The Liberals seem to have realized their ability to ability to get their message directly out to the Canadian people is very limited indeed. Perhaps this is why the party has not bothered developing extensive talking points on the most central of issues. One is not going to find the Liberals, for example, saying anything interesting about corporate tax cuts. The party seems happy just to have the media mention their platform. Such a minimalist strategy extends to the ads they produced recently. One ad draws attention to the F 35 purchase and the other ad to the planned corporate tax cut. Nothing else is said in either ad.
Fair enough. Such a strategy does have its advantages. Besides, most talking points aimed at the lay public are both stupid and simplistic and are a complete waste of time. The less of them the better. However for the Liberals to abandon entire issues altogether is fool hardy. The Liberals need to start developing talking points aimed not at a broad audience but at political pundits, and political junkies. Above all else the party needs to challenge the legions of conservative columnists least various conservative position become received wisdom. Factual errors need to be pointed out and non sequiturs need to be mocked. Be vicious. Ignatieff talks about wanting to the be the party that basis its decisions on sound reasoning and science. A good way of establishing such a reputation is take a conservative pundit out to the wood shed on occasion. When conservative columnist retires the Liberals should share Trudeau's lament: "I'm sorry I won't have you to kick around any more."
Friday, February 04, 2011
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Europe's debt Crisis and Toronto Sun idiocy
Calling someone a social conservative used to be just a polite way of calling them a moron.
Today one need not even include "social". Calling them a conservative will suffice.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/12/22/16650641.html
The notion that generous social programs sank the UK and Ireland is nonsense and so is the acronym "pigs". Spain and Ireland were running surpluses. What sank Spain and Ireland was a huge real estate bubble and inability to devalue their currency. Ireland's debt to GDP doubled over night when the government guaranteed the debts of private banks. The same thing happened in the UK. City Boy bailouts are the main reason UK debt almost doubled.
As for viability of the Welfare state, no one has more generous social programs than the Scandinavian countries and no one in Western world has lower debt levels. Sweden, Finland and Norway have more assets than debts and Denmark virtually the same amount of debts as assets.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/02/debt_deficits_and_growth
Today one need not even include "social". Calling them a conservative will suffice.
"The welfare state has roared back to bite the British lion in the rump.
Ditto for the Irish economy.
Saddled with massive debt and staggering under unaffordable social programs, both the British and the Irish are facing massive cuts.
Britain is cutting everything from the military to social services.
Ireland is bankrupt."
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2010/12/22/16650641.html
The notion that generous social programs sank the UK and Ireland is nonsense and so is the acronym "pigs". Spain and Ireland were running surpluses. What sank Spain and Ireland was a huge real estate bubble and inability to devalue their currency. Ireland's debt to GDP doubled over night when the government guaranteed the debts of private banks. The same thing happened in the UK. City Boy bailouts are the main reason UK debt almost doubled.
As for viability of the Welfare state, no one has more generous social programs than the Scandinavian countries and no one in Western world has lower debt levels. Sweden, Finland and Norway have more assets than debts and Denmark virtually the same amount of debts as assets.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/02/debt_deficits_and_growth
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Conservatives big by election winners
The Liberals will not hold onto Winnipeg North. Parties do not win a seat by 40 points in one general election and fail to win it in the next general election. The NDP will take Winnipeg North in the next election.
Still, winning Winnipeg North was quite an accomplishment and Liberals should pat themselves on the back. For the first time in the post Martin era they did something right. That is the good news.
On the flip side is that if the Winnipeg North victory is if this is evidence of an down turn in the NDP fortunes, the Liberals are in big trouble. An NDP collapse in the next election all but guarantees a Conservative majority. Igantieff should be careful what he wishes for. If that NDP collapse, British Columbia Southern Interior, Nanaimo Cowichan, New Westmister Coquitlam, Sault Ste Marie, Skeena Bulkley Valley and Esquimalt Juan de Fuca will all go blue next election. People in these ridings do not shift from right to left and back again. They shift from one populist party or candidate to another. A weakened NDP will also mean that most of the following will also go blue: Burnaby Douglas, Victoria, Edmonton Strathcona, Elmwood Trascona, Western Artic, Welland.
Just as bad, the Liberals won Winnipeg North by playing the crime card. This may have work in few ridings were crime is major issue and NDP are strong and Conservatives weak, but it is bound to fail in virtually every other instance. The Conservatives own crime as an issue and rather than come up with an effective response the Liberals have chosen to tow the Conservative line yet again.
Of course not only did the Conservatives get confirmation that their get tough on crime stance is a political winner in Manitoba they also made major inroads in Ontario. Liberals can spin it however they want. The Conservatives are slowly reducing the Liberals to rump around Toronto Center. Toronto is looking more and more like the Dunkirk pocket everyday. With any luck Obama will send a flotilla to evacuate the besieged. The notion that the Liberals secured a moral victory by limiting Fantino to just under 50% of the vote is absurd. The so called pundits who thought that Fantino would magically win by more simply do not know their craft. The magnitude of the Conservatives victory, while not as impressive as what the Liberals were able to do in Winnipeg North, can not be understated. The Conservatives took 35% of the vote in 2008 and 50% this time around. Even more impressive is that virtually the same number of people cast the votes in favour of the Conservatives this time around as last.
Still, winning Winnipeg North was quite an accomplishment and Liberals should pat themselves on the back. For the first time in the post Martin era they did something right. That is the good news.
On the flip side is that if the Winnipeg North victory is if this is evidence of an down turn in the NDP fortunes, the Liberals are in big trouble. An NDP collapse in the next election all but guarantees a Conservative majority. Igantieff should be careful what he wishes for. If that NDP collapse, British Columbia Southern Interior, Nanaimo Cowichan, New Westmister Coquitlam, Sault Ste Marie, Skeena Bulkley Valley and Esquimalt Juan de Fuca will all go blue next election. People in these ridings do not shift from right to left and back again. They shift from one populist party or candidate to another. A weakened NDP will also mean that most of the following will also go blue: Burnaby Douglas, Victoria, Edmonton Strathcona, Elmwood Trascona, Western Artic, Welland.
Just as bad, the Liberals won Winnipeg North by playing the crime card. This may have work in few ridings were crime is major issue and NDP are strong and Conservatives weak, but it is bound to fail in virtually every other instance. The Conservatives own crime as an issue and rather than come up with an effective response the Liberals have chosen to tow the Conservative line yet again.
Of course not only did the Conservatives get confirmation that their get tough on crime stance is a political winner in Manitoba they also made major inroads in Ontario. Liberals can spin it however they want. The Conservatives are slowly reducing the Liberals to rump around Toronto Center. Toronto is looking more and more like the Dunkirk pocket everyday. With any luck Obama will send a flotilla to evacuate the besieged. The notion that the Liberals secured a moral victory by limiting Fantino to just under 50% of the vote is absurd. The so called pundits who thought that Fantino would magically win by more simply do not know their craft. The magnitude of the Conservatives victory, while not as impressive as what the Liberals were able to do in Winnipeg North, can not be understated. The Conservatives took 35% of the vote in 2008 and 50% this time around. Even more impressive is that virtually the same number of people cast the votes in favour of the Conservatives this time around as last.
Lamoureux's victory is an Aberration: Conservatives on Verge of Majority
The Conservatives are on the cusp of a majority. They have 145 seats as it is, more money than the other parties combined, they are better organized than the other parties, they dominant the political agenda, and finally they control the public purse. Kingston and the Islands, Mississauga South, Ajax—Pickering, Vancouver South, Esquimalt Juan de fuca, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Malpeque, Brampton—Springdale, Welland, Brampton West, Edmonton Strathcona are all within their reach and it is easy to see the Conservatives taking a few more 905 seats that just a few years ago looked like save Liberal seats.
As for the Liberals, Kevin Lamoureux's victory was an aberration. Lamoureux won by promising to be tough on crime. In other words, he won by promising to be a Conservative in riding that would never vote for a real Conservative. People in virtually every other riding have no such hang up and Conservatives own crime as an issue. For many Canadians, the Liberals are like old friend that they no longer see much of any more or have much in common with and so give little thought to. The Liberals are short on cash, volunteers and it goes without saying ideas. The jig is up. The Liberals are no longer able to get by on nostalgia and regional divisions. While Ignatieff speaks glowingly of Pearson, the Canada Health Act and CPP, voters recongize the attempted bait-and-switch know that when the Liberals speak of "social justice" they do not mean a commitment to the truly popular notion of universality but rather a commitment to means tested social programs, affirmative action, asymmetrical federalism, pay equity, the intellectual abortion that is collective rights and other policies that neither interest the middle class or have their support. Take away the Liberals commitment to "social justice" and Harper's populace facade and their is little difference between the two parties.
As for the Liberals, Kevin Lamoureux's victory was an aberration. Lamoureux won by promising to be tough on crime. In other words, he won by promising to be a Conservative in riding that would never vote for a real Conservative. People in virtually every other riding have no such hang up and Conservatives own crime as an issue. For many Canadians, the Liberals are like old friend that they no longer see much of any more or have much in common with and so give little thought to. The Liberals are short on cash, volunteers and it goes without saying ideas. The jig is up. The Liberals are no longer able to get by on nostalgia and regional divisions. While Ignatieff speaks glowingly of Pearson, the Canada Health Act and CPP, voters recongize the attempted bait-and-switch know that when the Liberals speak of "social justice" they do not mean a commitment to the truly popular notion of universality but rather a commitment to means tested social programs, affirmative action, asymmetrical federalism, pay equity, the intellectual abortion that is collective rights and other policies that neither interest the middle class or have their support. Take away the Liberals commitment to "social justice" and Harper's populace facade and their is little difference between the two parties.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
An "effective" Senate is an Undemocratic Intellectual Abortion
Constitutionally senators have all kinds of power and every once in a blue moon the Senate has stalled major pieces of legislation (e.g., free trade and the GST). However the aforementioned instances of stalling are so rare they are the exceptions that prove just how "ineffective" the senate truly is. Moreover, no senate I can think of has pursued a legislative agenda of its own accord; opposing legislation is one thing; purposing legislation is quite another. The reason the senate is not an "effective" body is that senators are not elected and as such lack legitimacy. Furthermore, senators are members of legitimate federal political parties and the parties that they belong to are loath to have their unelected members exercise real authority least their actions undermine the party. Finally, the fact that it is the ruling federal party and not, say, provincial governments that appoint senators defines a clear pecking order, with the Senate answerable to the House.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. And Harper being Harper has decided to kill two birds with one stone. He had Conservative senators vote down a climate change bill passed by the House that he did not like as a means of forcing other parties on side. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Harper, of course, wants to reform the Senate. And Harper being Harper has decided to kill two birds with one stone. He had Conservative senators vote down a climate change bill passed by the House that he did not like as a means of forcing other parties on side. Being unable to reform the Senate in one fell swoop, Harper has proposed electing Senators piece meal. Under the Conservative plan, new senators would be elected and would be limited to serving out a 8 year term. The elephant in the living room is that if the senate's lack of effective powers flows from the senate's lack of legitimacy, then electing senators might provide the senate with a degree of legitimacy it currently does not hold. One problem with proceeding thusly is that current senators are free to serve until the age of 75. As a result, Harper's actions could either transform an unelected political body with no real power into a largely unelected political body with real political power or commit Canadians to the farcical and expensive act of electing people to office who hold no real power. Always content to play the Tin Man and Lion to Conservatives scarecrow, the Liberals remain largely mum on the subject.
Setting aside problems associated with implementation, is the cause of democracy even served by reforming the Senate? Well, the Reformers always held that the regions needed more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. However, such a conception, and for that matter an "effective" version of the current senate, does not stand up to scrutiny. The problem is fivefold.
First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. Consider the 905. There are currently 4 plus million living in the 905 and there are currently 32 seats for an average of just over 127,000 people per riding. There are 6 ridings with over a 140,000 people in the 905, Bramalea - Gore - Malton (152,698) Brampton West (170,422) Halton (151,943), Mississauga - Erindale (143,361) Oak Ridges - Markham (169,642) and Vaughan (154,206). By contrast there are 4.5 million people in Sask, Man, NWT, Nuv, Yuk, PEI, NS, NFLD, and NB and there are 62 seats for an average of 72,000 people per riding. Moreover, there is but one riding in the 9, Selkirk Interlake (90,807), with over 90,000 people. Given current growth trends, there will be more people in the 905 than the aforementioned provinces and territories by 2011. Given population growth, Harper would have to give Ontario alone another 70 seats to make things half way equal.
Second, the people living in Canada’s less populated provinces have a mechanism to assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called provincial jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 136 470 people living in Mississauga - Brampton South.
The third reason is that while one person one vote is bedrock principle of any democracy, one province one senate vote is something else entirely. People, not provinces, deserve equal representation. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while giving the 170, 422 residents of Brampton West one MP is bad enough as it is. Piling on and giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12,160,282 Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic. Equally silly is having one "effective" Senator for every 72,997 New Brunswick residents (10 senators in total) versus one Senator for every 685, 581 BC residents (6 senators in total). And that is what the current configuration gives us.
Four, as Benjamin Franklin put it, having two equally matched houses makes as much sense as tying two equally matched horses to either end of a buggy and having them both pull. Having two houses is not only a lobbyists dream, it is a recipe for political gridlock and pork barrel politics. The only thing that would be worse is if one needed 60% of the votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster.
Five, leaving aside the fact that no province has a second chamber, most having abolished them long ago, and that there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states (e.g., New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal), we already have a de facto unicameral state as it is -- just ask the supporters of a Triple E senate. After all, one can not argue on the one hand that the current senate is undemocratic and so contributes to the "democratic deficit" and on the other hand argue that the senate is “ineffective”. A body that adds nothing to the genuinely "effective" process can not take away anything either.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Coyne gets it wrong
Stephen Harper’s Tories can run $56-billion deficits, raise spending to all-time record levels, and grease every Conservative riding with layers of pork; they can abandon Afghanistan, coddle Quebec, and adopt the NDP approach to foreign investment; and still there exists in people’s minds another Conservative party, somewhere, for whom these policies are anathema.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/15/politics-all-the-way-down/
Yes the Conservatives are guilty of pork barrel politics. Yes the Conservatives are guilty of codding Quebec. However, Harper is no Mulroney and everything else Coyne he says is completely ridiculous.
As a percentage of GDP, government spending is neither high in comparison to other nations nor is it historically high by Canadian standards. Furthermore, the whole basis of Coyne's silly thesis is the fact that he uses the mid 90s as his measuring stick and never mentions that Martin cut government spending to levels not seen since the 1950s and the fact that he likes to focus on absolute spending and not spending relevant to GDP. Of course, Coyne never laments the fact that military spending is growing faster than any other area and is up 56% since 1999. Apparently in Coyne's mind, spending on programs that actually benefit Canadians is waste of money but engaging in expensive foreign wars that do not benefit Canadians in any way is our moral duty. Incidentally, a rise in military spending is something Coyne should lament. In marked contrast to health car, a rise in military spending in absolute terms is not needed to keep up with a rising population.
As for the notion that Canada has "abandoned" Afghanistan, never mind the missions complete futility and cost or the fact that our being there increases the chances that we will be attacked by terrorists home grown (e.g., Toronto 18) or otherwise (e.g., Al Qaeda claiming that we are a target because of our presence in Afghanistan) this is pretty strange assertion to make given that Canada has been there 9 years and that Canada has just signed up for 3 more years without Parliament ever been consulted.
Finally, the notion that Canada should act like a financially desperate country whose markets have been pried open by the IMF and world bank is just plain stupid.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Mulroney Lives
"Hockey Canada has authorized the creation of Team Quebec to host France, Italy and Switzerland in the proposed Quebec Cup next August in the provincial capital."
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101112/national/hko_que_national
The treasonous fuck or fucks who oked this should be fired.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101112/national/hko_que_national
The treasonous fuck or fucks who oked this should be fired.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Liberals are not poised to Win an election: a rethink is needed
There is no chance whatsoever that the Liberals would win an election.
Over the course of the 40 years the Liberal fortunes have risen and fallen according to the ability to capture at least 70% of the seats in either Quebec or Ontario. For a majority the Liberals have needed to capture at least 80% of the seats in either of those two provinces. The Liberals are not competitive enough in the Western Canada for that calculus to change.
Canada is no longer divided against itself and so long as this holds true this is not a party in need of tinkering. It is a party that needs to be blown up.
One of the main stumbling blocks is that the Liberals and the pundits have never fully absorbed what happened to level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some of blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. As for the former, it was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.
The source of the collapse was that the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again.
Of course, the Liberals response to Mulroney taking Quebec in 1984 and 1988 and subsequent success of the Bloc was abandon any thought of national programs and a national vision. The death of universality was the budget crisis of the 1990s and the notion that Quebec is special. This has rendered the Liberals forever impotent in Western Canada. Pay equity, collective rights, affirmative action, means tested social programs and other hall marks of modern liberalism have never had the same appeal in Western Canada as elswhere in the country and that is saying something. Outside of Quebec, such hallmarks are generally and rightly poorly regarded. What did hold the Liberals in good stead was when the NDP and Liberals were jointly pursuing universal social programs or basking in their passage. The success of one party generally meant the success of the other. Until such time as the Liberals recommit to universality they have no chance of gaining traction in the western provinces.
Over the course of the 40 years the Liberal fortunes have risen and fallen according to the ability to capture at least 70% of the seats in either Quebec or Ontario. For a majority the Liberals have needed to capture at least 80% of the seats in either of those two provinces. The Liberals are not competitive enough in the Western Canada for that calculus to change.
Canada is no longer divided against itself and so long as this holds true this is not a party in need of tinkering. It is a party that needs to be blown up.
One of the main stumbling blocks is that the Liberals and the pundits have never fully absorbed what happened to level of support in Western Canada following the 1974 election. Some of blamed the NEP and others have even claimed the gun registry played a part. The latter claim is ridiculous. The gun registry had no impact the Liberals share of the popular vote or their seat totals. As for the former, it was the fact that the Liberal vote collapsed in Western Canada in 1979 that paved the way for the NEP politically and not the other way around. The NEP was introduced after the 1980 election. The Liberals took 1 seat in the three most western provinces in 1979 election and 0 in 1980.
The source of the collapse was that the more emphasis Trudeau placed on individual rights and a commitment to linguistic equality the more the rest of the country, particularly the West, resented the Liberals inability to put a stop to bill 178 and and 101 and its willingness to make special accommodations for Quebec. Quebec's Official Language Act spelled doom for the Liberals in Western Canada from the mid 70s until collapse of the Progressive Conservatives in 1993. Ironically, it was the Mulroney's willingness to go even further in pandering to Quebec, particularly the Charlottetown Accord, that gave the Liberals some life again.
Of course, the Liberals response to Mulroney taking Quebec in 1984 and 1988 and subsequent success of the Bloc was abandon any thought of national programs and a national vision. The death of universality was the budget crisis of the 1990s and the notion that Quebec is special. This has rendered the Liberals forever impotent in Western Canada. Pay equity, collective rights, affirmative action, means tested social programs and other hall marks of modern liberalism have never had the same appeal in Western Canada as elswhere in the country and that is saying something. Outside of Quebec, such hallmarks are generally and rightly poorly regarded. What did hold the Liberals in good stead was when the NDP and Liberals were jointly pursuing universal social programs or basking in their passage. The success of one party generally meant the success of the other. Until such time as the Liberals recommit to universality they have no chance of gaining traction in the western provinces.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Marijuana prohibition is comming to an end, but Ignatieff and the Liberals have not noticed
Marijuana prohibition will soon come to an end. Indeed, if Californians vote yes on proposition 19, the end will come next on Tuesday.
Legal production of marijuana in California will make the legislation of marijuana elsewhere in the US all but inevitable and extension in Canada as well. Obama is not going to go to war with California in order to maintain a federal prohibition and his unwillingness to tackle the issue head on will be mean the flow of legal Californian bud into the rest of the US will dwarf the amount of illegal Mexican bud going North now. Prohibition is not a half way proposition.
Speaking of Mexico, illegal producers there will be hit hard. However, low their costs are now in comparison to US producers, Illegal producers in Mexico will not be able to compete with legal producers in the US. Of course, Mexican producers will not be the only ones effected. Proposition 19 will spell the end of billion dollar export industry in Canada over night.
Now, even if proposition 19 fails, there is no putting the medical marijuana genie back in the bottle. You see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see California's medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let Odysseus and rest the Greeks out. By failing to crack down on medical marijuana users and dispensaries Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no turning back now. There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver than Starbucks.
The Liberals need to come up with a plan. Canada needs to come up with a plan. The loss of the billion dollar industry, albeit an illegal industry is going to have an impact.
The natural response, indeed, the only response, is to beat the Americans to the punch. Far from being political poison, as I said countless times before, there is a lot of political legalization has a lot of upside for the Liberals. It would drive a wedge between libertarians and Theo cons. It would appeal to people who would otherwise would not vote -- most notably young Canadians. It would be popular in very provinces that the Liberals actually have a chance of making headway, e.g., urban Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. It would garner a lot of positive international exposure. It would leave the Conservatives defending discredited Reefer Madness arguments. Above all else, the lynch pin in the opponents arguments, viz. that the US will not stand for it, is quickly be worn away.
Legal production of marijuana in California will make the legislation of marijuana elsewhere in the US all but inevitable and extension in Canada as well. Obama is not going to go to war with California in order to maintain a federal prohibition and his unwillingness to tackle the issue head on will be mean the flow of legal Californian bud into the rest of the US will dwarf the amount of illegal Mexican bud going North now. Prohibition is not a half way proposition.
Speaking of Mexico, illegal producers there will be hit hard. However, low their costs are now in comparison to US producers, Illegal producers in Mexico will not be able to compete with legal producers in the US. Of course, Mexican producers will not be the only ones effected. Proposition 19 will spell the end of billion dollar export industry in Canada over night.
Now, even if proposition 19 fails, there is no putting the medical marijuana genie back in the bottle. You see, unlike in Canada, in California, for example, one does not have to be afflicted with a particular aliment to be eligible for medical marijuana. A doctor can proscribe marijuana for whatever they see fit. Needless to say, such a system is ripe for abuse and the Bush administration was right to see California's medical marijuana program as a potential Trojan horse. But Obama let Odysseus and rest the Greeks out. By failing to crack down on medical marijuana users and dispensaries Obama has allowed the medical marijuana industry in California and elsewhere to grow to the point there is no turning back now. There are more medical marijuana dispensaries in Denver than Starbucks.
The Liberals need to come up with a plan. Canada needs to come up with a plan. The loss of the billion dollar industry, albeit an illegal industry is going to have an impact.
The natural response, indeed, the only response, is to beat the Americans to the punch. Far from being political poison, as I said countless times before, there is a lot of political legalization has a lot of upside for the Liberals. It would drive a wedge between libertarians and Theo cons. It would appeal to people who would otherwise would not vote -- most notably young Canadians. It would be popular in very provinces that the Liberals actually have a chance of making headway, e.g., urban Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec. It would garner a lot of positive international exposure. It would leave the Conservatives defending discredited Reefer Madness arguments. Above all else, the lynch pin in the opponents arguments, viz. that the US will not stand for it, is quickly be worn away.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Conservative strong support of Israel is Daft
Conservatives like to speak of Israel as being alone in a hostile tyrannical sea. Nothing could be more misleading. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are part of a informal alliance knitted together by American largeness and the 3 latter three are have been key to Israeli security of more than 30 years now. Of course, the populations of the last four are hostile to the very idea of such an alliance and so special care needs to be taken by all involved. The question various Neo Con thinkers raised is whether this alliance is more trouble then it is worth. It does provide a military buffer to Iran and so is key to the continued flow of oil out of the Gulf. However, the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan lack popular legitimacy --- as does to lesser extent the Turkish military -- and their restive populations resent the US for propping up such regimes. Not that any Neo Con thinker would ever admit it, but this situation is made all the worse by these populations getting daily reports from the Occupied Territories. Such reports remind millions of middle Easterners on daily basis of this informal alliance put together by the US for the purpose of securing the transfer of oil out of the Middle East at a cost many Arab nationalists tell them is less than true market value. Where this all comes back to the West is that various foreign jihidis have decided that it is easier to strike at the "far enemy" than the "near enemy" and more troubling still various 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants to Western countries have decided to take up the cause as well.
All that being said, it should come as no surprise that I regard the the level of support offered Israel by the Conservatives as a form of insanity. In material terms, the aforementioned alliance helps the US manage the flow of oil in an out of the Gulf. However, it does nothing for Canada directly. In diplomatic terms all that aid gives the US a great deal of leverage. In diplomatic terms Conservative cheer leading coupled with Ignatieff's me toos, hurts our relationship with the aforementioned non-Jewish states and leaves us ironically in no position to help Israel out. We are lot more more valuable to Israel as low key member of the security council, for example, than we are as a vocal cheer leader pissing in the wind. Our strong support for Israel has no upside.
The only thing tempering the stupidity of such a approach is that we are not the target the US is. Noisy sidekicks are never the real price. Still, as has become readily apparent over the last 10 years, Canada can no longer consider its foreign policy without also asking questions about how this or that policy might impact upon domestic security. The Toronto 18 is a great case in point. The war in Afghanistan was what motivated the Toronto 18. As for the most recent batch of homegrown terrorists, I do not know specifically what motivated them. However, their choice of targets should have raised more eyebrows then it did. In the years leading up to their arrest, I had mentioned on a number of occasions what would happen if the Montreal subway was attacked. For example I wrote this last December: "Make no mistake if the Montreal subway is bombed and the motivation for the attack was the Afghan mission, there would be huge uptake in support for separatism. The PQ and Bloc will argue that the bombing is proof that Quebec needs its own foreign policy." The government can not afford to flippantly pursue policies that might increase the risk of a terrorist attack homegrown or otherwise. It is one thing to pursue policies that might increase the risk of terrorism, but are nonetheless in the national interest. It is quite another thing to pursue policies for cheap political gain that do nothing to further Canadian interests, increase the risk of terrorist attack and the chance of social strife and that is what Conservatives are doing.
All that being said, it should come as no surprise that I regard the the level of support offered Israel by the Conservatives as a form of insanity. In material terms, the aforementioned alliance helps the US manage the flow of oil in an out of the Gulf. However, it does nothing for Canada directly. In diplomatic terms all that aid gives the US a great deal of leverage. In diplomatic terms Conservative cheer leading coupled with Ignatieff's me toos, hurts our relationship with the aforementioned non-Jewish states and leaves us ironically in no position to help Israel out. We are lot more more valuable to Israel as low key member of the security council, for example, than we are as a vocal cheer leader pissing in the wind. Our strong support for Israel has no upside.
The only thing tempering the stupidity of such a approach is that we are not the target the US is. Noisy sidekicks are never the real price. Still, as has become readily apparent over the last 10 years, Canada can no longer consider its foreign policy without also asking questions about how this or that policy might impact upon domestic security. The Toronto 18 is a great case in point. The war in Afghanistan was what motivated the Toronto 18. As for the most recent batch of homegrown terrorists, I do not know specifically what motivated them. However, their choice of targets should have raised more eyebrows then it did. In the years leading up to their arrest, I had mentioned on a number of occasions what would happen if the Montreal subway was attacked. For example I wrote this last December: "Make no mistake if the Montreal subway is bombed and the motivation for the attack was the Afghan mission, there would be huge uptake in support for separatism. The PQ and Bloc will argue that the bombing is proof that Quebec needs its own foreign policy." The government can not afford to flippantly pursue policies that might increase the risk of a terrorist attack homegrown or otherwise. It is one thing to pursue policies that might increase the risk of terrorism, but are nonetheless in the national interest. It is quite another thing to pursue policies for cheap political gain that do nothing to further Canadian interests, increase the risk of terrorist attack and the chance of social strife and that is what Conservatives are doing.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Sad State of Canadian Foreign Policy
Canada's ability to effect any kind of change at the diplomatic realm internationally depends on our ability to position ourselves as deal makers and "honest brokers" and until the Conservatives were elected that is exactly the strategy Canada took. The Conservatives approach, by contrast, emphasizes "principled" stances. On the face of it is appears as if the Conservatives have chosen to sacrifice Canada's ability to achieve much of anything in the world of international affairs so as to score points domestically.
However, things are a lot worse than that. The recent UN vote and UAE fiasco are evidence that diplomatically we are flying blind. Our official lines of communication and our back channels are so weak relatively minor disagreements are breaking out into the open and catching us completely unawareness and we do not have a any kind of grasp as how little influence with have in world. Complaints about "secret votes' are just a fig leaf meant to cover up the government's incompetence.
However, things are a lot worse than that. The recent UN vote and UAE fiasco are evidence that diplomatically we are flying blind. Our official lines of communication and our back channels are so weak relatively minor disagreements are breaking out into the open and catching us completely unawareness and we do not have a any kind of grasp as how little influence with have in world. Complaints about "secret votes' are just a fig leaf meant to cover up the government's incompetence.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Conservative Foreign policy: Moralistic, Macho, Moronic
I do not know what is worse, the UAE fiasco or the fact that these bombastic simpletons thought they had 150 votes in the bag.
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101015/cannon-un-101015/20101015/?hub=CalgaryHome
http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101015/cannon-un-101015/20101015/?hub=CalgaryHome
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Stupid People's party Strikes Again
The Conservatives blamed Ignatieff for Canada not getting a seat on the security council. Far from turning attention away from the Conservatives this only focused attention on them. Talking points that are this asinine tend to grab headlines -- not just in Canada but abroad as well. The Guardian, for example, would never have bothered reporting the failure of Canada to secure a security council seat. It is just not the kind of thing that Brits care about. However, the utter stupidity of the such a talking point made it newsworthy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/13/canada-michael-ignatieff
The Conservative's most recent talking point is hardly better. Decrying secret votes and saying that they do care not about popularity contests are about as superficially appealing as Tim Hortons trumpeting of"steeped tea". Leaving aside the issue that secret votes make it less not more likely that such a votes become a popularity contests, a secret vote are the only kind of votes Canadians have. I doubt all those Conservatives worried about the supposed intrusiveness of the long form census would want someone looking over my shoulder to see who they voted for. Conservative Macho talk about laying it out on the table for everyone to see is just a canard. As for the Conservatives not caring about popularity contests, I think they protest too much. One does not make a meal out of something one does not care about. The Conservatives are caught in a performative contradiction.
Now, I do not want to disecte why Canada lost. What I would like to add is this. Harper's world view -- particularly when it comes to foreign affairs-- is not terribly sophisticated. It is high time we stop trying to breath intelligence into such policies by attributing machivillian motives to its authors. What we have is stupid talking points in defense of stupid policies. Full stop.
The Conservative's most recent talking point is hardly better. Decrying secret votes and saying that they do care not about popularity contests are about as superficially appealing as Tim Hortons trumpeting of"steeped tea". Leaving aside the issue that secret votes make it less not more likely that such a votes become a popularity contests, a secret vote are the only kind of votes Canadians have. I doubt all those Conservatives worried about the supposed intrusiveness of the long form census would want someone looking over my shoulder to see who they voted for. Conservative Macho talk about laying it out on the table for everyone to see is just a canard. As for the Conservatives not caring about popularity contests, I think they protest too much. One does not make a meal out of something one does not care about. The Conservatives are caught in a performative contradiction.
Now, I do not want to disecte why Canada lost. What I would like to add is this. Harper's world view -- particularly when it comes to foreign affairs-- is not terribly sophisticated. It is high time we stop trying to breath intelligence into such policies by attributing machivillian motives to its authors. What we have is stupid talking points in defense of stupid policies. Full stop.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
The Liberals need to make the case
The Liberals decision to whip the gun registry vote was a step in the right direction, but people should not get too excited.
The Liberals still seem to believe that by sounding serious, flexible and sympathetic they will have a chance to win the next election. They are dreaming. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their arguments and policies, they are the only ones willing to put forward some. When pundits talk about policy or arguments used to buttress it; they deal with Conservative policies and arguments. The Liberals give them nothing to talk about. The Liberals have abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative arguments polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The aforementioned gun registry is a case in point. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
The Liberals still seem to believe that by sounding serious, flexible and sympathetic they will have a chance to win the next election. They are dreaming. A lot of the success Conservatives have enjoyed stems from the fact that however, stupid their arguments and policies, they are the only ones willing to put forward some. When pundits talk about policy or arguments used to buttress it; they deal with Conservative policies and arguments. The Liberals give them nothing to talk about. The Liberals have abandoned the field altogether; they do not put forward polices; they do not put forward arguments; they do not refute arguments. They might tut tut and promise to "compromise", but this only hurts them. The former makes them appear to be the effeminate wimps the Conservatives claim them to be and the later makes it appear that the various Conservative arguments polices have some validity when in actuality they have none. At best, the Liberals will sometimes take a stand in defense of the status quo. The aforementioned gun registry is a case in point. However, do not expect them to say much of anything when they do take a stand. They might note that the experts support them, but they will not repeat the expert's arguments least someone take offense to what the experts are saying and want to shoot the messenger.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Some Anti Gun registry arguments and how to handle them
"More people nationwide are for abolishing the registry than keeping it "
The most recent Decima poll put it at 48 38 in favour of keeping it.
"it has already been proven that the gov't can't enforce the registry."
Sure it can. It has a hard time getting everyone to register guns that predate the registry. However, they have no problem getting people to register new guns.
As for the issue of non compliance, tax evasion, drunk driving and speeding are common place, but that is no cause for getting rid of those laws.
"Koby, you think a winning talking point is:
the LGR will catch Canadian farmers, duck hunters who have not yet, but will, get a criminal record...?"
There are 1.8 million registered gun owners. It does not take a great leap of faith to believe that some will have a criminal record in 10 years time. It is certainly not beyond the grasp of your average Canadian. Of course what makes it especially easy sell is the ability to trot out more than decade's worth of stats showing just how many gun owning "farmers and duck hunters" have been convicted of crime.
"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked.
Semantics aside, this argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for supporters, it nearly impossible to on the one hand support registering hand guns and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason given for the latter position is that criminals do not register their guns period. Either one supports both or neither.
"Forget about those gangs, the Hell's Angles and your common bank robbers Canadians,
it's them there farmers that MIGHT go rambo that is scaring the h out of our town folk,"
1) 83% are homicides are not gang related. That said, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets." http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf
2) There are far more gun incidents in rural Canada than in urban Canada.
3) As far as your average law abiding citizen is concerned, they are infinitely more likely be killed by a loved one than by a gang.
4) The cops get calls by mental health professionals worried about a patient going "rambo" all the time.
West Vancouver police Chief: "We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."
Psychiatrist Barbara Kane: “I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired. “He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Liberals gun registry talking point sucks
The Liberals unwillingness to move past the tentative talking point about the gun registry being accessed x number of times every day has hurt them.
They would be in lot stronger position had they admitted the obvious. Namely, Gary Breitkreuz is right. The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people. What Breitkreuz gets wrong, and what the Liberals should gleefully point out, is that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and given the huge number of gun owners, one can safely say that over the next 12 years there will be thousands more. Abolishing the "long gun registry" would make it easier for some criminals to keep their guns.
Of course, there is no reason to stop there. One of the main Conservative talking points is the following. "We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective," Now it is not so much that criminals do not register their guns and they can not register their guns. Semantics aside though, this talking point does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with an auto insurer either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse, it nearly impossible for the Conservatives to on the one hand throw their support behind registering hand guns and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason they give for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns period. The Conservatives can not have their cake and eat it too.
They would be in lot stronger position had they admitted the obvious. Namely, Gary Breitkreuz is right. The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people. What Breitkreuz gets wrong, and what the Liberals should gleefully point out, is that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and given the huge number of gun owners, one can safely say that over the next 12 years there will be thousands more. Abolishing the "long gun registry" would make it easier for some criminals to keep their guns.
Of course, there is no reason to stop there. One of the main Conservative talking points is the following. "We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective," Now it is not so much that criminals do not register their guns and they can not register their guns. Semantics aside though, this talking point does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with an auto insurer either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse, it nearly impossible for the Conservatives to on the one hand throw their support behind registering hand guns and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason they give for the latter is that criminals do not register their guns period. The Conservatives can not have their cake and eat it too.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
John Weston's embarrassing gun registry comments
John Weston:
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it nearly impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their long guns as well as their prohibited and restricted weapons. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.
Weston:
The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.
Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.
Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not.
Weston:
In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.
The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
By the way, this is what the most recent poll shows.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
John Weston:
The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.
As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
"We all support the licensing of people who own firearms and the registration of prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns). That's not going to change; this Conservative government is unwavering in that. We know full well that criminals don't register their guns and that's what makes the long gun registry wasteful and ineffective,"
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
Criminals can not register their guns. Being able to register a gun presupposes that one has a Possession and Acquisition Licence and a criminal record is grounds for being denied a PAL and for a PAL being revoked. However, this does not mean that some criminals do not try to register their guns. "More than 1,500 Canadians were refused licences for their guns from 2006-2009, on the basis of background checks triggered when they went to register the weapons." The most common reason for denying these gun owners a license was that they were a risk to others. "The program revoked another 6,093 licences in the same period as a result of continuous screening, court orders and complaints to its public safety line. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
Semantics aside, Weston's argument does not make much sense. Car thieves can not register their ill gotten goods with ICBC either, but I do see anyone giving this as a reason for not having to register cars. To make matters worse for Weston, it nearly impossible for him to on the one hand throw his support behind registering "prohibited or restricted weapons (such as handguns)" and on the other hand demand that long guns no longer be registered. After all, the reason he gives for the latter is that criminals do not register their long guns as well as their prohibited and restricted weapons. Weston can not have his cake and eat it too.
Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
The Conservatives like to hammer the Liberals over the cost of the gun registry and rightly so. That said, the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag does not have any baring on whether long guns should be registered. What matters is whether the annual cost (between 1.5 and 4 million dollars) of registering long guns is worth it. Implying that the initial cost over runs justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.
Now as for the justifications the Liberals have given for continuing to register long guns, other than to point out that the fact that the gun registry is used x number of times each day by the police, the Liberals have said remarkably little about the gun registry over the years. Their refusal to say much more has hurt them. They would have been in much better place had the continually come up with justifications.
Moving on, it is rich of Weston to imply that the Liberals have politicized the issue more than other parties. Not only have the Liberals not continually come up with justifications, they have spent a fraction of the Conservatives have on the issue. The Conservatives have spent money on radio ads and billboards. The Liberals have not.
Weston:
"This is a big distraction. It has been politicized. There is an unfortunate need for the Liberals to defend their waste of the $2 billion by continually coming up with justifications.
There's an Angus Reid poll that says 72 per cent of Canadians want the registry scrapped. There was a nationwide survey of rank-and-file police officers that said 92 per cent of them thought the registry was ineffective."
In 2006 Conservative candidate form Ajax Pickering famously said “The facts don’t matter.” I see John Weston is of the same mindset.
The auditor general put the cost of the gun registry at just under 1 billion, no Angus Reid poll ever showed those numbers and and this so called nationwide survey of rank and file police officers was chat room poll and so was no more scientific than Ted White's many "polls". My hat goes off to the North shore News for pointing this out.
"Setting up the registry ran notoriously over budget, reaching nearly $1 billion, according to the federal auditor general."
"In fact, the Aug. 24 Angus Reid poll of 1,005 Canadians reported that 44 per cent favoured scrapping the registry, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent unsure. The police survey was an unscientific online poll conducted by an Edmonton officer on a police chat forum. The forum's operator later disavowed the survey, calling the results "mixed and inconclusive."
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
By the way, this is what the most recent poll shows.
"Overall, 48 per cent of those surveyed believe it's a bad idea to abolish the registry, with 38 per cent supporting its abolition. (Harris/Decima interviewed just over 1000 Canadians. A sample of this size has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.)"
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
John Weston:
"The answer remains that we don't have any documented cases -- that I know of -- where the registry has performed its avowed purpose," he said. "In each case, if you look closely the registry would not have saved the victim. It's not doing its job. All it's doing is intruding on the liberties of Canadian farmers, duck hunters, and other law-abiding gun owners."
The gun registry is, first and foremost a tool for seizing guns from people who should no longer have them. I doubt even Weston would deny that it makes the seizure of guns easier. This was the thrust of what West Vancouver police chief Lepine said.
"Having a detailed inventory of the 4,029 registered firearms in West Vancouver helps police with court-ordered seizures of weapons from convicted offenders, said Lepine. If legally held weapons are stolen and eventually surface somewhere in the criminal economy, the registry records give officers a place to start in their investigation, he said.
"The next one is public safety. We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."
http://www.nsnews.com/news/Chief+Const+Lepine+Save+registry/3539157/story.html
The problem is that Weston refuses to acknowledge that sometimes legally registered weapons need to be seized because the owner has, for example, been convicted of a crime. In this he is not alone; I have yet to hear a Conservative acknowledge that there have been thousands of "Canadian farmers, duck hunters", who acquired a criminal record over the last 12 years and over the next 12 years there will be thousands more.
As for specific examples, Weston must not have looked very hard.
“I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired.
“He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/gunregistry/article/863178--why-gun-control-is-really-a-gender-issue?bn=1
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Liberal messaging and the media
For years the Liberals have assumed that they can talk directly to the public. They are wrong. First all of all, the Liberals are not in government and so much of what they have to say is not newsworthy. Secondly, most of what the Liberals say is such thin stuff it is lucky they get any news coverage at all. The Liberals are boring. Not only is the party not coming up with interesting policy proposals, but the Liberals stubbornly refuse to talk about any issue intelligently least they offend someone. This holds true even for issues they do support. Take the gun registry. Beyond pointing to the fact that police forces around the country access the gun registry x number of times every day, the Liberals have not said a thing.
Another mistake the Liberals have made is they have been slow to realize one does not need to be on the right side of public opinion to make political gains. The public often do not care deeply about this or that issue. What is important in these cases is that parties speak intelligently about the issue. After all, being on the right side of public opinion in these cases does not have much upside. Worse, if the talking points are badly crafted, stating a popular opinion badly may actually hurt a party. Such was the case with the census. The decision to dump the voluntary long form was popular enough, but Conservative talking points were so asinine they became media fodder and punchline to various jokes.
Yet another mistake the Liberals make is that they do not spend nearly enough time poking holes in their opponents arguments. To expand on what was said above with regard to the census, the Liberals spent virtually all of their time talking about how various interest groups make use of the census. Given the fun the media were having with Tony Clement and the fact some Conservatives were saying that denying funding to special interests was exactly the point, the Liberal approach was utterly misconceived. Never mind giving credence to a Conservative talking point. Tony Clement was digging a big hole for himself and Liberals should have been gathered around and pissing in it. A good reductio ad absurdum is one of the most deadly weapons in an opposition's MPs arsenal. The Liberals do not seem to realize this.
Finally, the Liberals need to realize that not much of their message reaches the public unfiltered and much of what the public knows about the issues the Liberals care about is what they pundits have to say about them. Least they continue to give various conservative pundits free reign, something that they have done since Trudeau stepped down, the Liberals have to go to the trouble of putting out detailed arguments. These arguments might never reach the public, but the pundits will have to deal with them and what the pundits say does reach the public.
Another mistake the Liberals have made is they have been slow to realize one does not need to be on the right side of public opinion to make political gains. The public often do not care deeply about this or that issue. What is important in these cases is that parties speak intelligently about the issue. After all, being on the right side of public opinion in these cases does not have much upside. Worse, if the talking points are badly crafted, stating a popular opinion badly may actually hurt a party. Such was the case with the census. The decision to dump the voluntary long form was popular enough, but Conservative talking points were so asinine they became media fodder and punchline to various jokes.
Yet another mistake the Liberals make is that they do not spend nearly enough time poking holes in their opponents arguments. To expand on what was said above with regard to the census, the Liberals spent virtually all of their time talking about how various interest groups make use of the census. Given the fun the media were having with Tony Clement and the fact some Conservatives were saying that denying funding to special interests was exactly the point, the Liberal approach was utterly misconceived. Never mind giving credence to a Conservative talking point. Tony Clement was digging a big hole for himself and Liberals should have been gathered around and pissing in it. A good reductio ad absurdum is one of the most deadly weapons in an opposition's MPs arsenal. The Liberals do not seem to realize this.
Finally, the Liberals need to realize that not much of their message reaches the public unfiltered and much of what the public knows about the issues the Liberals care about is what they pundits have to say about them. Least they continue to give various conservative pundits free reign, something that they have done since Trudeau stepped down, the Liberals have to go to the trouble of putting out detailed arguments. These arguments might never reach the public, but the pundits will have to deal with them and what the pundits say does reach the public.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Carney wrong to Raise Interest Rates
Declining GDP numbers Check
Talk of Double dip recession Check
Talk of further US Job losses Check
Canadian personal debt levels out of control Check
Talk of a housing bubble Check
There was no reason for Carney to raise interest rates.
Raising interest rates means the Canadian dollar will go up against the US dollar. Thus making are exports less competitive at time of low demand in the States. It also ultimately increases people's mortgage payments. Carney is right to be worried about Canadians being overstretched and burdened by the high cost of housing. However, demand for housing is way off last years pace. In other words, there is no housing market to cool off. Worse, raising interest rates now will only send more people over the edge and so could burst and already deflating bubble. Housing bubbles are a bad thing. Bursting a housing bubble, as opposed to slowly letting it deflate, is much much worse though.
Putting pressure on Harper to increase the requirements for taking out a mortgage is a far more effective way of preventing Canadians form taking on too much mortgage debt than increasing borrowing costs for everyone and increasing the interest charges on existing mortgages.
Talk of Double dip recession Check
Talk of further US Job losses Check
Canadian personal debt levels out of control Check
Talk of a housing bubble Check
There was no reason for Carney to raise interest rates.
Raising interest rates means the Canadian dollar will go up against the US dollar. Thus making are exports less competitive at time of low demand in the States. It also ultimately increases people's mortgage payments. Carney is right to be worried about Canadians being overstretched and burdened by the high cost of housing. However, demand for housing is way off last years pace. In other words, there is no housing market to cool off. Worse, raising interest rates now will only send more people over the edge and so could burst and already deflating bubble. Housing bubbles are a bad thing. Bursting a housing bubble, as opposed to slowly letting it deflate, is much much worse though.
Putting pressure on Harper to increase the requirements for taking out a mortgage is a far more effective way of preventing Canadians form taking on too much mortgage debt than increasing borrowing costs for everyone and increasing the interest charges on existing mortgages.
The pundits, the gun registry and "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers"
What separates a good pundit from a bad one is 1) the ability to unpack and critique political talking points, 2) a willingness to step back from politics and assess an issue honestly and 3) an abhorrence of political boiler plate. Pundits are not extensions of political parties -- or least they should not be.
This summer Canada's pundits have done a pretty good job. They ruthlessly mocked the Conservatives census talking points and did not pay much heed to the Liberals had to say on the subject. The Liberals deserved to be ignored and the Conservatives laughed at.
Enter the "long gun registry". The long time Liberal talking point about the gun registry being used by police x time of times a day is pretty thin gruel and the pundits have long be right to ask where is the beef. That said, this is no reason to leave the various Conservatives talking points virtually untouched and that is exactly what has happened over the years. For starters there is no reason for letting the Conservatives talk about a "long gun registry". There is but one registry -- a gun registry.
More substantively, consider the following talking point.
Stephen Harper:
http://www.nationalpost.com/Police+chiefs+endorse+registry+over+Tories+plan/3435694/story.html#ixzz0ytLV3cVbOf
Pundits have rightly noted that while it costs around 3 million a year to register long guns, had the Conservatives continued to collect monies for these guns (about 15 million annually), then there would be no cost to tax paper whatsoever. They have also noted despite the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag, saying these cost overruns justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.
However to leave at that is not enough. After all, the number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (just over 2 million) and as with any large population certain predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a sizable number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" in absolute terms will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that an equal or greater number will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership.
Between 1999 and 2008 22,523 licenses refused or revoked. By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have. In sum, the gun registry helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Indeed between November 2008 and April 2009, the police seized about 3600 registered guns. Based on their rhetoric, the registry is therefore something Conservatives should support not oppose.
Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."
http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf
Finally, the pundits can no longer be so concerned with only what the political parties have to say on the subject and so miss the guy in gorilla suit. http://www.livescience.com/health/invisible-gorilla-basketball-video-inattentiveness-100712.html Suicide is at the center of the academic debate about gun control and one can not ignore it and still remain credible. A significant number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" and their family members in absolute terms use long guns to commit suicide.
This summer Canada's pundits have done a pretty good job. They ruthlessly mocked the Conservatives census talking points and did not pay much heed to the Liberals had to say on the subject. The Liberals deserved to be ignored and the Conservatives laughed at.
Enter the "long gun registry". The long time Liberal talking point about the gun registry being used by police x time of times a day is pretty thin gruel and the pundits have long be right to ask where is the beef. That said, this is no reason to leave the various Conservatives talking points virtually untouched and that is exactly what has happened over the years. For starters there is no reason for letting the Conservatives talk about a "long gun registry". There is but one registry -- a gun registry.
More substantively, consider the following talking point.
Stephen Harper:
"Canadians have been very clear. They want us to spend our time and our money focusing on the criminal misuse of firearms and not going after law-abiding duck hunters and farmers."
http://www.nationalpost.com/Police+chiefs+endorse+registry+over+Tories+plan/3435694/story.html#ixzz0ytLV3cVbOf
Pundits have rightly noted that while it costs around 3 million a year to register long guns, had the Conservatives continued to collect monies for these guns (about 15 million annually), then there would be no cost to tax paper whatsoever. They have also noted despite the gun registry's 1 billion dollar price tag, saying these cost overruns justify dumping any part of the gun registry now is akin to saying the gazebo in Tony Clement's riding should be blown up because the Conservatives spent 1.3 Billion on a three day conference . http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-staffer-accuses-tories-of-trying-to-discredit-auditor-general/article1667099/ It makes no sense.
However to leave at that is not enough. After all, the number of legal gun owners in Canada, is huge (just over 2 million) and as with any large population certain predictions can be made about their future behavior. One thing we can know for sure is that a sizable number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" in absolute terms will be convicted of a crime sometime in the future and that an equal or greater number will develop a mental disorder that will render them unsuitable for gun ownership.
Between 1999 and 2008 22,523 licenses refused or revoked. By having "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" register their firearms, authorities can ensure that guns, owned by "duck hunters and farmers" who are no longer fit to own a gun, are properly disposed of. A gun license only indicates that person has the right to own a firearm. It does not tell the cops whether someone actually owns a gun or how many guns they might have. In sum, the gun registry helps keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Indeed between November 2008 and April 2009, the police seized about 3600 registered guns. Based on their rhetoric, the registry is therefore something Conservatives should support not oppose.
Furthermore, as it allows guns to be traced back to their last legal owner, the registry makes illegal sales and straw purchases more difficult and so helps keep "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" honest. "Studies have shown that in the US, states with both licensing and registration (versus one or the other) had fewer guns diverted from legal to illegal markets."
http://www.aspq.org/DL/Declarationang.pdf
Finally, the pundits can no longer be so concerned with only what the political parties have to say on the subject and so miss the guy in gorilla suit. http://www.livescience.com/health/invisible-gorilla-basketball-video-inattentiveness-100712.html Suicide is at the center of the academic debate about gun control and one can not ignore it and still remain credible. A significant number of "law-abiding duck hunters and farmers" and their family members in absolute terms use long guns to commit suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
