't make a difference. It didn't make a difference for the sponsorship scandal. This whole ad's premise is just fundamentally flawed.
What should the Liberals have done? They should have attacked Mr. Harper for being arrogant, Machiavellian, and untrustworthy. These things may or may not be true but at least they would be plausible.
Joe Pantalone is running for Mayor of Toronto
Councillor Pantalone represents a continuation of the David Miller years. He represents the status quo and the increasing decline of Canada's largest city. He may not be a household name, but he has been in Toronto politics for longer than I've been alive. Despite Torontonians being sick of socialist policies, I would not like to discount Mr. Pantalone's chances of victory.
I'm not yet sure who should be the man to beat him. Mr. Tory has decided not to run for mayor (I was unlikely to support him anyway), which leaves either Liberal George Smitherman or Liberal Rocco Rossi.
At the moment I am leaning towards Mr. Rossi. It is early days, but the fact that he has promised to reduce the mayor's salary and to only sit for two terms is very hopeful.
I'm not yet sure who should be the man to beat him. Mr. Tory has decided not to run for mayor (I was unlikely to support him anyway), which leaves either Liberal George Smitherman or Liberal Rocco Rossi.
At the moment I am leaning towards Mr. Rossi. It is early days, but the fact that he has promised to reduce the mayor's salary and to only sit for two terms is very hopeful.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Minority government instability is not a good excuse for proroguing Parliament
Mr. Harper has recently claimed that proroguing Parliament was a good thing because the market is worried about the constant threat of an election. This isn't the most bizarre excuse that the government has given (that honour goes to the "we all have to watch the Olympics" excuse), but it is certainly close.
I agree with Tom Flanagan that investors pay more attention to the state of the economy than political manoeuvres in Parliament. There is a certain amount of arrogance on the part of Mr. Harper to claim that the economy lives and breathes with his Premiership. That is to say, even if there is an election and Michael Ignatieff wins, investors are unlikely to be scared away. There is no reason to think that the prospect of an election would drive away the movement of capital.
Even if there was reason to think that, proroguing Parliament would have little impact. I don't see why an investor who would be concerned amount an election taking place would be more concerned by the possibility of an election in a couple of weeks versus a couple of months. When Parliament sits again the prospect of an election will be there, which means that the possibility of an election taking place soon doesn’t really go away with proroguing Parliament. This is more of an argument for a majority government (though it is a dumb one) rather than for proroguing Parliament.
In the Tom Flanagan clip that I linked above, Dr. Flanagan presents his personal view on why Parliament had to be prorogued. He claims that it was needed to prevent Parliament from overreaching into foreign affairs. I'm not sure if I agree with his perspective of the authority of Parliament, but it is a far more honest discussion. If this was the real reasoning of the Harper government I wish they would say so, rather than trying to feed us bullshit.
I agree with Tom Flanagan that investors pay more attention to the state of the economy than political manoeuvres in Parliament. There is a certain amount of arrogance on the part of Mr. Harper to claim that the economy lives and breathes with his Premiership. That is to say, even if there is an election and Michael Ignatieff wins, investors are unlikely to be scared away. There is no reason to think that the prospect of an election would drive away the movement of capital.
Even if there was reason to think that, proroguing Parliament would have little impact. I don't see why an investor who would be concerned amount an election taking place would be more concerned by the possibility of an election in a couple of weeks versus a couple of months. When Parliament sits again the prospect of an election will be there, which means that the possibility of an election taking place soon doesn’t really go away with proroguing Parliament. This is more of an argument for a majority government (though it is a dumb one) rather than for proroguing Parliament.
In the Tom Flanagan clip that I linked above, Dr. Flanagan presents his personal view on why Parliament had to be prorogued. He claims that it was needed to prevent Parliament from overreaching into foreign affairs. I'm not sure if I agree with his perspective of the authority of Parliament, but it is a far more honest discussion. If this was the real reasoning of the Harper government I wish they would say so, rather than trying to feed us bullshit.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Alcohol price floor will hurt the poor
Scotland is debating creating a price floor on the cheaper alcoholic drinks. Heavy drinking in Scotland is pretty common (not just a stereotype), and there are those who feel that this should be stopped: specifically the governing Scottish Nationalist Party wants to stop the “social plague” of heavy drinking.
There isn’t much of a chance of success.
Opposition parties in Scotland have correctly pointed out that a price floor will likely violate EU competition rules. This makes me feel warm and fuzzy towards the EU (which is a change), but there is a more crucial problem:
People who drink a lot really like drinking.
How likely do you think it is that perpetual drinkers will really change their life style because alcohol is more expensive? Remember that drinking in Scotland is not just a pass time; it is a way of life. There are people here that revolve their whole life around having pints with their friends. So do you really think that they will drink significantly less?
The reality is that this policy is going to hurt the poor. It is usually the poorer members of society that drink more than everyone else. It is also in the poorer communities where the culture of drinking is stronger. So they are also the least likely to change their habits after a price increase.
What will a price floor thus accomplish?
It will mean the weakening of the poor’s purchasing power as they pay more for the same product.
Good idea, eh?
There isn’t much of a chance of success.
Opposition parties in Scotland have correctly pointed out that a price floor will likely violate EU competition rules. This makes me feel warm and fuzzy towards the EU (which is a change), but there is a more crucial problem:
People who drink a lot really like drinking.
How likely do you think it is that perpetual drinkers will really change their life style because alcohol is more expensive? Remember that drinking in Scotland is not just a pass time; it is a way of life. There are people here that revolve their whole life around having pints with their friends. So do you really think that they will drink significantly less?
The reality is that this policy is going to hurt the poor. It is usually the poorer members of society that drink more than everyone else. It is also in the poorer communities where the culture of drinking is stronger. So they are also the least likely to change their habits after a price increase.
What will a price floor thus accomplish?
It will mean the weakening of the poor’s purchasing power as they pay more for the same product.
Good idea, eh?
Man ticketed for parking on his own property
This is a stunning story from the once bastion of classic liberalism:
But fasten your seatbelts for the ruling: Lord Justice Sedley found that although Dawood indeed owns the “subsoil” of the spot marked on his deed, parking wardens hold dominion over the surface as long as it’s accessible by the public.
What the hell? Seriously what the hell? If you own property you only own the subsoil of that property? I say again, what the hell? I have completely lost all words to describe my outrage. This man owns this land. I doubt his scooter being there was causing anyone else any harm. So for what purpose is the state robbing this man of money?
Let us all raise a toast to Dr. Richard Dawood, a London, England physician who valiantly fought the local authorities – at considerable cost – when the parking enforcement thugs continued to give the good doctor a hard time for no good reason (namely, by ticketing his scooter while parked on private property owned by Dr. Dawood.) Yet, talk about a screw job of epic proportions: even though Dr. Dawood’s scooter was parked on a two-metre strip of land belonging to him, a judge has ruled his scooter is fair game for parking tickets.
Although the parking spot in question is clearly marked on the doctor’s property deeds as private property owned by Dr. Dawood, the doctor’s scooter has received more than 30 tickets during the last decade. According to a Daily Mail report, Dr. Dawood eventually took his parking battle all the way to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, spending more than £10,000 in the process.
But fasten your seatbelts for the ruling: Lord Justice Sedley found that although Dawood indeed owns the “subsoil” of the spot marked on his deed, parking wardens hold dominion over the surface as long as it’s accessible by the public.
What the hell? Seriously what the hell? If you own property you only own the subsoil of that property? I say again, what the hell? I have completely lost all words to describe my outrage. This man owns this land. I doubt his scooter being there was causing anyone else any harm. So for what purpose is the state robbing this man of money?
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Reason Proroguing Parliament Matters
In Scotland I don't really have my ear to the ground of Canadian politics. But still I don't think that outrage over the prorogued Parliament is mere media hype. Now some doubters are beginning to agree (though not others). Certainly it is nowhere near the fury directed at the almost-coalition a year ago, but still Mr. Harper has stepped on a land mine.
I don't think that it is a matter of a deeply bred respect for the ancient customs of Parliament or a native loyalty to constitutional traditions. The outrage has more to do with the fact that the Prime Minister's powers are being used too blatantly.
Harper is not the first Prime Minister to be accused of holding dictatorial powers, and he is not likely to be the last. For decades now the PMO has been steadily growing stronger. First the Monarchy, then Parliament, and finally Cabinet have all been overthrown and diminished by the Prime Minister's Office.
It has long been true that the Canadian Prime Minister could do basically whatever he wanted. But hey, this is still a democracy. There are still elections, and everything a Prime Minister does comes with a political cost or a political benefit. That is to say, either the Prime Minister has the support of the people, or he doesn't.
Last year when he prorogued Parliament he did have the support of the people. It is a pointless debate if it was constitutional; the reality is the people liked it, so he could get away with it. This time is different. There is no real excuse for proroguing. The only obvious explanation for why Mr. Harper would do it is to avoid politically damaging questions in the House.
The people may not understand the Constitution, but they understand fair play and they understand democracy. That is why Proroguing Parliament matters.
I don't think that it is a matter of a deeply bred respect for the ancient customs of Parliament or a native loyalty to constitutional traditions. The outrage has more to do with the fact that the Prime Minister's powers are being used too blatantly.
Harper is not the first Prime Minister to be accused of holding dictatorial powers, and he is not likely to be the last. For decades now the PMO has been steadily growing stronger. First the Monarchy, then Parliament, and finally Cabinet have all been overthrown and diminished by the Prime Minister's Office.
It has long been true that the Canadian Prime Minister could do basically whatever he wanted. But hey, this is still a democracy. There are still elections, and everything a Prime Minister does comes with a political cost or a political benefit. That is to say, either the Prime Minister has the support of the people, or he doesn't.
Last year when he prorogued Parliament he did have the support of the people. It is a pointless debate if it was constitutional; the reality is the people liked it, so he could get away with it. This time is different. There is no real excuse for proroguing. The only obvious explanation for why Mr. Harper would do it is to avoid politically damaging questions in the House.
The people may not understand the Constitution, but they understand fair play and they understand democracy. That is why Proroguing Parliament matters.
Proroguing Parliament and the Death of the Canadian Monarchy
I've been rather negligent in my blogging the last few weeks, especially since there has been plenty to blog about. Stephen Harper has shut down Parliament in the face of political fire from the opposition, and the public reaction seems to be very negative.
Mr. Coyne sums up my feelings on this issue (he usually does). He comments in the video below that it is not so much a matter of the rules but of bad behaviour. Even if Proroguing Parliament was constitutional, it is a bad precedent to allow a Prime Minister to escape public scrutiny in this way. As Mr. Coyne comments, if this is truly allowed under the rules then the rules should be changed.
Ultimately, what has been revealed here is the farce of constitutional monarchy. A modern day Monarchist would have you believe that we need the office of Governor General and ties to the British Queen to ensure constitutional stability and continuity. The Governor General is suppose to be the vehicle in which bad behaviour is prevented and constitutional norms (such as responsible government) is enforced. Yet Governor General Jean has repeatedly demonstrated that she will not stand up to the PMO on constitutional matters.
The past few years of minority Parliament has made it clear that the Monarchy in Canada is truly an anachronistic institution.
Mr. Coyne sums up my feelings on this issue (he usually does). He comments in the video below that it is not so much a matter of the rules but of bad behaviour. Even if Proroguing Parliament was constitutional, it is a bad precedent to allow a Prime Minister to escape public scrutiny in this way. As Mr. Coyne comments, if this is truly allowed under the rules then the rules should be changed.
Ultimately, what has been revealed here is the farce of constitutional monarchy. A modern day Monarchist would have you believe that we need the office of Governor General and ties to the British Queen to ensure constitutional stability and continuity. The Governor General is suppose to be the vehicle in which bad behaviour is prevented and constitutional norms (such as responsible government) is enforced. Yet Governor General Jean has repeatedly demonstrated that she will not stand up to the PMO on constitutional matters.
The past few years of minority Parliament has made it clear that the Monarchy in Canada is truly an anachronistic institution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)