Cut spending without delay

I have heard several politicians and members of the chattering class claim that cutting spending immediately would be disastrous to the economy. This was a constant refrain of Gordon brown during the recent UK elections. Mr. Brown constantly claimed that it would be ‘taking money out of the economy.’ The Cato Institute takes on this assumption by using a historical example:

...the “Depression of 1946″ may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued, as Alvin Hansen did, that “the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls.” After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen’s advice went unheeded. Government cancelled war contracts, and its spending fell from $84 billion in 1945 to under $30 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the “shock of peace.” From the economy’s perspective, it was the “shock of de-stimulus.”

At present the greatest threats to the economy in every western country are the deficit and the debt. The sooner that these issues are dealt with the better it will be for the long term strength of economic development. There is no convincing argument to delay the cuts that are needed.

Evidence that the Census is useless

In early May I posted a link to an article from the Freeman that explained why government census is not an effective way for calculating demand. Part of the inefficiency of government is that they assign resources where it doesn’t match demand. The census is meant to help with this problem but it is deceptively unhelpful. Demand can only truly be calculated by the price of a service or good on in open market.

As if to prove the point, an article from the Ottawa Citizen is reporting an organized effort to lie in the 2006 census. The idea was that if Francophones claim to be unable to speak English, the government would then give more resources to programs for Francophones outside of Quebec. This campaign was so successful that Statistics Canada warns that their own data is unreliable. Thus demonstrating how easy it would be to manipulate the process for a political agenda.

The census: nothing but an invasion of privacy.

Government versus the Conservative Party

The headline of this story reads 'Tories apologize to India over visa feud.' Shouldn't it read 'government apologize to India over visa feud.' It isn't like the Conservative Party of Canada is making the apology. It is the government.

There is a fine line between the actions of a political party in government and the actions of the government. But when dealing directly with foreign powers it is very clear what side of the line it is on. Minister Kenney was speaking on behalf of the government of Canada not the Conservative Party.

So why the misleading title? Is it to make it sound like this incident is somehow the Conservative's fault?

Corporate taxes are unfair

Yesterday I wrote a post that described why Capital Gains taxes are unfair. It seems that Maxime Bernier was doing the same thing the day before, except with corporate taxes. In an article that can only make me jump for joy that it was written by an elected official, Mr. Bernier describes how it is that everyone pays for corporate taxes:

From the perspective of corporations, taxes are an additional cost of doing business. If you increase their taxes, to remain profitable they will have to find ways to lower other costs, or to increase revenues.

How does a corporation do this? One way is to reduce the returns to its owners and investors. In that sense, it becomes the equivalent of a capital tax, or a capital gains tax. It is not the corporation that pays the tax, but rather its owners and investors. And since capital is mobile, there is a limit to how much you can tax it. The result, as with the capital tax, is that we end up discouraging capital accumulation and investments in Canada.

Another way for corporations to shift the burden of their income tax is to increase the price of what they produce. In that sense, it becomes the equivalent of a tax on consumption. It is the consumers who pay it, not the corporation.

A corporation can also decide to cut down on its factors of production by laying off workers, reducing their wages, investing less in new equipment, or buying fewer inputs from its suppliers. Once again, in the end, it is real people who will pay the tax, either the company’s workers or the workers of other companies that do business with it.

So to recap, we all pay corporate taxes through higher prices and loss of jobs. Those who invest pay taxes twice on their investment: once through corporate taxes and once through their personal income tax.

A strong argument for lowering income taxes is that it makes Canada a competitive option for global investors. But even if Canada was the sole country in the world, lowering income taxes would still be the intelligent economic policy. As Mr. Bernier points out, lower corporate taxes means more jobs and greater spending power. This means that there is more wealth in the country and greater productivity. The group of people that proportionally benefit the most from increased productivity and wealth is the poor.

You want to help the poor?

Lower corporate taxes.

For the last time, Harper is not a social conservative

This is getting really tiring. Here is yet another media report warning of the ‘ultra-conservative religious right’ close connection to the Conservative Party of Canada. The evidence this time? Some Conservative MPs showed up to a dinner being hosted by Opus Dei:

MPs from all parties had been invited, it seems, but most of the 20 or so who showed up were Conservatives, with none from the NDP or the Bloc QuÈbÈcois.

I’m not sure I know exactly what ‘20 or so’ means, but for the sake of argument let us say that there was exactly 20 MPs at this dinner. There are 144 Conservative MPs, this means that Opus Dei is so important to the Conservative Party that only 14% of the caucus bothered to show up to score, what was presumably, a free meal.

But wait, not all of those 20 MPs were Conservatives. The article says that Conservatives were there but not the NDP or the BQ. It doesn’t mention any Liberals but if only ‘most’ of the 20 were Conservative then that only leaves the possibility that the remaining MPs were Liberals. So why isn’t this article about the ‘theo-conservative’ influence on the Liberal Party?

Saying that a multi-party dinner hosted by a religious group is evidence of the Conservative Party’s religious agenda is incredibly desperate. Especially when you consider that government movement on social issues has been lacking. For goodness sake, Mr. Harper himself has come out and said that he would not vote to criminalize abortions. What more do people want to hear as proof that Stephen Harper is not now nor has he ever been a social conservative?

Why don’t we ask a social conservative about what they think of Mr. Harper?

Paul Tuns at the Interim points out that social conservatives have never supported Mr. Harper in his leadership races and in 2006 The Interim gave him a ‘C’ for his social policy. Mr. Tuns considered that mark to be over generous. Mr. Harper has never enjoyed the support of social conservatism as a movement. So how exactly would anyone argue that Mr. Harper is a social conservative?

I’m not Stephen Harper’s number 1 fan. Also as someone who is politically liberal on social issues, I too would fear a religious takeover of the Conservative Party. But that takeover is just not happening. There is no credible evidence of strong religious influence on government policy. The best anyone has come up with is that a couple of Mr. Harper’s advisers go to church. At the same time there is a large amount of evidence that social conservatives have failed to influence Mr. Haper’s decisions.

All of this fear mongering seems to be about trying to shut social conservatives out of the debate for policy. And that is just despicable.

Translator Fail

Translator FAIL - watch more funny videos

The power of backbenchers: Canada versus UK

It always amuses me when British commentators complain that the UK Prime Minister has too much power. The strength and pure potential for intimidation at the disposal of Number 10 pales in comparison to Langevin Block.

Consider this recent example of a UK Conservative MP speaking out against the policy of his own government. In Canada, any government MP or even opposition MP that dared to say anything against their leader or party’s policy would be kicked out of caucus. MPs can only question their leader behind closed doors, and even then they have to be careful about it. On the other hand in the UK, MPs can publicly differ from the party line and such rebellion is considered relatively routine.

Part of the problem is the meekness of the Canadian MPs. If David Cameron had given rebel MPs the boot it would have created an uproar that could have ended Mr. Cameron’s leadership, or at least have hamstrung his government. I can’t think of anytime that MPs have rushed to defend their fellow caucus member’s right to speak their opinion in public. Really they usually seem delighted that a potential opponent for a Ministerial position has been eliminated.

Another difference between Canadian Conservatives and UK Conservatives is the existence of the 1922 Committee. This can be considered the governing body of UK Conservative backbenchers. It gives MPs a certain amount of protection from the leadership and it provides a mechanism for MPs to challenge the leader’s right to lead. If you like, you can consider it as a sort of union for backbench MPs.

So as Canadians debate ways to weaken the might of the PMO, we should look at the ancient home of the Westminster system. And consider ways that we can embolden Members of Parliament.

Capital Gains tax is unfair

Some UK Conservative backbenchers are objecting to the proposed increase in the capital gains tax. They argue, correctly, that it is a tax on the virtuous; the capital gains tax harms people who invest in the economy. Investment is exactly what the government wants for the economy to climb out of recession. So it would indeed appear counterproductive to tax the hand that feeds you.

The Liberal Democrats argue that the tax increase is needed to restore ‘fairness’ to the tax system. Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable claims that increasing the capital gains tax would put in an to ‘tax avoidance.’ He says that it is important, for some reason, to tax income and wealth at the same time.

Looking at the Liberal Democratic position I have trouble understanding their argument. How is buying a house then selling it twenty years later translate into tax avoidance? How would selling shares to pay for retirement assist anyone in paying fewer taxes? Really they are paying taxes three times, once when they buy it, once when they sell it, and again when they report the sale as income. So I ask again, where is the avoidance? How does taxing the economy’s most important foot soldiers, the investors, more than anyone else create a more fair tax system?

Mr. Cable says that he is unconcerned because no ‘working class’ people are going to be affected. I guess if you define working class as anyone who doesn’t own capital that appreciates, then this is true. But that is beside the point.

A fair system is not a system that proportionally punishes one group than another. A fair system is one that will tax all people proportionally.

Here is a video that talks about Capital Gains tax in the United States. Most of what is said in this video easily applies to the UK and every other country with a capital gains tax:

Europe needs to do more

With Italy announcing the Italian austerity plan, the pattern of how Europe wants to deal with its debt crisis is clear. They are making cuts to public sector worker’s pay and pension, where possible they are cutting transfers to lower levels of government, and most of all they don’t have an actual plan to eliminate the deficit. Each country is making cuts designed to only lower the deficit.

It is good thing that these Southern European countries are taking steps to cut spending. It is a matter of pure survival at this point. Even if they would have been fine by themselves, the Euro ties them all to the anvil of the Greek economy. So these steps are desperately needed to stave off the immediate disaster.

But that is all they are doing, staving off the immediate disaster. They are not dealing with the core problem or the reality of their situation. The European welfare state is too large. It is being financed by debt, and debt unpaid will always lead to a disaster.

Greece, Spain, Portugal, and now Italy, none of them have announced any sweeping reforms to their economy. None of them have announced withdrawal of welfare provisions. None of them are even trying to get out of the red. All of them are merely postponing the reckoning that will certainly come.

Shut Up Lisa MacLeod (VII): please before it is too late

A rather gushy article from the Ottawa Citizen has cited Lisa MacLeod as a top contender for high Ministerial office if Tim Hudak becomes Premier. I shudder at the thought. I truly do. Lisa MacLeod is the most annoying MPP in Ontario.

In the past she has:

Made the dumbest defence of John Tory’s leadership (He should be leader because he gets up early); demanded that taxpayers pay for her children; called for the Ontario Parliament to work only half days; said that the government should be responsible for the raising of our children (well basically said that anyway); and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of economics.

The Ottawa Citizen said that she is fiery and combative. Try small minded and annoying. She is exactly the sort of person we do not want in government. And really I doubt that she is destined for senior office. I assume Tim Hudak has more sense than that.

Sorry guys you're too old to be PM

This has to be one of the silliest articles I’ve read in a long time. Barbara Yaffe is arguing that older politicians should step aside for younger politicians for the following reasons:

1) Young people can adjust to ever changing circumstances of modern politics.
2) The current political leaders are not particularly popular.
3) Young people are more charismatic

Let’s take this one by one shall we?

1) Pop quiz: which American politician made the greatest use of new campaign techniques offered by the internet and social media? The answer: Ron Paul, who is literally old enough to be Stephen Harper’s father. So evidently someone over 70 can still change their ways, or at least hire people to help him/her to do it.

2) The writer fails to make any connection between the popularity of the current leaders and their ages. She simply said they are old and they are unpopular, therefore they are unpopular because they are old. Which makes about as much causal sense as saying the sky is blue and birds can fly, therefore birds can fly because the sky is blue.

3) Putting aside the issue of whether or not we want charisma to be the most important measure of leadership, this is every bit as stupid as the previous two points. Does someone who has charisma suddenly lose it at the age of 50? If Justin Trudeau turns 50 will he suddenly be boring? Was his father boring because he was over 50? This is especially dumb because she lists David Cameron as an example of a new young leader. The man is about as charismatic as a wet shirt.

Part of her point seems to be that political parties need to be active recruiters for future leaders. This is of course part of the role of political parties in a representative democracy. But she also says that all three parties are already active in doing this, so what exactly is she calling for?

Is it possible that this is just a veiled excuse to call for each of the party leaders to step down because she doesn’t like any of them?

Flanagan is right: the issue is government is too big

Tom Flanagan is absolutely right when he says in this opinion piece that the real problem of the Conservative government is that it has not acted conservative enough. Dr. Flanagan points out the three most damaging recent issues for the government could have been avoided if the Conservatives had been reducing the size of government rather than increasing the size of government.

Rahim Jaffer:

Could have been avoided if the taps for corporate welfare were being turned off, or at least being slowed to a trickle. There would be no reason for a business to hire someone purely for their connections with the PMO (real or imagined) if there was little prospect of getting their hands on the government’s purse strings.

Abortion issue:

This whole re-emergence of the abortion debate began when the government committed itself to more, as Dr. Flanagan puts it, government to government aide. There is plenty of data to support the conclusion that this sort of aide does more harm to good. In fact many conservatives have been arguing that for a generation. The answer lies in open trade, enforcement of property rights, and perhaps micro-loans. If the Harper government had been saying that from the beginning, abortion would not have gotten on the agenda.

Gay pride parade:

The government was accused of being homophobic because they stopped funding the gay pride parade. A more important issue was why were they funding the parade in the first place? Also, why are the funding any parade anywhere? Why is this an appropriate role for the government. If the Conservatives had not increased funding for cultural events but instead cut back on all events, this would never have been an issue.

I’ll go farther and say that most of our modern day hot button emotional issues originate from government being too big. There has been a lot of talk about a culture war in Canada and the United States. At the core of this ‘war’ is the assumption that the government has a role to play in directing the culture and course of society. The very fact that this debate is taking place shows that there is no consensus on how people should live or what choices they should make.

So then why should one person be forced to pay for the life style of another? Why should Torontonians be forced to pay for parades in Calgary and vice versa? Why should government pick the winners and losers of the business world by handing out tax dollars? Why should we be forced to send money to reinforce corrupt regimes and dysfunctional economies?

There will always be a debate in society about how we should best live our lives. But that debate will only be civilized if it can be won by demonstrating the validity of your choices by living them, instead of forcing others to live them with you.

Fixed Elections in a Westminster System

One of the policy deals that the Conservative Party in the UK had to concede to their coalition partners, the Liberal-Democrats, is to have a fixed election date. Perhaps the British government should take a look at Canada to see how exactly this would work in a Westminster system.

I offer two case studies. The first is the 2007 Ontario election. In this election the government of Ontario set the date years in advance. The opposition parties were able to plan their strategy around a set date and gear up for a certain election.

The fixed election date in Ontario had its merits and deficiencies but it basically worked. It prevented the Premier from arbitrarily deciding the election date that would best suit his own party. It cut down on some of the advantage of incumbency, which appears to be the goal of set election advocates.

The other case study is the federal election of 2008. This election was called long before the set date established by the Federal Government. The timing of the election was made based on partisan considerations and the government apparently broke its own law.

The reality is much more complicated. No law passed by Parliament can nor should interfere with the Crown’s prerogative to end a Parliament. This is an intricate part of the system that would require massive constitutional overhaul to change. In the Westminster system the Crown has control over the beginning and ending of Parliament and the Prime Minister’s duty is to advice the Crown on when it should act.

Really in a Westminster system a law that sets the date of an election has no teeth, but, as in the Ontario case, it can serve as a general guideline for when the opposition parties can expect the next election. There may be some merit to that, but that is what we are talking about when we talk about fixed elections in a Westminster system.

The Vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier

I have yet to read Brian Lee Crowley’s The Canadian Century: Moving Out of America’s Shadow but so far everything I have heard makes it the most important book for anyone who cares about Canada’s future. In it Mr. Crowley et al. describe the vision of Canada that Wilfrid Laurier set out more than a century ago. They then describe how this vision can be applied to Canada today and how this vision would lead us to new heights.

Neil Reynolds describes the basic tenants of Sir Laurier’s vision:

1) British Liberty

As someone who likes to read Laurier speeches in his free time I can tell you that Wilfrid Laurier had a very clear idea of what it means to be free. For Laurier and his Liberal contemporaries, liberty meant limited government interference and personal responsibility. People should be able to make their own choices and the role of government is limited to the protection of those rights.

2) A fiscally restrained state

This meant low taxation, at least lower than that of the United States. It meant paying down debt and it meant avoiding deficits. It is important to note here that Canada did very well on this front for most of our history. Mr. Reynolds marks the return to these principles in the 1990s, but the departure was only in the 1960s. It is only with the Pearson and Trudeau governments did Canada abandon the good fiscal sense of Wilfrid Laurier. The 30 years of irresponsibility is a mere hick up in our history, though a very damaging hick up.

3) Self confidence

Sir Laurier believed in Canada and though he respected both the United States and the United Kingdom he felt that Canada should strive to be their equals in world affairs. It is hard to measure what exactly self confidence would look like or how we can achieve it. But we as a nation have to stop our insecure sneering at the Americans.

4) Free trade

A version of free trade was achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. It isn’t completely free trade; NAFTA is an agreement on how to regulate trade not an agreement to end all trade restrictions. Still Canada has moved forward with a free trade agenda. It should be the goal of Canada to be the greatest open port for the markets of the world.

Wilfrid Laurier is undoubtedly (in my mind) the greatest Prime Minister in Canada’s history. His ideas should inspire leaders of all political parties.

Should Pride be able to exclude people?

The Star reported yesterday that the term ‘Israeli Apartheid’ cannot be used in the Gay Pride parade in Toronto. The organizers of the parade say that they will not ban anyone from participating but they do not want that term used or associated with the parade. The group ‘Queers Against Israeli Apartheid’ naturally objected, claiming that this was an effective ban of the group.

I have some sympathy for that point of view. Yes the group can still show up and yes all individuals can still participate, but if they can’t say who they are who make clear their message, what would be the point?

The right of the parade organizers to exclude words or people from the parade is questionable. Yes they are a private organization, but despite no longer receiving federal funding they are still funded by municipal and provincial tax dollars. This makes it far more ambiguous if they have the same rights as a completely privately funded organization. The member’s of QAIA are paying taxes that fund the event so they should have a right to join in and have their say. If Pride wants to exclude they should refuse public funding.

On the other hand, it is still a private organization and any group or individual should have the right to not associate with people or ideas. In fact what makes free speech work is the ability to socially isolate people with unacceptable messages. If Pride is not given this right then there is nothing to stop a group that could call itself ‘Gays for Hitler’ or ‘Fags against greedy Jews’ from participating. As I said, it is ambiguous. I am not totally sure I know what side of the fence I sit on and welcome comments.

(Don’t construe any of this as me supporting the message of QAIA. Frankly if the gay community were going to have any sympathy for either side I would expect it would be for the side that doesn’t hang people for being gay.)

Ignatieff did a number on himself

A few years ago, in my golden youth, I was at a Campus Conservative convention listening to a certain expert on political campaigns discussing negative ads. The thrust of is presentation was that negative ads work, and they work best when they are true. If you doubt this you only have to look at what happened with Stephane Dion. If he had shown any leadership ability the Conservatives calling him not a leader would have fallen flat.

This is not what happened with Michael Ignatieff.

Sure it looks very similar. A new leader of the opposition is bombarded with attack ads that make an impression in the public mind. There is an air of truth to the ads, enough so that Mr. Ignatieff has demonstrated a lack of ability to effectively respond. Jane Taber at the Globe & Mail writes that Mr. Ignatieff claims that they ‘did a number’ on him.

But this is not his real problem.

His real problem has nothing to do with the Conservatives and has everything to do with his own lack of vision. He seems unable to present a clear message of what an Ignatieff led Canada would look like. John Ivison from the National Post puts it well:

The one thing that Liberals at all levels of the party agree on, is that Mr. Ignatieff has to offer more specifics on how he is different from Mr. Harper and what a Liberal government would offer Canadians. “Embarrassing the government is what the Libs are all about. Offering alternatives in the form of good governing is non-existent,” said one life-long grass-roots Liberal.

“Ignatieff hasn’t unveiled any substance yet and until he does, he can’t move anywhere. As such, Harper is the only game in town,” said one senior insider. “Saying that what the government is doing is bad won’t change anyone’s vote.”

Everyone (at least everyone on the Liberal side) hoped that after Michael Ignatieff’s ‘thinking conference’ he would come out with a fresh vision and a new message. Yet since then things have only become more confused. All the dire issues that were talked about at that conference, and the Liberal Party has yet to offer any solutions. Why would anyone support a party that doesn’t have an idea of how to fix problems that the party itself says are the most crucial?

No Michael, no one did a number on you. You did it to yourself.

CTF on the gas tax

The Canadian Taxpayer's Federation raises awareness of how much we are paying in taxes every time we fill up our car.

Funny political ad

Globe & Mail bias on Greek crisis?

Reading the Globe and Mail story on the latest strike in Greece I have to wonder, are they taking the side of the strikers?

The article describes the government cuts as ‘harsh’ three times, and not in quotes either. Also they described the cuts as ‘deep’ and the tax increases as ‘steep.’ It isn’t like these words are really needed to report the story. Here is an article from the BBC on the exact same story without any use of normative adjectives.

Why exactly did the journalist, Elena Becatoros, feel compelled to help the strikers make their case instead of using neutral language? And why exactly didn’t the Globe and Mail editors call Ms. Becatoros on this bias?

Spineless Liberals on Mandatory Minimums

The Liberal Party is contemplating reversing their position on mandatory minimums for growing a small amount of marijuana. Last year they supported the government’s bill to bring in such mandatory minimums, but now they are being more cautious and considering their position carefully. This is good news since neither the NDP nor the BQ supported the bill the first time, and without Liberal support this fundamentally flawed public policy will not see the light of day.

One question that comes to mind is why has the Liberal’s appeared to change their mind?

Perhaps a better question would be why did they support the mandatory minimums in the first place?

For 13 years of government the Liberals had resisted exactly this sort of policy move. In fact under the previous government, marijuana laws were heading in the opposite direction of the current government. The mandatory minimums bill is exactly the sort of law that Liberal Party members, in general, would oppose. So what was behind the Liberal leader’s support for the government? Was Michael Ignatieff taking a bold stand against his own party’s traditional views for an issue he truly believes in?

Nope.

He was bullied into it.

Mr. Ignatieff was afraid that Mr. Harper would call an election and spend a month accusing the Liberals of being “soft on crime.” The Liberal leader abandoned the long stand views of his party not out of principle but out of fear that he could not win the argument.

So what changed? Well there has been an increase in the public scrutiny of not just the cost of the Conservative government’s crime bills but the effectiveness as well. So now the Liberal Party has the political coverage to attack the bill without seeming to be on the side of drug kingpins.

But hang on, isn’t the Liberal Party suppose to be the official opposition? Are they not exactly the people that are supposed to bring questions like cost and effectiveness into the public debate? Isn’t that their constitutional role in our Parliamentary democracy? Aren’t they supposed to be the leaders of opposing government policy rather than the followers?

It isn’t like they didn’t know the arguments against mandatory minimums. All those MPs and MP staff that have spent their lives in politics must have had this debate at least once before. So why couldn’t they muster up the will to oppose the government from the very beginning?

It is because the Liberal Party of Canada, the most successful political party in the history of representative democracy, is completely spineless.

Armageddon Factor good for Harper?

Gerry Nicholls has a point that I didn’t consider, perhaps The Armageddon Factor is good for Stephen Harper. The Armageddon Factor is a book by Marci McDonald that accuses the Harper government of secretly plotting for a theocratic takeover of the state. I haven’t read this book, but everything I’ve heard about it makes me think that it is about as reliable a source as a Michael Moore movie.

Much like Michael Moore, it is meant to scare people. Almost like the Canadian version of Fahrenheit 9-11, this book is painting a picture of a dark and secretive government full of conspiracy. The so-cons are out to get us all. Presumably we secular voters will run away in fear (except I already ran away in fear of his economic policy).

Mr. Nicholls argues that this book will not really scare anyone away. The only people that Marci McDonald is likely to convince are people that already agree with her. For everyone else, the arguments are way too silly to convince anyone neutral.

In fact social conservatives themselves may read this book and suddenly find themselves supporting Stephen Harper, despite the fact that many social conservatives are unhappy with the Harper government. I don’t think they will read the book and sign on to this conspiracy that they have to know doesn’t exist. No they will find themselves supporting Stephen Harper because they dislike the people that hate him.

I am willing to bet that social conservatives who want to read and be angry at it make up the most significant market for this book. They will read it and despise Marci McDonald and like Mr. Harper all the more because Ms. McDonald hates him. Since the Conservatives are the bad guys in the book’s fantasy tale, they will become the good guys in the minds of the so-cons.

Con-Libs to repeal laws

Nick Clegg will announce that he wants to set about repealing laws and wants to empower the public to nominate laws that should be repealed:

He will also accuse the previous government of "obsessive lawmaking" and pledge to "get rid of the unnecessary laws" and "introduce a mechanism to block pointless new criminal offences".

He will also pledge to ask the public "which laws you think should go" as they "tear through the statute book".

Mr. Clegg is absolutely right in describing the Labour government as an obsessive lawmaker. It is truly heartening to see a politician take a good solid look at the criminal code and wonder what should be removed. Such a process will hopefully lead to greater individual liberty.

I have said it before but I’ll say it again, if the Con-Lib coalition makes good on its civil liberty agenda, it will likely be the greatest achievement of this government.

Rand Paul wins primary

Yesterday Rand Paul, the son of Ron Paul, won the Republican primary for the Senate. The news media is portraying him as a Tea Party backed anti-establishment candidate that is giving voice to dissatisfaction. Which is fair enough, but he is also more than that.

Rand Paul as a Senator would bring a message to the halls of Washington that cannot be easily ignored; he will bring a message of free markets and individual liberty.

His father, sadly, has often been isolated or marginalized in the House of Representatives, but as a Senator Rand Paul would be able to wield more influence. And as a much younger man than his father, the possibility of his future career is exciting. Let us hope that Rand Paul takes up the mantle of his father as the voice of reason in US politics.

Granted that he still has a general election to win, but you will excuse me if I get excited and a little gushy. There are not a lot of victories for those of us that believe in individual liberty, and Rand Paul just winning the primary is a victory that we can celebrate.

Coalitions in UK versus Canada

As usual I agree with everything that Andrew Coyne says here. It is entirely plausible to be in favour of the British coalition government and oppose the proposed coalition in Canada a year and a half ago. There are several significant differences:

Canadian Liberals had ruled out coalition with the NDP

The coalition would have replaced a sitting government several months after the election.

The Liberals and NDP would not have controlled Parliament on their own.

I think that it is a mistake for the Conservative Party to sound like they are opposed to coalitions as a principle. Coalition government is a legitimate part of the Westminster system. It is the circumstances that are important.

Intellegencer perpetuates Mike Harris health care myth

In the middle of an article about the debate regarding health care spending priorities, the Intellegencer offers this inconsequential tidbit:

Hudak was part of the Conservative government of Premier Mike Harris, who made sweeping cuts to health care and other sectors.

This is simply not true. Believe me I wish that it was true but it isn’t. Mike Harris increased health care spending over the course of his term. All that Mike Harris did was close a few hospitals that were being underutilized, and yet this myth continues to this day.

Spain's budget cuts are not enough

Spain has taken steps to reduce their budget deficit from 11% of GDP to 6% of GDP by 2011. This is in apparent contradiction to my prediction that the bailout fund would result in a lack of interest for politicians to tackle the financial problems of their country. I do hope that Spain’s austerity measures are indeed the beginning of action but on its own it is not sufficient to deal with the problem.

6% of GDP deficit is not a 0% of GDP deficit. Spain will still be taking on debt if the economy (and thus government revenue) doesn’t improve enough to make up the difference. Even if the Spanish economy does recover soon, the government still needs a strategy to reduce and ultimately eliminate their massive debt.

The BBC appears to believe that the Spanish Prime Minister is bringing forward austerity measures due to pressure from the European Commission. But there is a limit to what the Commission can accomplish to push Spain into real action. All that Spain would have to do is demonstrate that they were taking some measures, even of those measures are not sufficient. Then the Commission’s much lauded ‘soft power’ will lose most of its potency.

With the bailout fund giving economic coverage, Spain’s leaders have less of an incentive to take the political risks of real large scale cutbacks to the welfare state. It remains to be seen if Spain will possess the political will to eliminate the deficit and manage its debt.

I don't care about Helena Guergis and neither does the PM

I don’t generally talk about scandals on this blog. For one thing, everyone does so if someone is interested in such a topic they can easily find it somewhere else and I usually don’t have a unique or interesting perspective on scandal. For another thing scandals are usually a boring and normal by-product of government.

Every government in the history of mankind has had some corruption, it is the nature of the beast (the beast being Humanity). Certainly those that are caught should be punished and publicly shamed but there is no way to stomp it out and no political party is completely innocent. All that we can hope for is that mechanisms can be in place to deal with corruption adequately enough that it doesn’t become rampant or too severe. If you don’t like that you can always join the anarchist league. You can sign up wherever their meetings spontaneously occur.

So I am only interested in scandals if they appear to have wider policy or political repercussions. This Helena Guergis business, however, doesn’t seem to have any legs to it. Polling data shows that the Conservatives aren’t being hurt and the damage is being isolated to a Minister that was pretty useless to begin with. Honestly I think the opposition should just take their victory and move on.

I was motivated to write this blog after reading a column from Stephen Harper’s most inarticulate critic, Tabatha Southey of the Globe & Mail. In her column, much to her own shock, she agrees that Mr. Harper did the right thing by removing Ms. Guergis. She rightly takes the Liberals to task for trying to turn her into a martyr and she writes that Mr. Harper had a right to ‘ruin her life’ because “he also largely made her life. He made her a cabinet minister. That's big.”

Her point appears to be that, in the words of Sir Humphry Appleby, “The Prime Minister giveth and the Prime Minister taketh away, blessed be the name of the Prime Minister,” and every politician worth her/his salt should know this. In a sense this is true but ultimately I don’t think it was the scandal that caused the Prime Minister to taketh. It was her incompetence.

Since the beginning of Stephen Harper’s Premiership, Helena Guergis has been steadily moving down in the ranks. The Prime Minister showed such a consistent lack of faith in her abilities that it is a wonder why he didn’t just ice her before. Except it isn’t a wonder because Helena Guergis is a woman and the media and women’s groups would scream bloody murder if this Prime Minister fired a highly visible woman.

In fact I will go farther and claim the only reason why she was a Minister to begin with is because she is a woman; this gives irony to the complaints of some that she is being treated differently from Maxime Bernier because of her gender. Stephen Harper waited until there would be minimal political cost to getting rid of her, and then got rid of her.

The story of Helena Guergis is much more a story of the failure of identity politics than it is a story of corruption. And I really don’t care about her ultimate fate.

Letter to the Conservative Party of Canada re: Marc Emery

With plans for protests taking place against Marc Emery’s extradition, I thought I would let people know what a friend of mine is planning on doing:

If you are likely to receive fundraising letters from the CPC, feel free to date, print out and sign this letter and mail it to them in their handy, postage-paid envelopes to protest the extradition of Marc Emery and work towards bringing him back to Canada.

Please spread this as widely as you'd like for others to use.

Cheers.

Dear Senator Gerstein,

Thank you for the opportunity to contact the Conservative Party regarding an important issue.

As I'm sure you are aware, this past week Justice Minister Rob Nicholson approved the extradition order for Marc Emery, a Canadian citizen who will now be imprisoned for five years in the United States for the crime of selling marijuana seeds. While Canadian authorities were aware of his seed-selling business, Mr. Emery was suggested as a supplier for medical marijuana patients by Health Canada rather than put behind bars for seed sales.

While Mr. Emery's arrest occurred under the previous Liberal government, I believe that the Conservative government was given an important chance which would have been legally backed by our extradition treaty to deny extradition to the United States based on the overwhelming difference in punishment between countries. As I'm sure you're aware, our Extradition Treaty specifies that crimes must be punishable by sentences of more than one year in both countries but Canada has never imprisoned Mr. Emery for a period of more than three months and not for selling marijuana seeds. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that Mr. Emery's arrest was at least partially political in nature as the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States specifically stated that his arrest was a blow against the marijuana legalization movement in its press release announcing his arrest.

I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative government did not right the wrongs of its Liberal predecessors by asserting Canada's sovereignty in enforcement of drug laws and allowed what appears to be, on some level, a political arrest of a Canadian citizen to lead to years of incarceration in the United States.

Until the Conservatives take measures to mitigate the damage done by extraditing Mr Emery by applying to move him back to Canada - a move to which the Americans are amenable - I will not be donating to the Conservative Party of Canada.

Thank you for your time.

Blue Tory anger at David Cameron

The Telegraph is reporting that the ‘right-wing’ section of the British Conservative Party is unhappy with the Liberal Democrat coalition deal. They have a right to be unhappy, not just with the deal but with the election in general.

David Cameron followed what we would call in Canada a Red Tory strategy (they would say Wet Tory in the UK). Basically he presented a moderate front that is suppose to reach out to people that don’t traditionally vote Conservative. Specifically he was interested in gaining seats in Scotland, a region that is full of anti-Tory sentiment to such a great extent that there is legitimate fear that a Tory government could lead to Scottish separation by its very existence.

In the cause of winning Scottish and ‘moderate voters,’ David Cameron reversed classic Conservative positions on Europe, watered down Conservative economic ideas, and blatantly almost rudely distanced himself from Margaret Thatcher. Really it was a pointless exercise. Scottish Labour Party acted like it was running against Lady Thatcher not Mr. Cameron and the Scottish people voted to keep a neo-Thatcher from coming to power, even though Mr. Cameron is not a neo-Thatcher in any sense. At the same time traditional Tories, that would have wanted Mr. Cameron to defend Lady Thatcher’s legacy, were annoyed at the Conservative leader.

The proof is in the putting. Labour has not been so unpopular in nearly thirty years and yet David Cameron failed to win out right. If it hadn’t been for the unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the tiredness of the Labour government, it is almost certain that David Cameron would have lost.

So the Red Tory strategy fell flat once again and now the Blue Tory (if I can call it that) section of the party has to swallow yet another pill: coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

I posted yesterday that there was some good in the Con-Lib coalition policy agenda. The civil liberty aspects of the deal alone will warm my heart to the new government. Still there are things that have conservatives legitimately irked. The greatest of these is the increase of the capital gains tax, which runs against all conservative economic theory for the last forty years. If David Cameron had tried to raise capital gains tax while holding a majority he would likely have faced a back bencher’s uprising.

Basically Conservative MPs and grassroots are both being told to hang tight for the sake of government. But governing is not the sole cause of a political party; the Conservative Party is more than a mere vehicle for David Cameron to win power. It is also an organization of ideological perspectives with a policy agenda.

Mr. Cameron should keep in mind that there is a limit to how much a leader can ignore that agenda.

Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition policy

The details of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat (Con-Lib) coalition government have been released. Here is a quick analyses of the agreed upon policy.

Deficit:

The Con-Libs plan on immediate action to deal with the budget deficit. They will develop a long term plan that puts the concentrate on spending cuts rather than tax raises. To begin this process they will cut £6 billion in the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

The deficit is by far the most pressing issue facing Britain at the moment. The Labour Party wanted to wait to start cutting back spending. I am happy to see that the new government will be wiser and start dealing with this problem much sooner. This is compromised by their pledge to increase spending in NHS every year. But on general principle it is comforting that they are taking the issue seriously.

Taxes:

The Con-Lib tax policy is a bit of a mixed bag. First of all the good news is that they have agreed to scrap the Labour’s National Insurance increase. This, if you were going to have to raise taxes, would have been among the worse taxes to increase. Also the Con-Libs have committed themselves to raising the personal exemption on income tax.

This is balanced out by the Conservatives backing off from their planned inheritance tax cut and a capital gains tax increase. It is debatable which tax cut is better, the inheritance tax cut or tax exemption increase, so I don’t have a particular problem with that trade off.

Capital gains tax increase, however, is a significant mistake. Economic recoveries are dependent on people making investments. There is little more likely to discourage investment than a higher capital gains tax. Why would people take the risk of investment if they are going to be heavily taxed on the reward?

Banking Reform:

They want to establish a ‘bank levy’ unilaterally. This bank levy is meant to create a reserve that will be drawn upon to fund any future bank bailouts. This would put British banks at a disadvantage in the short term and institutionalize a destructive bailout culture in the long term.

Relations with EU:

They will stay out of the Euro (no kidding) and hold a referendum to approve any new giving up of power to the EU. Both of these are good and reasonable policies. A bill requiring a referendum every 10 years on continued membership with the EU would have been nice to see, but not likely with the Liberal Democrats being so heavily pro-Europe.

Significantly, the Con-Libs will fight for an exemption to the Working Time Directive, which requires all EU countries to place a 45 hour limit on everyone’s work week. Why someone would want to stop someone from voluntarily working more is beyond me. Isn’t hard work something we want to encourage?

Civil Liberty:

This is, for a libertarian, the most exciting area of the Con-Lib policy document. They have committed to pulling back at the encroachments made on civil liberties by the Labour government. They will scrap the ID card, protect the right to a defence of trial by jury, and so much more. They are going to aptly call these proposals the Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.

If they accomplish everything that they say they will in this section, then this would likely be the greatest legacy of the Con-Lib government.

PM hopes you won't read blog on libertarian right

If you think that the Conservative Party’s connection to the religious right is scary, then I have something even more frightening for you: many Conservative Party stalwarts have contacts with LIBERTARIANs!

I know, I know, this is a scary thought. You would prefer to think that libertarians and politics would stay far away from each other. But there is a pattern, in Mr. Harper’s own inner circle, of constant contact with organizations that are affiliated with libertarianism.

For example, just last year Minister Jason Kenney and long time Harper ally Scott Reid were seen at an event put on by the notorious Institute for Liberal Studies. This is an organization created and led by youthful people who are dedicated to their ideological message. Minister Kenney may claim that he has no connection to the organization. But he talked to them! Come on that has to mean something! Conspiracy is clearly going on here.

This is not the only connection. Mr. Harper’s former Chief of Staff has been known to speak at events put on by the Fraser Institute. And everyone knows that the Fraser Institute is a front for free market radicals. Once again the Conservatives might claim a distance from this organization but go to a Fraser Institute event and find out how many people there have ever been members of the Conservative Party. If you go to a Fraser Institute ‘student seminar’ you will likely find at least one member of a conservative provincial youth wing. What more evidence do you need? You can clearly connect plenty of doubts to show that Harper’s hidden agenda is not so hidden.

Now don’t worry, Mr. Harper’s political survival instincts dominate all considerations. So he knows that he cannot be too openly libertarian. Yet a free market policy agenda is advancing so incrementally, almost nobody notices.

Conservative liberalization of the telecommunications industry seemed like common sense. Also lowering corporate taxes sounded like a darn fine idea. Apparently these were celebrated by libertarians as signs of political triumph. For conspiracy theorists looking for hints of a libertarian takeover, this presents the Prime Minister's Office as the grassy knoll.

Many percolating issues suggest libertarian influence is gaining traction in policy. It can be argued that the important wall between libertarianism and federal politics has become so porous it's crumbling.

If this budding culture war flattens the Liberals in the next election, perhaps this is a glimpse at the operating manual of a majority Conservative government.

(Does this make no sense to you? It doesn’t to me either. So stop your pointless fear mongering about people who are religious advocating their views. All perspectives should be welcomed in any meaningful political debate.)

Ford to bring home the pork

Candidate for Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford boasted that he has connections in the federal government. He claims that this makes it easier for him to get pork from the Federal government than it is for the other candidates. Of course he didn’t call it pork but that’s what he is talking about. If you want more federal funding, Rob Ford is your man.

I find this very disappointing. Mr. Ford is supposed to be the fiscal conservative of the race. Bragging that you can get more federal funding than any other possible mayor does not strike me as something a fiscal conservative would do. He, and the other candidates, should be focused on how Toronto can take responsibility for its finances. Not talking about ways of get tax dollars from elsewhere.

It is the economy stupid/Ignatieff

Bruce Anderson, at the Globe and Mail, comments that the Liberals don’t seem to be anywhere on the economy. I would say that he has a point. It has been a while since I remember Mr. Ignatieff making a statement on the deficit, recession, debt, or any other economic issues. For the leader of the opposition it has all been scandal and outrage. This is bizarre considering that the economy is clearly the most important issue of the day, not the antics of a now dismissed Minister’s spouse.

In an effort to produce a positive message, the Liberals are now pushing for an emergency debate on MS. They want to fund a new possible treatment. I fail to see how MS constitutes an emergency (at least for the Parliament and Government of Canada), and I also fail to see what the opposition will gain by pushing this issue in this manner. It is certainly interesting and relevant that there are new possibilities for those suffering from MS, but how is this an issue that has to be pushed hard in the House of Commons? Is Mr. Ignatieff trying to politicize MS?

This is all particularly absurd because the decision to fund specific procedures is a Provincial competency not a Federal decision. So the Liberals are pushing for an emergency debate on an issue that is not an emergency, not within the Federal jurisdiction, and offers no clear political advantage.

I think I can guess the general attitude in the PMO towards Mr. Ignatieff:
With enemies like these, who needs friends?

The Census is useless for calculating demand

Census surveys are meant to aid the government in calculating how much services a particular area requires. This, however, is a fallacy. You can’t find out how many people are going to be sick or require bus services simply by counting them. Nor can you effectively do it by finding out their demographics. There is only one way to know how much of something a community needs: the price of that something in a free and open market.

Read this Freeman article for a full explanation.

EU emergency fund is just putting off the inevitable

On Saturday German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Stephen Harper gave good advice to the industrial world, reign in your debt. Debt is a burden on every national economy and has nearly resulted in the collapse of Greece. The huge debt of these democratic societies is mostly due to ever growing welfare demands and putting off difficult decisions to a future date.

This seems to be the pattern everywhere. There is an almost universal lack of political will to make necessary cuts to ensure long term financial stability. Cuts are inevitable; eventually governments will run out of money, as Greece did. It is only a matter of time and the sooner something is done the better off everyone will be.

Sadly the Eurozone countries have not learned that lesson. They have taken measures not to enforce spending cuts and debt repayments, but to allow countries to continue to put off those tough decisions.

Yesterday it was agreed by Eurozone countries to create an emergency fund of a substantial amount of cash that is meant to prevent another Greek crisis. The problem is that now every government knows that this fund is there. Countries with shaky finances will be under less pressure to put their books in order.

Putting aside the morality of forcing taxpayers of one country to pay the debts of another country, this fund will not solve anything. All it will do is kick the need to reform down the road a little farther.

Europe should take the advice of Ms. Merkel and Mr. Harper and deal with the debt problem now, in a real substantial manner. Otherwise we will all be Greeks.

Plains of Abraham and Separatist whining

Separatists in Quebec are doing what they do best, complaining. This time they are, once again, complaining about a music festival that is taking place on the Plains of Abraham. They are claiming that the festival represents Anglophone culture and that taxpayer money should only be used to promote Francophone culture. Really this problem could be solved by the government not promoting any culture at all. That way if anyone wants to put on a French concert they can do it with their own money, but I admit that wasn’t the first thought that came to mind.

The first thought I had when I was reading the list of bands was that I really wish I could go: Iron Maiden, the Black Eyed Peas, Rush, Arcade Fire, Santana, Billy Talent and Rammstein. It sounds like an awesome time.

When I showed the list to my girlfriend she looked puzzled for a moment and said, “Isn’t Rammstein German?” A quick Wikipedia search proved that yes, Rammstein is indeed a German band.

So why aren’t the separatists afraid of promoting German culture? Could it be that the bands were not picked based on where they came from but because they are good? Could it be that the organizers wanted to attract the largest crowd and the most tourism that they could? Why are separatists so hostile to this?

This underlines the basic assumption of these ethno-nationalists. It doesn’t matter how good you are or how many people enjoy your music; if you are not one of them you are fundamentally bad.

Electoral reform in UK will not lead to reform in Canada

John Ibbitson at the Globe and Mail is excited about the prospect of electoral reform in the UK because he thinks that it will lead to reform in Canada. He is right that due to the hung Parliament, debate about the electoral system is likely to take place in the UK, but he is getting ahead of himself. All that is being proposed is a referendum and it is very uncertain what reforms will be included in the referendum. It is even less certain how the British people will vote.

But really that isn’t the problem with Mr. Ibbitson’s column. The problem is that, as he himself points out, Canadians have had plenty of opportunity to change their electoral system. In fact British Columbia did change their system for two elections, but then changed it back. Electoral reform is not something that has proven very popular with the people. So why does Mr. Ibbitson think that Great Britain would lead the way for Canada?

It isn’t like we don’t have examples of how electoral change works in a Westminster context. In Ontario’s 2007 electoral reform referendum the example of New Zealand was repeatedly used by proponents for change. New Zealand is an apt example, not because it shows how change is good, but because it shows the danger of reform. The fact that there is now a movement to bring back ‘first-past-the-post’ in New Zealand should give both UK and Canadian reformers pause.

The reality is that the movement for electoral change in Canada was given its shot and they failed to convince. Nothing that will happen in Britain will change that.

Bronte Sisters Power Up!

Lib-Dem supported Conservative minority most stable option for UK

The preliminary stages of negotiation between political parties are taking place to form a government in the UK’s new hung Parliament. There is a great deal of discussion going on in the media about how the Labour Party could possibly form a government. But the numbers are not kind to the Labour Party. They need 326 MPs to support their government and they have 258.

Labour would certainly need the Liberal Democrats to support them in or out of a coalition. Even with this support, Labour would not have enough to form a majority government. They can rely on the Northern Irish Social Democrat and Labour Party, but that party does not bring a lot of support. That will give a Labour government 318 MP’s votes. Labour will have to go farther afield for more support.

The Scottish National Party is a distinct possibility. The two parties are dedicated opponents in Scotland but they have much in common ideologically. Depending on what the SNP can get out of the deal they may be willing to bring their 6 MPs into the fold. A similar deal could be worked out with the Welch nationalist party, the Plaid Cymru (with 3 MPs). That brings up their support to 327.

This would give Labour 1 more than the minimum they need to control the House. But if only 2 MPs from any of these 5 parties revolts they will not be able to pass legislation. For the sake of security they will have to consider getting further support. The Green Party will give Labour 328, but that is still extremely precarious. The hypothetical Labour government would likely have to look at one of the two main Irish parties for support.

The Irish parties Sinn Fein and Democratic Unionist Party are a tricky issue. Considering the ongoing violence and instability, the government in Westminster would be wise to keep a light and neutral touch in regards to Northern Ireland. Still, Labour may be desperate. They could either ally with the nationalist Sinn Fein for 4 votes or the protestant Democratic Unionist Party for 8 votes. This brings them up to either 328 or 332.

What we have now is an unsteady grouping of 5 to 7 parties. Some will possibly be in coalition but most will merely be pledged supporters. But all of them would have to be relied on for every vote in Parliament.

The alternative would be a Conservative minority government supported by the Liberal Democratic Party. That is all that the Conservatives would need to be assured of the support of Parliament, and with only 2 parties involved it would lead to a much more stable government.

UK election 2010: a clear case for an English legislature

The will of the English people is clear in the 2010 election. The Conservatives have won a solid majority of seats at 56% of the total seat distribution. The British results, however, is much different.

After all the votes have been counted, the UK-wide election result has meant a Conservative dominated hung Parliament with the Tories earning only 46% of the seats. This, theoretically, should not be an issue. It is not uncommon for a political party to do well in one region and do poorly in another region. It is an issue because of the current structure of the British constitution.

In the UK there are four legislatures. There are regional legislatures in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Then there is the national legislature in Westminster. The problem is that England does not have its own legislature. Policy decisions that are made for Scotland in the Scottish legislature are made for England in the national legislator. This has non-English MPs voting on issues that only affect England.

England elected the Conservative Party and presumably endorses Conservative policy in English matters, such as education. But with a hung Parliament, such policies will be subjected to compromise with a Labour Party that is largely propped up by Scottish and Welch MPs. It is even possible, though unlikely, that the Labour Party will be able to continue to govern.

Presuming that the goal is to correct this problem and keep the United Kingdom together, the only solution is to create an English legislature. With an English legislature, with roughly the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, English voters would be able to elect a government that will be more representative of their preferences on solely English matters. Westminster can then be free to deal with the policy areas that are purely national.

Nigel Farage defeated

Former leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, a small government Eurosceptic party, has been solidly defeated. Nigel Farage came in third recieving 17.4% of the vote. It would have been nice to have him to balance the newly elected Green Party member.

UK should be cautious about electoral reform

With everything still uncertain in Westminster the clear loser of the 2010 UK election is the electoral system. The Labour Party received the lowest percentage of votes since 1983, yet they still have a chance to hold on to power. The Conservative Party actually has more votes than Labour did in 2005, yet they are facing a hung Parliament and Labour won a majority in 2005. Also the Liberal Democrats have received the largest percentage of support in their history, but they lost seats. Clearly there is something screwy going on here.

Just a few moments ago Gordon Brown made a statement in which he said, among other things, that he is completely committed to holding a referendum on electoral reform. This may be an attempt to carry favour with the Liberal Democrats, but it is also consistent with what he has been saying throughout the campaign. At the same time the Liberal Democrats are likely to demand such a referendum if they are to support a Conservative minority government. So it seems probable that debate on electoral reform is about to move from the back burner in British politics.

But before they throw out the current system, the system that has made the United Kingdom the most stable country in the world for over 200 years, politicians and voters should consider what is good about their system. Change may be needed but would a proportional system be a good fit for the UK? Perhaps a run off or preferential system would fit in better with British institutions? Or maybe an elected House of Lords would provide a needed balance?

There are a number of possibilities and the UK should not run head long into any major changes without careful consideration.

Liberal gun registry advert is good but not good enough

The Liberal Party yesterday released a video that is meant to convince rural Canadians that they have the best position on the gun registry:



Despite the controversy around the stock photo of the police officer, this is perhaps the best advert I have seen from the Liberal Party in a long time. The message is a strong one that takes Mr. Harper on in his own ‘law and order’ turf. At the same time it tries to convince rural voters that they have the solution to the gun registry’s problems. Also the simplicity of the style adds strength to the message.

I doubt, however, that this would be enough to convince rural voters. The issue of the gun registry has become a symbol in many people’s minds; a rural versus urban clash of lifestyle. Note that this advert credits ‘rural MPs’ with coming up with the ‘solution.’ This appears to be an attempt to tie their trousers to the anchor and keep them from voting against the Liberal position. Rural Liberals fear this issue because they know that it is an electoral loser for them.

All that rural voters are going to be able to hear is that the Liberals support the gun registry.

For the record I was wrong on the UK 2010 election

In March I predicted a Labour dominated hung Parliament. My prediction was based on the premise that David Cameron is annoying his own base. I don't think I was wrong on that but I did underestimate the unpopularity Gordon Brown. It is not so much that David Cameron won as it is that Gordon Brown lost.

I'm going to write a more full blog post on my analyses of the election once all the results are in.

Green Party victory in UK no big deal

The Green Party leader won her party’s first seat in yesterday’s British election. The MP elect, Caroline Lewis, characterized it as being a historic moment. Really it is nothing but a blip on the electoral map. There are plenty of small parties in Westminster that compete for attention.

Furthermore there has been no great ground swell of support for the Green Party. The Green Party increased their vote from the 2005 election by a mere 5 000 UK wide. It is doubtful that they represent a new force in British politics.

No new dawn for the Liberal Democrats

A few weeks ago I wrote that the Liberal Democrats could be experiencing a new dawn. With around 40 seats not yet declared, it is pretty obvious that new dawn has not come. The national flirtation with this old yet untested party has come to not.

I'm not sure what exactly happened here. It seems that people were more interested in another option than they were in Nick Clegg or his policies.

Mandatory minimums and a lack of basic common sense

The government is reintroducing its mandatory minimum sentencing for cannabis growers. NDP Libby Davis hits the nail on the head:

New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, a vocal opponent of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, warned Wednesday that mandatory terms for drug crimes will cost billions because they will "clog up" the prison system.

Moreover, Nicholson has refused to supply any evidence that mandatory minimums deter crime, she said.

"He could not offer anything," said Davies. "This approach that they're running with is based on this U.S. experience that has been a colossal failure both politically, economically, and from a justice point of view. Why would we be crazy enough to repeat that in Canada?"

Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work.

In my graduate program at the University of Edinburgh they talk a lot about the importance of policy learning. This is the process by which politicians or officials take ideas that are of interest in other jurisdictions, study it, discern its successes and failures, then try and apply its lessons to their own jurisdiction. It is a method that is full of potential and pitfalls, but it is something that anyone who is interested in public policy should be active in.

This appears to be what the federal government has done: Looked at a policy in another jurisdiction, discovered that it did not work, and then decided to apply it anyway.

It doesn’t matter if you are pro legalization of pot or not. This is something that goes beyond the issue of drugs and society. This is about basic common sense. This policy does not work; all data show that it does not work. And the government has provided no evidence to the contrary. So why in the name of whatever you find holy is the government going ahead with this plan?

Minister Nicholson says that this policy will "send a message" that "if you sell or produce drugs, you'll pay with jail time."

Personally I think it sends the message that government policy and basic logic is not on speaking terms.

And now a good thing about Stephen Harper

I don't say a lot of nice things about Prime Minister Harper. So when the opportunity to do so comes up I really should take it.

I am glad that Stephen Harper is refusing to go along with this idiotic idea of a bank levy.

UK voters take note of the Greek crisis

History is being made today in both the United Kingdom and in Greece. In the UK the British people are preparing to vote in what is being characterized as the closest race in decades. Indeed it has been an interesting race to watch, but it is not the rise of the Liberal Democrats or the prospect of a hung Parliament that makes this race important. It is the burden and responsibility that the next government is going to have to take on.

British finances are in shambles and the debt is going to act like an anvil on their economy. No political party, with the exception of the UKIP, have a real plan to deal with the deficit. Each party claims that they will cut but at the same time provides long lists of things that they will not cut. There appears to be realization that something has to be done but no political will to do anything.

The reason this is important can be observed in what is perhaps the more important event: the Greek Parliament is going to vote on the ‘austerity measures’ aimed at rescuing Greek finances.
In one way the proposed cuts are drastic in another way they are extremely modest. The plan is to cut the deficit down to 3% of the economy from 13.6%. Note that they do not have a plan to have a surplus; they merely hope to have a smaller deficit in four years. The Greek government, even with the proposed bailout, is unwilling or unable to take on the real core problems of their fiscal finances.

I can actually understand their perspective. The austerity measures have not even been voted on yet and there have already been riots with fatalities. You would hope that those deaths would cool the hot heads, but unions and the Communist Party are still planning on bringing the country to a standstill with protests and strikes.

It is hard to escape the feeling that Greece is descending into chaos. The government is trying to scratch out the bare minimum that it would need to do to save Greece from complete collapse. But the large unions and other interest groups refuse to do their part. It seems that they would rather watch Greece burn than retire at 63.

So I hope that the voters and politicians of the UK have taken note of what is happening in Greece. And I hope that they remember it when they make their decisions today, and their decisions in the future.

Video on Capital Gains tax

National Post gets it wrong on Greek bailout

The National Post published an article that is intended to explain why Greece needs to be bailed out. The author poses a series of questions and then answers them. One of the questions asked is the most important question of the whole issue:

How long are we going to keep bailing these guys out? What's the incentive for them not to just keep on borrowing too much?

The premise of this question is the fundamental problem with any bailout. At what point does it end? Once you take away most of the cost of being irresponsible, the tendency is to be irresponsible. So at what point should the government, and we the taxpayers, demand a stop to it?

Unfortunately the National Post’s answer falls short:

Good point. But that line of reasoning will probably not get us to a bailout for Greece, which is where we need to be. Unfortunately, there's no easy answer to this problem because either way there are painful potential consequences to deal with. It's just that they're a lot less painful if we go with the bailout

That line of reasoning will indeed not get us to a bailout, but it should not be so easily dismissed. The bailout of Greece is going to create a precedent in the EU that will haunt or benefit them for decades if not centuries. The National Post should not be looking purely at the short term but should be taking a longer view of the problem.

Yes in the short term a bailout of Greece will likely be the least painful option. But that ignores the long term affects and the incentives that it creates.

First, the long term results in Greece will ultimately not be beneficial. This crisis has happened to begin with because the leaders of Greece have been unwilling to handle the political cost of significant cut backs. If they are bailed out then the pressure to deal with the problem will be lessened and the politicians will continue to avoid making real cuts. In another ten years, or the next major global economic downturn, we will be exactly in the same situation.

Next, there are the long term results in the rest of Europe. Greece is hardly the only country in the EU that is overburdened with debt and deficit. Most EU countries have unsustainable debt. Once Greece is bailed out these EU countries will know that there is a safety net. They would be under less pressure to manage their own finances properly. So what happens if Portugal, Spain, or Italy goes under? How will the IMF or the Eurozone countries bailout these much larger economies?

Bailing out Greece is not the least painful option. It is merely putting off disaster today for a much larger disaster in the future.

John Stossel on Free Trade

I think it is always a good sign when a television program of any sort quotes Bastiat within the first 10 minutes:



watch more