It was interesting to listen to British Columbia's minister of finance, Kevin Falcon, in a recent interview. He has the unenviable task of managing a catastrophe due to the rejection of a tax that would clearly have helped the government manage the substantial growth in demand for government services to come with the fundamental demographic shifts due to aging baby boomers and low birth rates among the younger generation. Instead of lamenting the failure on the revenue side, he has framed the outcome as a political message to manage spending better (read spend less and cut waste). This is certainly not the case and the referendum outcome should not be taken as a mandate for anything except a rejection of government stupidity and arrogance. However, smart politicians try to control the message rather than be controlled by it. Sound bites are important. Narrative is critical.
There have even been suggestions that government unions which supported the anti--tax forces may be hoisted on their own petard. This is perfectly true. How can you seek substantial wage and benefits when there is no increase in revenues to pay for it? With a tax like the HST, the government could easily equate an increase in cost pressures with an increase in the tax.
Give the public the option -- we can pay for this, but it will mean x% increase in the HST. It would have been nice, but it is history now. Let's move on.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, September 9, 2011
Managing the narrative (or at least attempting to)
It was interesting to listen to British Columbia's minister of finance, Kevin Falcon, in a recent interview. He has the unenviable task of managing a catastrophe due to the rejection of a tax that would clearly have helped the government manage the substantial growth in demand for government services to come with the fundamental demographic shifts due to aging baby boomers and low birth rates among the younger generation. Instead of lamenting the failure on the revenue side, he has framed the outcome as a political message to manage spending better (read spend less and cut waste). This is certainly not the case and the referendum outcome should not be taken as a mandate for anything except a rejection of government stupidity and arrogance. However, smart politicians try to control the message rather than be controlled by it. Sound bites are important. Narrative is critical.
There have even been suggestions that government unions which supported the anti--tax forces may be hoisted on their own petard. This is perfectly true. How can you seek substantial wage and benefits when there is no increase in revenues to pay for it? With a tax like the HST, the government could easily equate an increase in cost pressures with an increase in the tax.
Give the public the option -- we can pay for this, but it will mean x% increase in the HST. It would have been nice, but it is history now. Let's move on.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
There have even been suggestions that government unions which supported the anti--tax forces may be hoisted on their own petard. This is perfectly true. How can you seek substantial wage and benefits when there is no increase in revenues to pay for it? With a tax like the HST, the government could easily equate an increase in cost pressures with an increase in the tax.
Give the public the option -- we can pay for this, but it will mean x% increase in the HST. It would have been nice, but it is history now. Let's move on.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Managing the narrative (or at least attempting to)
It was interesting to listen to British Columbia's minister of finance, Kevin Falcon, in a recent interview. He has the unenviable task of managing a catastrophe due to the rejection of a tax that would clearly have helped the government manage the substantial growth in demand for government services to come with the fundamental demographic shifts due to aging baby boomers and low birth rates among the younger generation. Instead of lamenting the failure on the revenue side, he has framed the outcome as a political message to manage spending better (read spend less and cut waste). This is certainly not the case and the referendum outcome should not be taken as a mandate for anything except a rejection of government stupidity and arrogance. However, smart politicians try to control the message rather than be controlled by it. Sound bites are important. Narrative is critical.
There have even been suggestions that government unions which supported the anti--tax forces may be hoisted on their own petard. This is perfectly true. How can you seek substantial wage and benefits when there is no increase in revenues to pay for it? With a tax like the HST, the government could easily equate an increase in cost pressures with an increase in the tax. Give the public the option -- we can pay for this, but it will mean x% increase in the HST. It would have been nice, but it is history now. Let's move on.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Fuzzy Middle and the NDP
Ideas have consequences and words are approximations for ideas. Canada's 'social democrats'/'democratic socialists'/ NDP/ New Democrats/official opposition/Jack Layton's New Democrats know this well as they consider the tantalizing prospect of political power in this age of celebrity and media ubiquitousness.
I remember once hearing this epithet tossed at a political fence sitter: "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything!" Truer words were never said. And yet political parties are prodded to move to the centre, to straddle the centre in order to achieve political power. What is this centre?
For the most part it is a mushy, barren wasteland where ideas and their application flit from trend to trend, following fickle public opinion. Don't raise taxes opines the public. But don't cut programs. Oh, and spend more on health care! This is the fuzzy middle. Sometimes there are shades of grey, but there is a danger in emphasizing this. Many of the rioters in Vancouver last week probably fell prey to this 'fuzzy middle of shades of grey' as they looted and vandalized the city.
The NDP should hold true to their values. People before profits. Democracy yes, but with a social bent, not a market capitalist bent.
The Conservatives should hold true to their values. Freedom benefits people and markets. Relatively free markets benefit people more than government intervention. There are stark contrasts between the parties.
This is good. What I always despised about the Liberal Party was their fuzziness. 'We believe what you believe. We believe in Canadian values.
We believe in Liberal values." What does this mean?! I hope the NDP doesn't succumb to this Liberal temptation to appease the fuzzy middle.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I remember once hearing this epithet tossed at a political fence sitter: "He who stands for nothing will fall for anything!" Truer words were never said. And yet political parties are prodded to move to the centre, to straddle the centre in order to achieve political power. What is this centre?
For the most part it is a mushy, barren wasteland where ideas and their application flit from trend to trend, following fickle public opinion. Don't raise taxes opines the public. But don't cut programs. Oh, and spend more on health care! This is the fuzzy middle. Sometimes there are shades of grey, but there is a danger in emphasizing this. Many of the rioters in Vancouver last week probably fell prey to this 'fuzzy middle of shades of grey' as they looted and vandalized the city.
The NDP should hold true to their values. People before profits. Democracy yes, but with a social bent, not a market capitalist bent.
The Conservatives should hold true to their values. Freedom benefits people and markets. Relatively free markets benefit people more than government intervention. There are stark contrasts between the parties.
This is good. What I always despised about the Liberal Party was their fuzziness. 'We believe what you believe. We believe in Canadian values.
We believe in Liberal values." What does this mean?! I hope the NDP doesn't succumb to this Liberal temptation to appease the fuzzy middle.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, June 3, 2011
Please redirect to my old blog
I have revived my old original blog
Future posts will be at this site. I would encourage you to bookmark it.
Future posts will be at this site. I would encourage you to bookmark it.
Representation by Population and Quebec
Quebec is complaining about changes to the makeup of parliament that will reflect population growth in Ontario and the West by giving additional seats to these areas (17 to Ontario, 7 to BC and 5 to Alberta). Today in the Globe and Mail
Well, if you had wanted to fight this battle, you should have elected Conservatives and so had a say in government. You chose to be out of the loop and so you must bear your fate.
Unfortunately, seats cannot be taken away from regions of stagnant or declining population, so our parliament will simply have to grow and grow. Oh God! If provinces and regions want to maintain or increase their presence in parliament, then they need to get their house in order and attract more people nor have more babies.
Look at the present situation. The government is simply adjusting things to make underrepresented provinces more fairly represented.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population
And further ... very interesting reading on population growth statistics from Statistics Canada:
Provincial and territorial projections
Ontario and British Columbia are the only provinces in which average annual growth would exceed the growth rate for Canada as a whole between 2009 and 2036, according to all scenarios.
Ontario's population would increase from nearly 13.1 million in 2009 to between 16.1 million and 19.4 million in 2036, depending on the scenario. Under the medium-growth scenario, it would account for 40.5% of the national population in 2036, up from 38.7% in 2009.
The population of British Columbia would increase from nearly 4.5 million in 2009 to between 5.8 million and 7.1 million in 2036. Under the medium-growth scenario, its share of Canada's total population would rise from 13.2% to 14.5%.
Quebec would remain the second most populous province. Its population would rise from 7.8 million in 2009 to between 8.6 million and 10.0 million in 2036.
Under the lowest-growth scenario, Newfoundland and Labrador's population would decline from 508,900 in 2009 to 483,400 in 2036. Under the highest-growth scenario, it would rise to 544,500.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100526/dq100526b-eng.htm
So, what do slow growing regions propose? Do we punish faster growing regions by not allowing their political representation to reflect this? Do we change the Senate to provide regional population or abolish it?
Very interesting dynamics at play here. The NDP in BC approves of the changes. Where does Smiling Jack stand? Ah, such a balanced and delicate dance is required when you have a sizeable number of MPs from Quebec!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Well, if you had wanted to fight this battle, you should have elected Conservatives and so had a say in government. You chose to be out of the loop and so you must bear your fate.
Unfortunately, seats cannot be taken away from regions of stagnant or declining population, so our parliament will simply have to grow and grow. Oh God! If provinces and regions want to maintain or increase their presence in parliament, then they need to get their house in order and attract more people nor have more babies.
Look at the present situation. The government is simply adjusting things to make underrepresented provinces more fairly represented.
| Province | Percent of National Population | Percent of Parliament | under/over representation | |
| | | | | |
| | 38.7 | 34.4 | under | |
| | 23.2 | 24.4 | over | |
| BC | 13.3 | 11.7 | under | |
| | 10.9 | 9.1 | under | |
| | 3.7 | 4.5 | over | |
| | 3.1 | 4.5 | over | |
| | 2.8 | 3.6 | over | |
| | 2.3 | 3.2 | over | |
| | 1.5 | 2.3 | over | |
| | 0.4 | 1.3 | over | |
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population
And further ... very interesting reading on population growth statistics from Statistics Canada:
Provincial and territorial projections
Ontario and British Columbia are the only provinces in which average annual growth would exceed the growth rate for Canada as a whole between 2009 and 2036, according to all scenarios.
Ontario's population would increase from nearly 13.1 million in 2009 to between 16.1 million and 19.4 million in 2036, depending on the scenario. Under the medium-growth scenario, it would account for 40.5% of the national population in 2036, up from 38.7% in 2009.
The population of British Columbia would increase from nearly 4.5 million in 2009 to between 5.8 million and 7.1 million in 2036. Under the medium-growth scenario, its share of Canada's total population would rise from 13.2% to 14.5%.
Quebec would remain the second most populous province. Its population would rise from 7.8 million in 2009 to between 8.6 million and 10.0 million in 2036.
Under the lowest-growth scenario, Newfoundland and Labrador's population would decline from 508,900 in 2009 to 483,400 in 2036. Under the highest-growth scenario, it would rise to 544,500.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100526/dq100526b-eng.htm
So, what do slow growing regions propose? Do we punish faster growing regions by not allowing their political representation to reflect this? Do we change the Senate to provide regional population or abolish it?
Very interesting dynamics at play here. The NDP in BC approves of the changes. Where does Smiling Jack stand? Ah, such a balanced and delicate dance is required when you have a sizeable number of MPs from Quebec!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Theodore Dalrymple
I first encountered this trenchant critic of contemporary culture a couple of years ago when I read his book
Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses.
His scathing commentary on modern Western society didn't surprise me altogether, but the way he
wrote it and his supporting examples were astonishing. He has been called a modern George Orwell.
I highly recommend reading some of his essays. There are some good websites about him and lots of his stuff is available on the internet.
Here are some good links:
The Skeptical Doctor (Dedicated to the work of Theodore Dalrymple)
Life at the Bottom (Dalrymple's 2003 book available free online via City Journal)
CBC Ideas Interview (An interview with Dalrymple from 2006)
Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses.
His scathing commentary on modern Western society didn't surprise me altogether, but the way he
wrote it and his supporting examples were astonishing. He has been called a modern George Orwell.
I highly recommend reading some of his essays. There are some good websites about him and lots of his stuff is available on the internet.
Here are some good links:
The Skeptical Doctor (Dedicated to the work of Theodore Dalrymple)
Life at the Bottom (Dalrymple's 2003 book available free online via City Journal)
CBC Ideas Interview (An interview with Dalrymple from 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)