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)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Whither Canada?
Wither Canada?
We are in a relatively good place right now in comparison with other nations in the world, but putting national policy on cruise control is always a dangerous move. Federally at the moment the choice is quite clear between the 'right' and the 'left'. The Conservatives and the NDP have starkly contrasting visions of where they want to take Canada.
An interesting way to look at this is to compare nations based on the amount of government expenditure as a percentage of GDP and their tax burden as a percentage of GDP. The numbers should be somewhat similar, otherwise there will be a serious shortfall. (See Greece and Britain)
Former NDP MP Tony Martin looks back on his time in Ottawa.
I thought we had a real chance at a progressive government in the fall and winter of 2008-2009 – the coalition. For me, the lowlight was not being able to achieve that. I thought we had a chance to achieve a progressive government that would have allowed us to do a whole bunch of things, including working on the reduction of poverty. The government we have has no interest in doing anything about poverty. The lowlight was we didn’t achieve it and that the Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out.
Do not be fooled. You cannot say they haven't indicated whither they will take us.
Some samples (this is taken from OECD stats) for 2011:
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11
Right now I would estimate the OECD average to be about 42%, but I need to do a little number crunching. Two important points to consider:
1. Know your competition. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong must keep their taxes and government spending similar to compete, as must
South Korea and Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and America.
It makes no sense to say we must compete with the likes of China or Taiwan, but we must remember they are breathing down our necks.
2. In public policy, one establishes models (stated or unstated). Governments can move their expenditure and tax numbers up or down over time, depending on different factors. Canada right now, at about 40% government spending is in a comfortable spot for many (but not the hard core libertarians). I can live with this. The problem is that demographic forces will cause this to grow (as it will in many other nations) unless we re-allocate spending.
Here, we must be careful. If the feds cut, but provinces make up the difference by increased spending, then we gain nothing. And the fastest growing bit of government in North America in recent years has been the one most off the radar (except the radar of the public sector unions) has been local government. How much do your local city and school board administrators make these days? How much has the staffing size and costs increased in recent years. It doesn't make headlines, but it should.
Now back to Jack. The darling of the NDP for oh so many years has been the lovely social democratic country of Sweden, where the government cares for your from cradle to grave, where daycare is free, retirement is comfortable (and health care is a mix of public and private services!). In Sweden, government spending is 52.5% of GDP. Taxes are 47.9%. And these will grow in coming years. For Canada to get here, our total taxes would have to rise by 49% and government spending by 32%. I guess the only comfort is that the NDP mainstream has quietly written off Cuba
(78% government expenditure)! Maybe the NDP equivocates and claims that Sweden isn't their only model. The other Scandinavian countries are similar in government spending: Denmark 51.8%, Netherlands 45.9, Finland 49.5%. Norway is the exception, but their numbers are distorted by their immense North Sea oil revenues.
Some things to consider in coming years. Do you want more government in your life? Do you want more taxes? This is what Jack Layton said in response to the recent federal cabinet appointments. His priorities are:
Making life more affordable for ordinary Canadians
More health care
Better Retirement security
Family supporting jobs (?!)
It is nice to say, but it must be squared with the reality of the situation. Look at the stats. Compare countries. Remember demographics.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
We are in a relatively good place right now in comparison with other nations in the world, but putting national policy on cruise control is always a dangerous move. Federally at the moment the choice is quite clear between the 'right' and the 'left'. The Conservatives and the NDP have starkly contrasting visions of where they want to take Canada.
An interesting way to look at this is to compare nations based on the amount of government expenditure as a percentage of GDP and their tax burden as a percentage of GDP. The numbers should be somewhat similar, otherwise there will be a serious shortfall. (See Greece and Britain)
Former NDP MP Tony Martin looks back on his time in Ottawa.
I thought we had a real chance at a progressive government in the fall and winter of 2008-2009 – the coalition. For me, the lowlight was not being able to achieve that. I thought we had a chance to achieve a progressive government that would have allowed us to do a whole bunch of things, including working on the reduction of poverty. The government we have has no interest in doing anything about poverty. The lowlight was we didn’t achieve it and that the Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out.
Do not be fooled. You cannot say they haven't indicated whither they will take us.
Some samples (this is taken from OECD stats) for 2011:
| Country | Gov’t Tax Burden % of GDP | Gov’t Expenditure % of GDP |
| | | |
| | 26.1 | 24.7 |
| | 30.8 | 34.3 |
| | 42.9 | 49.0 |
| | 46.5 | 50.0 |
| Brazi | l 34.4 | 41.0 |
| | 32.2 | 39.7 |
| | 18.6 | 21.1 |
| | 18.0 | 20.8 |
| | 41.2 | 78.1 |
| | 36.2 | 42.9 |
| | 49.0 | 51.8 |
| | 43.2 | 49.5 |
| | 44.6 | 52.8 |
| | 40.6 | 43.7 |
| | 35.1 | 46.8 |
| | 13.0 | 18.6 |
| | 33.5 | 42.9 |
| | 43.1 | 48.8 |
| | 28.3 | 37.1 |
| | 15.3 | 26.3 |
| | 8.2 | 23.7 |
| | 39. | 8 45.9 |
| | 34.5 | 41.1 |
| | 42.1 | 40.2 |
| | 14.2 | 17.0 |
| | 26.6 | 30.0 |
| | 33.9 | 41.1 |
| | 47.9 | 52.5 |
| | 29.4 | 32.0 |
| | 12.9 | 18.5 |
| | 38.9 | 47.3 |
| US | 26.9 | 38.9 |
| | | |
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11
Right now I would estimate the OECD average to be about 42%, but I need to do a little number crunching. Two important points to consider:
1. Know your competition. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong must keep their taxes and government spending similar to compete, as must
South Korea and Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and America.
It makes no sense to say we must compete with the likes of China or Taiwan, but we must remember they are breathing down our necks.
2. In public policy, one establishes models (stated or unstated). Governments can move their expenditure and tax numbers up or down over time, depending on different factors. Canada right now, at about 40% government spending is in a comfortable spot for many (but not the hard core libertarians). I can live with this. The problem is that demographic forces will cause this to grow (as it will in many other nations) unless we re-allocate spending.
Here, we must be careful. If the feds cut, but provinces make up the difference by increased spending, then we gain nothing. And the fastest growing bit of government in North America in recent years has been the one most off the radar (except the radar of the public sector unions) has been local government. How much do your local city and school board administrators make these days? How much has the staffing size and costs increased in recent years. It doesn't make headlines, but it should.
Now back to Jack. The darling of the NDP for oh so many years has been the lovely social democratic country of Sweden, where the government cares for your from cradle to grave, where daycare is free, retirement is comfortable (and health care is a mix of public and private services!). In Sweden, government spending is 52.5% of GDP. Taxes are 47.9%. And these will grow in coming years. For Canada to get here, our total taxes would have to rise by 49% and government spending by 32%. I guess the only comfort is that the NDP mainstream has quietly written off Cuba
(78% government expenditure)! Maybe the NDP equivocates and claims that Sweden isn't their only model. The other Scandinavian countries are similar in government spending: Denmark 51.8%, Netherlands 45.9, Finland 49.5%. Norway is the exception, but their numbers are distorted by their immense North Sea oil revenues.
Some things to consider in coming years. Do you want more government in your life? Do you want more taxes? This is what Jack Layton said in response to the recent federal cabinet appointments. His priorities are:
Making life more affordable for ordinary Canadians
More health care
Better Retirement security
Family supporting jobs (?!)
It is nice to say, but it must be squared with the reality of the situation. Look at the stats. Compare countries. Remember demographics.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Libertarians of Canada despair!
Libertarians of Canada despair! Where is less government in our lives when the size of cabinet grows? When the senate grows? One thing Jack Layton and I may agree with is the need to abolish the senate as I doubt it will ever be seriously reformed. In power, even Smilin' Jack could succumb to the temptation of rewarding cronies with a senate seat. (The argument then would be "Quebec won't agree to abolishment. It's all constitutional."
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Elevate the common man, reject the elites.
The late William F. Buckley, one of the founders of the modern conservative movement in America once said: "I'd rather be governed by the first 2000 people of the Boston telephone directory than the faculty of Harvard." He thus placed his greater political faith in ordinary people (the demos) than in the elites. This makes for an interesting consideration. How many people in Canada today would agree with Buckley? Certainly, our recent rejection of a Harvard scholar for prime minister reflected in part an anti-intellectual bias. But he was just one scholar. Had it been the whole faculty of Harvard (or U of T -- McGill is now suspect), how would we have chosen?
In the recent book First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea
the author, Paul Woodruff lambastes America's political failings, holding up seven ideals of democracy that ancient Athens exemplified.
1. Freedom from tyranny.
2. Harmony
3. The rule of law.
4. Natural equality
5. Citizen wisdom
6. Reasoning without knowledge
7. Education (paideia)
I highly recommend the book. Woodruff looks more favorably upon parliamentary democracies like Canada than he does upon America. He is a great fan of proportional representations and other political modifications that bring political systems more in line with his 7 ideals.
All these ideals strongly conflict with rule by elites. The very success of Athenian democracy was founded on a rejection of rule by elites, who had become tyrants. Elites come to believe they know better than the common man. (This is the disease that plagues the Liberal house now.)
Woodruff recommends the creation of something like the ancient Greek assembly whereby citizens were chosen at random (like a jury) to debate and vote on issues of governance. I rather like this idea as a replacement for our current senate. This council of 500 founded on IT and social media could re-inject the public spirit into the political process that we need in Canada.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
In the recent book First Democracy: The Challenge of an Ancient Idea
the author, Paul Woodruff lambastes America's political failings, holding up seven ideals of democracy that ancient Athens exemplified.
1. Freedom from tyranny.
2. Harmony
3. The rule of law.
4. Natural equality
5. Citizen wisdom
6. Reasoning without knowledge
7. Education (paideia)
I highly recommend the book. Woodruff looks more favorably upon parliamentary democracies like Canada than he does upon America. He is a great fan of proportional representations and other political modifications that bring political systems more in line with his 7 ideals.
All these ideals strongly conflict with rule by elites. The very success of Athenian democracy was founded on a rejection of rule by elites, who had become tyrants. Elites come to believe they know better than the common man. (This is the disease that plagues the Liberal house now.)
Woodruff recommends the creation of something like the ancient Greek assembly whereby citizens were chosen at random (like a jury) to debate and vote on issues of governance. I rather like this idea as a replacement for our current senate. This council of 500 founded on IT and social media could re-inject the public spirit into the political process that we need in Canada.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Thursday, May 12, 2011
On proportional representation and democratic reforms
The recent UK plebiscite on electoral reform, which sought to replace the current first past the post system with a variation on proportional representation was defeated. The status quo remains.
This defeat joins others in recent years, particularly in Canada. The province of Ontario rejected proportional representation in 2007, British Columbia twice in 2005 and 2009, and Prince Edward Island in 2005.
While one can argue that political manipulation by entrenched interests prevented the success of these referenda, it seems clear that there is not a huge desire on the part of Canadians for PR. Despite all the shortcomings of our first past the post electoral system, the stability that majority governments provide has put us in good stead. Compared to most other nations of the world, we are a strong and healthy country.
Some good websites that discuss the issue:
http://www.proportional-representation.org/
http://economics.about.com/cs/issues/a/proportionalrep.htm
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/689
This does not bode well for underrepresented parties in federal and provincial parliaments in Canada. The Greens are unlikely to see a national plebiscite on this. However, the need for electoral reform remains if we are to realize the full potential of democracy and satisfy the needs of people. The voting turn-out in Canada is abysmal. It is dangerous to leave democracy to the elites. If not PR, then what other routes can we pursue to a fairer political system?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
This defeat joins others in recent years, particularly in Canada. The province of Ontario rejected proportional representation in 2007, British Columbia twice in 2005 and 2009, and Prince Edward Island in 2005.
While one can argue that political manipulation by entrenched interests prevented the success of these referenda, it seems clear that there is not a huge desire on the part of Canadians for PR. Despite all the shortcomings of our first past the post electoral system, the stability that majority governments provide has put us in good stead. Compared to most other nations of the world, we are a strong and healthy country.
Some good websites that discuss the issue:
http://www.proportional-representation.org/
http://economics.about.com/cs/issues/a/proportionalrep.htm
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/689
This does not bode well for underrepresented parties in federal and provincial parliaments in Canada. The Greens are unlikely to see a national plebiscite on this. However, the need for electoral reform remains if we are to realize the full potential of democracy and satisfy the needs of people. The voting turn-out in Canada is abysmal. It is dangerous to leave democracy to the elites. If not PR, then what other routes can we pursue to a fairer political system?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, May 6, 2011
Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought (Socialists wise up)
A monumental political and economic theorist:
Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought
Friedrich A. Hayek interviewed by John O'Sullivan in 1985
Hoisted with their own petard
NDP talking points return to haunt them.
I'm tired of hearing that 60% of Canadian voters didn't vote for the Conservatives. Jack Layton and the NDP love to repeat this fact, as if to suggest the majority government is not legitimate. Well then, best case scenario, 70 % of Canadians didn't vote for the NDP. But wait, Quebec is an anomaly in this election. Let's take them out of the equation and look at all of Canada with Quebec excluded. Now, the Conservatives receive 48% of the national votes (vs. 40% Quebec included) and the NDP drops to 20%. 80% of Canadian voters outside Quebec didn't support the NDP. Remember this, Jack!
Now the NDP is changing their tactics, not being satisfied with the 40-60 stats for the Conservatives. In the May 5th edition of the Nanaimo News Bulletin, the re-elected Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP MP Jean Crowder crowed "It's important to remember the country has a Conservative majority with less than a quarter of the registered voting population supporting it."
What about the NDP? Less than 20% of registered Canadian voters supported the NDP. Again, let's exclude Quebec from the equation. Outside of Quebec, a mere 12% of Canadians supported the NDP. You can call the newly minted official opposition "Smiling Jack and the 12% Party".
And if you want to enter into the whole quagmire about proportional representation? The NDP received 42.9% of the vote in Quebec but got 77% of the seats (58 of 75 seats) Let's take away 26 of those seats to more fairly represent their share of the popular vote. We could start with the Vegas MP without much protest!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
I'm tired of hearing that 60% of Canadian voters didn't vote for the Conservatives. Jack Layton and the NDP love to repeat this fact, as if to suggest the majority government is not legitimate. Well then, best case scenario, 70 % of Canadians didn't vote for the NDP. But wait, Quebec is an anomaly in this election. Let's take them out of the equation and look at all of Canada with Quebec excluded. Now, the Conservatives receive 48% of the national votes (vs. 40% Quebec included) and the NDP drops to 20%. 80% of Canadian voters outside Quebec didn't support the NDP. Remember this, Jack!
Now the NDP is changing their tactics, not being satisfied with the 40-60 stats for the Conservatives. In the May 5th edition of the Nanaimo News Bulletin, the re-elected Nanaimo-Cowichan NDP MP Jean Crowder crowed "It's important to remember the country has a Conservative majority with less than a quarter of the registered voting population supporting it."
What about the NDP? Less than 20% of registered Canadian voters supported the NDP. Again, let's exclude Quebec from the equation. Outside of Quebec, a mere 12% of Canadians supported the NDP. You can call the newly minted official opposition "Smiling Jack and the 12% Party".
And if you want to enter into the whole quagmire about proportional representation? The NDP received 42.9% of the vote in Quebec but got 77% of the seats (58 of 75 seats) Let's take away 26 of those seats to more fairly represent their share of the popular vote. We could start with the Vegas MP without much protest!
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)