Canada is a peculiar sort of democracy that tends towards periods of one party rule.
At the Federal level the governing Conservative party has no effective opposition with any realistic prospect of winning an election. It was this dynamic that allowed Stephen Harper to govern as if he had a majority even when he held a minority of seats for a number of years. With a newly minted leader of the Opposition New Democrats and an interim leader of the Liberal party, Harper's majority is unlikely to be threatened at the next election. Prior to Harper, Jean Chretien rattled off 3 successive majority election wins due to an incoherent and divided opposition. He was finally forced from office by his own party in a move reminiscent of politburo politics.
At the provincial level, the Progressive Conservative Party held power in Ontario for 42 years until 1985. The New Brunswick Liberals under Frank Mckenna truly had one party rule when they won every single seat in the legislature in 1987.
Alberta is probably the most grotesque example of this sort of one party rule. The Social Credit party ruled a dynasty that governed Alberta for 36 years until 1971. They were replaced by the Progressive Conservative party that has ruled since (41 years).
It was against this background that the upstart Wildrose party rose to challenge the status quo in Alberta. Opinion polls showed the Wildrose ending the Tory dynasty right up until 24 hours before election day when Tory numbers surged. The PC's were returned to power with a majority thus extending their rule til around 45 year at the time of the next election.
The Wildrose party was a new movement and as such had it's share of kooks. One candidate said he had an advantage because he was white and thus could speak for everyone while minorities tended to represent their own. Another candidate said that homosexuals would burn in a ring of fire on judgment day.
Now I'm no Constitutional law expert but if indeed homosexuals are to burn in a ring of fire....I don't believe that to be a matter of Provincial jurisdiction under our Charter.
The Wildrose party was not ready to govern. However it is still unfortunate that they didn't do better. The Tories of Alberta have gotten too comfortable in power. This happens with all parties across the spectrum. Once they are in power too long, they stop serving the people and start serving themselves. They become lazy and corrupt because they get used to being in power. A sense of entitlement creeps in.
This is why change (for its own sake) is occasionally good in politics. Alberta is in an enviable fiscal position because they happen to sit atop a lot of oil, natural gas and coal. They are not there because of good prudent government management. In fact Alberta has run serious deficits recently despite their natural advantages.
The wealth of natural resources has made good government less important and the Tories have behaved accordingly. One hopes that the near death experience that they just experienced gives them a good wakeup call to sharpen their pencils and get to work. If not, there will be a seasoned and experienced opposition waiting to take power from them in 4 years. By then Wildrose should have gotten over their teething pains, expelled their more loopy members and be ready to win.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Republicans Cruise towards a Disastrous November
It's been said that a strong political party is characterized by a weak elite and strong grassroots.
The Republican party's elites anointed Mitt Romney as their standard bearer some time ago....perhaps as much as four years ago. The Republicans have long had a tradition of "waiting you turn" wherein the second place finisher in one cycle becomes the nominee at the next available opportunity. Reagan finished second to Ford in 76 before getting the nomination in 80. George H.W. Bush finished second to Reagan in 80 before getting the nomination in 88. Dole, McCain and now Romney continue this pattern. This establishment support was fine when the grassroots (more or less) agreed. Never before has the grassroots been so at odds with the establishment.
Four years ago the Democratic party's elites clearly lined up behind Hillary Clinton. So deep was her support amongst the establishment that she was initially endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus over Barack Obama. The Democratic party had a brutal primary battle and the support of the elites was not enough. The grassroots came out in force to give Obama the nomination and then they mobilized to make him the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win 50%+1 of the votes cast nationally.
In 2004 George W Bush was able to mobilize his base of support to be the first President since his father to win a majority of votes cast. (Clinton did not get a majority either time and Bush did not in his first election). The grassroots support was the key to his election victory.
Today Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee. Other candidates have come forward to surge into the lead in polls. The party establishment went to great lengths to squash the candidacies of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and now Rick Santorum. Each of these candidates were complicit in their own implosion as well and that is also telling.
The Republican party's base could not find a champion who could withstand the establishment bias and so Romney hung in with his money....the others all ran out of money.
Mitt Romney will not carry Massachusetts despite his serving as Governor of the state. He will not carry his home state of Michigan. Nobody seriously expects him to have a chance in either.
He ran as a pro-choice candidate when he ran for Governor. He brought in something close to universal health care as Governor of Massachusetts. Today he is running as a pro-life candidate and swears that he will repeal Obamacare...which many say was modelled on Romneycare.
It is very difficult to respect someone who manages to be pro-life AND pro-choice. He has the look of a classic politician who will say ANYTHING to get elected. He now claims that he is "severely conservative".....a claim that Reagan never needed to make.
The video of Mitt Romney declaring at a southern primary campaign even that he "likes grits" was simply too precious. I've tried grits. I neither love nor hate em. Did he really think that a pathetic attempt like that to curry favour would win him any votes?
Other big misses: challenging Rick Perry at a debate to wager 10,000 dollars. Who does that? Bet a hundred bucks or a case of beer maybe. Most ordinary people might have a hard time identifying with someone who can bet 10,000 dollars like it's spare change in his pockey....which to him it is.
He said that he doesn't follow NASCAR but is friends with several NASCAR team owners. Seriously?
The establishment's crowning of Romney will come back to haunt them. He will have a hard time holding traditionally Republican states as many "base" voters stay at home unable to bring themselves to cast a vote for Romney. He doesn't have crossover support because he (more than any other recent candidate) fits the stereotype of the the Republicans being a party of rich white guys.
When the Democrats kept losing, their candidates kept falling over each other trying to show how tough they were on crime and declaring that they support capital punishment. A pundit on TV ridiculed this approach by saying "if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time."
The Democrats will have campaign ads featuring Mitt Romney declaring that he is pro-choice and favours universal health care. The voters will choose between a Democrat and a Democrat.
I'm glad i'm not an American voter because I'm not sure what i would do if faced with marking ballot for Obama or Romney.
Obama will win in a landslide!
The Republican party's elites anointed Mitt Romney as their standard bearer some time ago....perhaps as much as four years ago. The Republicans have long had a tradition of "waiting you turn" wherein the second place finisher in one cycle becomes the nominee at the next available opportunity. Reagan finished second to Ford in 76 before getting the nomination in 80. George H.W. Bush finished second to Reagan in 80 before getting the nomination in 88. Dole, McCain and now Romney continue this pattern. This establishment support was fine when the grassroots (more or less) agreed. Never before has the grassroots been so at odds with the establishment.
Four years ago the Democratic party's elites clearly lined up behind Hillary Clinton. So deep was her support amongst the establishment that she was initially endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus over Barack Obama. The Democratic party had a brutal primary battle and the support of the elites was not enough. The grassroots came out in force to give Obama the nomination and then they mobilized to make him the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to win 50%+1 of the votes cast nationally.
In 2004 George W Bush was able to mobilize his base of support to be the first President since his father to win a majority of votes cast. (Clinton did not get a majority either time and Bush did not in his first election). The grassroots support was the key to his election victory.
Today Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee. Other candidates have come forward to surge into the lead in polls. The party establishment went to great lengths to squash the candidacies of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and now Rick Santorum. Each of these candidates were complicit in their own implosion as well and that is also telling.
The Republican party's base could not find a champion who could withstand the establishment bias and so Romney hung in with his money....the others all ran out of money.
Mitt Romney will not carry Massachusetts despite his serving as Governor of the state. He will not carry his home state of Michigan. Nobody seriously expects him to have a chance in either.
He ran as a pro-choice candidate when he ran for Governor. He brought in something close to universal health care as Governor of Massachusetts. Today he is running as a pro-life candidate and swears that he will repeal Obamacare...which many say was modelled on Romneycare.
It is very difficult to respect someone who manages to be pro-life AND pro-choice. He has the look of a classic politician who will say ANYTHING to get elected. He now claims that he is "severely conservative".....a claim that Reagan never needed to make.
The video of Mitt Romney declaring at a southern primary campaign even that he "likes grits" was simply too precious. I've tried grits. I neither love nor hate em. Did he really think that a pathetic attempt like that to curry favour would win him any votes?
Other big misses: challenging Rick Perry at a debate to wager 10,000 dollars. Who does that? Bet a hundred bucks or a case of beer maybe. Most ordinary people might have a hard time identifying with someone who can bet 10,000 dollars like it's spare change in his pockey....which to him it is.
He said that he doesn't follow NASCAR but is friends with several NASCAR team owners. Seriously?
The establishment's crowning of Romney will come back to haunt them. He will have a hard time holding traditionally Republican states as many "base" voters stay at home unable to bring themselves to cast a vote for Romney. He doesn't have crossover support because he (more than any other recent candidate) fits the stereotype of the the Republicans being a party of rich white guys.
When the Democrats kept losing, their candidates kept falling over each other trying to show how tough they were on crime and declaring that they support capital punishment. A pundit on TV ridiculed this approach by saying "if you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they'll choose the Republican every time."
The Democrats will have campaign ads featuring Mitt Romney declaring that he is pro-choice and favours universal health care. The voters will choose between a Democrat and a Democrat.
I'm glad i'm not an American voter because I'm not sure what i would do if faced with marking ballot for Obama or Romney.
Obama will win in a landslide!
Friday, March 30, 2012
A Disappointed Conservative
I have voted Conservative for all of my adult life. There are few voters who are more reliably Conservative. I am deeply disappointed with the Conservative party's recent moves in Ottawa and Queen's Park.
Today the Conservatives tabled their first budget since winning a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Many rank and file Conservatives were willing to cut Harper some slack while he was leading a minority Government. After all, how bold could he be when the opposition parties could bring him down at any time?
This budget did two noteworthy things. It raised the age for drawing the public pension to 67 from 65 and cut departmental spending by $5.2 billion.
This government deserves credit for raising the retirement age. At the time that the age of 65 was set, the average lifespan was 67 and Canada's working age population was growing rapidly. Today, the average lifespan is pushing 80 and our working age population is simply not keeping pace with the population of retirees. However this change is being phased in beginning with the year 2023...AFTER the bulk of the baby boomers have retired. While raising the retirement age is long overdue and they deserve credit for taking a step in the right direction, this is far too timid a change.
We don't know the details of the 5.2 billion dollars in spending cuts but we do know that the deficit is projected to be over $20 billion for next year. This is 20 billion dollars on top of the 23 billion dollar deficit we will run this year. In these two years alone, that amounts to $1400 per Canadian being passed on as debt to future generations. This is unacceptable.
What this budget did not do was reverse one of the Conservative government's most dubious moves. The minority Harper government of 2006 & 2008 reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. This one move alone is responsible for $11 billion of the current year's deficit according to the Globe and Mail. The Mulroney government brought in the GST and the Liberals campaigned against it. Once in office the Liberals realized that it would be irresponsible to get rid of it or even to cut the rate. Harper thought otherwise and has cut it by 2%. I had hoped that he might reverse this move once he got a majority....I sit disappointed since the debt being passed on to future generations could be much lower.
Tim Hudak is another disappointment. During the last election he came across as a lightweight and mistakes were not hard to find. Still he did manage to deny McGuinty a majority. McGuinty delivered a budget knowing that he needed at least one of the two other parties to support him to avoid triggering another election. So does Hudak use his leverage to wring some concessions from McGuinty? No of course not. He declares right away that he will oppose the budget....hence strengthening the hand of the NDP and making himself as irrelevant as if he were the Opposition leader facing a majority government. Why doesn't he realize that he could have accomplished something by playing ball with McGuinty? Why does he want a more left leaning budget which would be the result of NDP support. He just doesn't seem to get it.
Maybe I don't get it....but the Harper budget isn't materially better than a Paul Martin budget....it might even be worse. Hudak has ensured that the Ontario budget that eventually passes will reflect more NDP priorities than Conservative priorities. Each has chosen to take the easy path....also known as the wrong path.
Today the Conservatives tabled their first budget since winning a majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Many rank and file Conservatives were willing to cut Harper some slack while he was leading a minority Government. After all, how bold could he be when the opposition parties could bring him down at any time?
This budget did two noteworthy things. It raised the age for drawing the public pension to 67 from 65 and cut departmental spending by $5.2 billion.
This government deserves credit for raising the retirement age. At the time that the age of 65 was set, the average lifespan was 67 and Canada's working age population was growing rapidly. Today, the average lifespan is pushing 80 and our working age population is simply not keeping pace with the population of retirees. However this change is being phased in beginning with the year 2023...AFTER the bulk of the baby boomers have retired. While raising the retirement age is long overdue and they deserve credit for taking a step in the right direction, this is far too timid a change.
We don't know the details of the 5.2 billion dollars in spending cuts but we do know that the deficit is projected to be over $20 billion for next year. This is 20 billion dollars on top of the 23 billion dollar deficit we will run this year. In these two years alone, that amounts to $1400 per Canadian being passed on as debt to future generations. This is unacceptable.
What this budget did not do was reverse one of the Conservative government's most dubious moves. The minority Harper government of 2006 & 2008 reduced the GST from 7% to 5%. This one move alone is responsible for $11 billion of the current year's deficit according to the Globe and Mail. The Mulroney government brought in the GST and the Liberals campaigned against it. Once in office the Liberals realized that it would be irresponsible to get rid of it or even to cut the rate. Harper thought otherwise and has cut it by 2%. I had hoped that he might reverse this move once he got a majority....I sit disappointed since the debt being passed on to future generations could be much lower.
Tim Hudak is another disappointment. During the last election he came across as a lightweight and mistakes were not hard to find. Still he did manage to deny McGuinty a majority. McGuinty delivered a budget knowing that he needed at least one of the two other parties to support him to avoid triggering another election. So does Hudak use his leverage to wring some concessions from McGuinty? No of course not. He declares right away that he will oppose the budget....hence strengthening the hand of the NDP and making himself as irrelevant as if he were the Opposition leader facing a majority government. Why doesn't he realize that he could have accomplished something by playing ball with McGuinty? Why does he want a more left leaning budget which would be the result of NDP support. He just doesn't seem to get it.
Maybe I don't get it....but the Harper budget isn't materially better than a Paul Martin budget....it might even be worse. Hudak has ensured that the Ontario budget that eventually passes will reflect more NDP priorities than Conservative priorities. Each has chosen to take the easy path....also known as the wrong path.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Opposition Follies
This weekend will see the election of a leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition when the NDP elects a leader to replace the late Jack Layton. This will be a welcome development.
At this point in time, the opposition benches consist of 142 Members of Parliament consisting of 103 NDP members, 34 Liberals, 4 members of the Bloc Quebecois and a single member of the Green Party.
Of these 4 opposition parties the only permanent leader of a party sitting in the Commons is Green Party Leader Elizabeth May who presides over a caucus of one.
The two leading parties are both the subject of leadership squabbles.
In the case of the NDP, it is a formal leadership contest. The establishment has supported a backroom organizer named Brian Topp while the grassroots seems to be supporting Quebec Liberal turned NDP MP Thomas Mulcair. The election of Topp would endanger the half of the NDP caucus that was elected in Quebec...or so we are told. The election of Mulcair would prevent the NDP from making gains in the rest of Canada which would be necessary to form a government. Besides we are told that Tom Mulcair is not a very nice man. People seem to have forgotten that Jack Layton was not always "smiling Jack." (When he ran for mayor of Toronto against June Rowlands, he came across like an angry, bitter person attacking an old woman. He lost.)
The Liberal leadership question carries far more historical baggage. For a couple of generations the Liberal party has actually been two parties that cooperate only during elections. The left leaning wing of the party had Pierre Trudeau who begat Jean Chretien who begat Bob Rae. The right wing had Lester Pearson who begat John Turner who begat Paul Martin who begat Michael Ignatieff. Liberal leadership squabbles are nothing new. New Leader John Turner was perpetually pulling knives out of his back with Chretien's finger prints on them. Even electoral success was no salve for this constant squabbling. Chretien won three consecutive majorities but the Martin camp dispatched him in a bloodless coup.
When Stephane Dion inspired the grassroots to elect him over the choice of both camps....the knives were out from both establishment camps. He didn't have a chance. Looking back one wonders if the earnest, professorial Dion might not have done better in a rematch against Prime Minister Harper....he could hardly have done worse.
Reading the tea leaves, it seems that the Liberal establishment will leave Bob Rae in charge and make him the permanent leader. After all, it is the Trudeau-Chretien wing's turn. It also means that Rae will follow Ignatieff as the second consecutive leader who was acclaimed rather than elected. Ignatieff was savaged by the Conservatives for running for Prime Minister of a country in which he had not lived for most of his adult life. The Conservatives will surely say something similar about a life long Socialist who switched parties in a grab at power.
The only place in which polls have moved significantly since the last election is Quebec. The Bloc has recovered some of their support and it seems to be a 4 way race in Quebec. However the Conservatives can lose all 6 of their Quebec seats and still have a majority government. A resurgent Bloc combined with a fading NDP might actually result in more Conservative MP's due to vote splitting.
Taking this all into account, it is hard to see any party challenging the Conservative majority in 3 years time. Rookie leaders often have difficulties...Paul Martin, Steven Harper, Ignatieff and Dion are all good examples.
Harper will win by default....and that will be very bad for Canadian Democracy. Politicians of every stripe get increasingly arrogant and corrupt as they hold onto power longer. Without an effective opposition holding the government's feet to the fire, I fear that bad government will result.
The robo call scandal appears to be a tempest in a teapot. At this point, it appears that this "scandal" affects a few hundred voters in one riding that the Tories lost. It doesn't appear (at this point) to have been a coordinated attempt at voter suppression. That the opposition parties can do more than make a big ruckus about his while tweeting public records of a Minister's acrimonious divorce shows how ineffective the opposition is. Perhaps they might try attacking government policies?
Canada is in a period of one party rule due to an opposition in disarray. This was not a good thing when Chretien was in power and it is not a good thing now. Despite my Conservative leanings, I do hope that the opposition gets their act together. I am not optimistic.
At this point in time, the opposition benches consist of 142 Members of Parliament consisting of 103 NDP members, 34 Liberals, 4 members of the Bloc Quebecois and a single member of the Green Party.
Of these 4 opposition parties the only permanent leader of a party sitting in the Commons is Green Party Leader Elizabeth May who presides over a caucus of one.
The two leading parties are both the subject of leadership squabbles.
In the case of the NDP, it is a formal leadership contest. The establishment has supported a backroom organizer named Brian Topp while the grassroots seems to be supporting Quebec Liberal turned NDP MP Thomas Mulcair. The election of Topp would endanger the half of the NDP caucus that was elected in Quebec...or so we are told. The election of Mulcair would prevent the NDP from making gains in the rest of Canada which would be necessary to form a government. Besides we are told that Tom Mulcair is not a very nice man. People seem to have forgotten that Jack Layton was not always "smiling Jack." (When he ran for mayor of Toronto against June Rowlands, he came across like an angry, bitter person attacking an old woman. He lost.)
The Liberal leadership question carries far more historical baggage. For a couple of generations the Liberal party has actually been two parties that cooperate only during elections. The left leaning wing of the party had Pierre Trudeau who begat Jean Chretien who begat Bob Rae. The right wing had Lester Pearson who begat John Turner who begat Paul Martin who begat Michael Ignatieff. Liberal leadership squabbles are nothing new. New Leader John Turner was perpetually pulling knives out of his back with Chretien's finger prints on them. Even electoral success was no salve for this constant squabbling. Chretien won three consecutive majorities but the Martin camp dispatched him in a bloodless coup.
When Stephane Dion inspired the grassroots to elect him over the choice of both camps....the knives were out from both establishment camps. He didn't have a chance. Looking back one wonders if the earnest, professorial Dion might not have done better in a rematch against Prime Minister Harper....he could hardly have done worse.
Reading the tea leaves, it seems that the Liberal establishment will leave Bob Rae in charge and make him the permanent leader. After all, it is the Trudeau-Chretien wing's turn. It also means that Rae will follow Ignatieff as the second consecutive leader who was acclaimed rather than elected. Ignatieff was savaged by the Conservatives for running for Prime Minister of a country in which he had not lived for most of his adult life. The Conservatives will surely say something similar about a life long Socialist who switched parties in a grab at power.
The only place in which polls have moved significantly since the last election is Quebec. The Bloc has recovered some of their support and it seems to be a 4 way race in Quebec. However the Conservatives can lose all 6 of their Quebec seats and still have a majority government. A resurgent Bloc combined with a fading NDP might actually result in more Conservative MP's due to vote splitting.
Taking this all into account, it is hard to see any party challenging the Conservative majority in 3 years time. Rookie leaders often have difficulties...Paul Martin, Steven Harper, Ignatieff and Dion are all good examples.
Harper will win by default....and that will be very bad for Canadian Democracy. Politicians of every stripe get increasingly arrogant and corrupt as they hold onto power longer. Without an effective opposition holding the government's feet to the fire, I fear that bad government will result.
The robo call scandal appears to be a tempest in a teapot. At this point, it appears that this "scandal" affects a few hundred voters in one riding that the Tories lost. It doesn't appear (at this point) to have been a coordinated attempt at voter suppression. That the opposition parties can do more than make a big ruckus about his while tweeting public records of a Minister's acrimonious divorce shows how ineffective the opposition is. Perhaps they might try attacking government policies?
Canada is in a period of one party rule due to an opposition in disarray. This was not a good thing when Chretien was in power and it is not a good thing now. Despite my Conservative leanings, I do hope that the opposition gets their act together. I am not optimistic.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Robocalls and Elections
I wasn't sure what to make of the robo-call controversy where Liberal votes were allegedly suppressed via robocalls that directed voters to the wrong polling stations.
The media were as quick as ever to jump in and fan the flames of controversy. We have heard that as many as 30 ridings were affected....however it should be noted that some newspapers asked their readers to report to them if they received robocalls during the last election.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1137496--did-you-get-a-mysterious-robo-call-during-last-year-s-federal-election
Such a request is sure to draw out complaints that have nothing to do with voter suppression so the report of 30,000 complaints being made to Elections Canada should be taken with a grain of salt until the facts come out.
At this point it appears that there is a smoking gun in only one riding. If it turns out that it was a campaign that was widespread enough to stain the election results....then the Prime Minister should dissolve Parliament and call an election. If however it turns out to have happened only in Guelph where the Liberals won in any case.....then the result should be criminal prosecution of those responsible.
A basic question for me is whether robo-calls can be banned entirely. Since they do deal with a political issue, such expressions do get a greater level of charter protection....however I don't think many people would view a computer dialed phone call with a recorded message as anything other than annoying.
If it passes Charter muster, I'd love to see robocalls banned entirely.
The media were as quick as ever to jump in and fan the flames of controversy. We have heard that as many as 30 ridings were affected....however it should be noted that some newspapers asked their readers to report to them if they received robocalls during the last election.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1137496--did-you-get-a-mysterious-robo-call-during-last-year-s-federal-election
Such a request is sure to draw out complaints that have nothing to do with voter suppression so the report of 30,000 complaints being made to Elections Canada should be taken with a grain of salt until the facts come out.
At this point it appears that there is a smoking gun in only one riding. If it turns out that it was a campaign that was widespread enough to stain the election results....then the Prime Minister should dissolve Parliament and call an election. If however it turns out to have happened only in Guelph where the Liberals won in any case.....then the result should be criminal prosecution of those responsible.
A basic question for me is whether robo-calls can be banned entirely. Since they do deal with a political issue, such expressions do get a greater level of charter protection....however I don't think many people would view a computer dialed phone call with a recorded message as anything other than annoying.
If it passes Charter muster, I'd love to see robocalls banned entirely.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Greek Bailout Part ????
The latest bailout of Greece by the European is likely to fail. The cuts to pensions and the minimum wages have caused the citizens to rise up in the worst rioting years.
The situation is ridiculous. Let's put this in perspective....Greece has agreed to not repay 53% of the money that they have borrowed from private lenders. In return, Greece will receive additional loans of 130 billion euros. Where can i get a deal like that?
The bailout cannot succeed without the cooperation of the Greek people. In order for the ship to be righted, the Greek people must go to work, earn money and (most importantly) pay their taxes. Without that tax revenue, these additional loans will go into default like before.
The politicians can all agree (as they mostly have) that Greece has no choice but to accept the terms of the bailout....but the citizens seem to disagree. Large numbers of the citizenry are not going to work....they are going on strike and protesting. Neither of these actions does anything other than reduce the tax base. Greek newspapers have published photos of German Chancellor Angela Merkel dressed up as a Nazi. This is beyond the pale....unless the Nazis made a habit of paying the credit card bills of nations that spent too much (if they did, history did not record this benevolence)...such caricatures trivialize the Third Reich.
You can only lead a horse to water. The Greek government has mismanaged their finances and the Greek people are blocking a resolution. This is the lay of the land. With this background, a messy default, exit from the Euro and a chaotic depression is the likely result. This is what the people have chosen and this is why the bailout is likely to fail.
The situation is ridiculous. Let's put this in perspective....Greece has agreed to not repay 53% of the money that they have borrowed from private lenders. In return, Greece will receive additional loans of 130 billion euros. Where can i get a deal like that?
The bailout cannot succeed without the cooperation of the Greek people. In order for the ship to be righted, the Greek people must go to work, earn money and (most importantly) pay their taxes. Without that tax revenue, these additional loans will go into default like before.
The politicians can all agree (as they mostly have) that Greece has no choice but to accept the terms of the bailout....but the citizens seem to disagree. Large numbers of the citizenry are not going to work....they are going on strike and protesting. Neither of these actions does anything other than reduce the tax base. Greek newspapers have published photos of German Chancellor Angela Merkel dressed up as a Nazi. This is beyond the pale....unless the Nazis made a habit of paying the credit card bills of nations that spent too much (if they did, history did not record this benevolence)...such caricatures trivialize the Third Reich.
You can only lead a horse to water. The Greek government has mismanaged their finances and the Greek people are blocking a resolution. This is the lay of the land. With this background, a messy default, exit from the Euro and a chaotic depression is the likely result. This is what the people have chosen and this is why the bailout is likely to fail.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Same Sex Marriage Foolishness
On Jan 12th the Globe and Mail reported that the same sex marriages performed in Canada (in accordance with the laws of Canada) were only valid if they were valid in the country in which the couple actually reside. This came to light when a non-Canadian same sex couple (who were never resident in Canada) attempted to get a divorce in Canada and were told that they weren't legally married.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-confusion-has-couples-wary-of-what-happens-next/article2301014/
This was widely reported as an "about face" by the Harper government and a threat to Canada's legal position permitting same sex marriage.
The Harper government announced that they had no intention of reopening that debate and moved to close this apparent "loophole."
Now the same newspaper is reporting that by fixing this apparent "loophole", there are now two different sets of rules for divorces for same sex vs heterosexual couples.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-to-close-loophole-in-same-sex-marriages-creates-double-standard/article2342275/
The truth is that there was no double standard and that a whole lot of ink was spilt and politicans stood on their soapboxes over a non-issue.
The new legislation will indeed make it possible for a foreign same sex couple who got married in Canada to get a divorce in Canada....but it will leave financial and children's custody issues to the jurisdiction in which the couple live. In short, the only thing this will accomplish is to dissolve a marriage that does not exist legally in the country in which the same sex couple live....all of the contentious issues around a divorce at left untouched.
The truth is that the law should not have been amended. There was no loophole. In fact, the law regarding Canadian recognition of same sex marriage was the same as the law for a marriage between a man and a woman.
Canadian laws do not apply in other jurisdictions. Does anybody honestly think that they should? It's too silly to even contemplate since that would mean that foreign laws would have force in Canada.
Now I understand why a same sex couple would want their union to be legally sanctioned in a form similar to traditional marriage. I'm sure it's very emotionally uplifting for them. I'm not sure I understand why a divorcing couple would want Canada to issue a piece of paper stating that their marriage no longer exists. It would seem easier just to agree that it didn't exist since their country didn't recognize it in the first place.
However I come back to a larger issue. Why is the Government in the business of defining what is a valid marriage? We have long since passed the day when a traditional family unit was assumed to be essential to the rearing of children. Children come into this world in the absence of marriage all the time. Sometimes people even raise children in a home together as a family without ever getting a government document that approves of their status. Unmarried people even live together and sometimes don't have children!!!!!!
Government should get out of the business of defining marriage and leave that to religious authorities to define for their followers. Communions aren't any less meaningful because no level of government in Canada has defined who is eligible for a communion or not.
Financial disputes and custody battles happen in the absence of marriage and the laws should address the resolution of these matters.
Why Canada is crafting laws that have no practical effect is really beyond me. However, if i was an advisor to Stephen Harper, I would be all for it. It's a chance for a politician to not do anything but get credit for it anyways. What politician wouldn't jump at that chance?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/same-sex-marriage-confusion-has-couples-wary-of-what-happens-next/article2301014/
This was widely reported as an "about face" by the Harper government and a threat to Canada's legal position permitting same sex marriage.
The Harper government announced that they had no intention of reopening that debate and moved to close this apparent "loophole."
Now the same newspaper is reporting that by fixing this apparent "loophole", there are now two different sets of rules for divorces for same sex vs heterosexual couples.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bill-to-close-loophole-in-same-sex-marriages-creates-double-standard/article2342275/
The truth is that there was no double standard and that a whole lot of ink was spilt and politicans stood on their soapboxes over a non-issue.
The new legislation will indeed make it possible for a foreign same sex couple who got married in Canada to get a divorce in Canada....but it will leave financial and children's custody issues to the jurisdiction in which the couple live. In short, the only thing this will accomplish is to dissolve a marriage that does not exist legally in the country in which the same sex couple live....all of the contentious issues around a divorce at left untouched.
The truth is that the law should not have been amended. There was no loophole. In fact, the law regarding Canadian recognition of same sex marriage was the same as the law for a marriage between a man and a woman.
Canadian laws do not apply in other jurisdictions. Does anybody honestly think that they should? It's too silly to even contemplate since that would mean that foreign laws would have force in Canada.
Now I understand why a same sex couple would want their union to be legally sanctioned in a form similar to traditional marriage. I'm sure it's very emotionally uplifting for them. I'm not sure I understand why a divorcing couple would want Canada to issue a piece of paper stating that their marriage no longer exists. It would seem easier just to agree that it didn't exist since their country didn't recognize it in the first place.
However I come back to a larger issue. Why is the Government in the business of defining what is a valid marriage? We have long since passed the day when a traditional family unit was assumed to be essential to the rearing of children. Children come into this world in the absence of marriage all the time. Sometimes people even raise children in a home together as a family without ever getting a government document that approves of their status. Unmarried people even live together and sometimes don't have children!!!!!!
Government should get out of the business of defining marriage and leave that to religious authorities to define for their followers. Communions aren't any less meaningful because no level of government in Canada has defined who is eligible for a communion or not.
Financial disputes and custody battles happen in the absence of marriage and the laws should address the resolution of these matters.
Why Canada is crafting laws that have no practical effect is really beyond me. However, if i was an advisor to Stephen Harper, I would be all for it. It's a chance for a politician to not do anything but get credit for it anyways. What politician wouldn't jump at that chance?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Stalking 'Boston'
So after Huntington Beach I feel that I can openly talk about stalking this girl named Boston. She might be out of my league and I might be fooling myself but i can't stop thinking about her. She keeps moving the goal posts on me....3:20, then 3:15. She says i'm not good enough but if I can run about a mile faster than I did, then she might let me in. She might be teasing me but I have to try!!!
Truth is that i've been aiming for Boston ever since my first race (4:50 at Niagara Falls 2010) but I fully deserved the rolling eyes I would have gotten if I had spoken about it out loud. It was sheer foolishness at that point.....a quality that I am well known for.
As the times got faster, (3:54 at Mississauga, May 2011), it only seemed further away. 3:36 at Montreal seemed like a breakthrough but that still meant that I had to knock off 21 minutes...or to put it in perspective...finish about 4 km ahead of where i finished. Hamilton got me down to 3:27 which is "only" 12 minutes away...but that is still over 2km faster and Hamilton had a big downhill.
3:22 at Surf City (on a flat course) is still 7 minutes away (1.5km) and my last 12km have actually gotten worse over the last 4 marathons. I've gotten faster overall but faded worse at the end.
So now I'll set myself up for failure and embarrassment (two things which I thrive on, weird I know!!!).
I'm going for Boston at the Toronto Goodlife Marathon on May 7th. I will probably fall short and that will be devastating...but then again I might not. Either way, I'll give it a go.
Only thing i know for sure is that i will be booking some physio and massages for the week after. These marathons really really hurt...a lot!!!!!
Truth is that i've been aiming for Boston ever since my first race (4:50 at Niagara Falls 2010) but I fully deserved the rolling eyes I would have gotten if I had spoken about it out loud. It was sheer foolishness at that point.....a quality that I am well known for.
As the times got faster, (3:54 at Mississauga, May 2011), it only seemed further away. 3:36 at Montreal seemed like a breakthrough but that still meant that I had to knock off 21 minutes...or to put it in perspective...finish about 4 km ahead of where i finished. Hamilton got me down to 3:27 which is "only" 12 minutes away...but that is still over 2km faster and Hamilton had a big downhill.
3:22 at Surf City (on a flat course) is still 7 minutes away (1.5km) and my last 12km have actually gotten worse over the last 4 marathons. I've gotten faster overall but faded worse at the end.
So now I'll set myself up for failure and embarrassment (two things which I thrive on, weird I know!!!).
I'm going for Boston at the Toronto Goodlife Marathon on May 7th. I will probably fall short and that will be devastating...but then again I might not. Either way, I'll give it a go.
Only thing i know for sure is that i will be booking some physio and massages for the week after. These marathons really really hurt...a lot!!!!!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Marathon Review - Surf City Marathon (Huntington Beach, Feb 5,2012)
This past Sunday I had the pleasure of running the Surf City Marathon in Huntington Beach California.
I chose this particular race mainly because I couldn't run the LA Marathon as it conflicted with Around the Bay (in Hamilton, Ontario). Also the February date was great because there is a long gap from the Hamilton marathon of last November and the Toronto Goodlife in May of 2012. Basically, it was the one race that fit best on the calendar.
I wanted to do a race in California so that I could share the experience with my family who live in sunny California. My brother, sister in law, niece, nephew and my parents made the drive down to see me race.
I was worried about how they would find a good spot near the finish line with a 3 and 5 year old in tow. As I approached the finish line, I saw the little munchkins about 5 yards from the finish line with their noses right up against the fence.....what a moment!!!!
Personally, that made my race experience great no matter what else happened. However, I'd like to share some other thoughts.
1) Aid stations - Excellent! I couldn't believe how frequent they were. I always carry a water belt during races. For the first time, I wondered why I was carrying the extra weight. I heard some aid stations ran out of cups near the busiest part of the half marathon. That's unfortunate but the organizers have taken note and that should be an easy fix for next year. Nothing is every perfect when you have 20,000 runners barrelling through.
2) Start time was 6:30 AM. At first I was worried that this was too early, however the sight of the sun rising over the horizon as we started was pretty damn cool!!
3) Crowd Support was very good. This isn't a big deal to me since I much prefer the support of familiar faces to well meaning strangers reading the name off my bib yelling "Way to go Chuck!!!" Still this is a plus.
4) The Course was very nice. My only small complaint is the number of turnarounds. I hate turnarounds as I feel that I lose momentum and retrace my steps. I'd prefer a big circle but it did give us lots of time on the PCH with the views of the ocean. One of the runners yelled out that he saw some dolphins jumping....I missed it but that would have been pretty damn cool!!!
5) The weather was picture perfect at the start.....cool and dry. At the half way mark, I found myself running along the PCH without any shade and a fierce sun. Well that sucks but the weather is the weather. I suppose if it had rained people would have complained about that.
6) The expo was superior to any of the 5 prior expos I've been to (all in Canada). Lots of freebies and reasonably priced stuff for sale.
I had a good race with my familiar fade at the end. I was on pace to qualify for Boston with tie to spare after 30km (18.6 miles). As has happened at so many of my recent races, I faded into the finish. Still I recorded a personal best at 3:22. (5 minutes better than the prior race). Since it was a flat course, if there was a handicap system in marathons, this would be a zero handicap....ie a good benchmark. I am newly inspired to work on qualifying at my next attempt in May. I need to shave off 7 minutes...doable but tough.
Overall, I give the Surf City Marathon top marks. Their staff have been very active in seeking the opinions of participants on facebook after the race. I'm sure the race experience will be even better next year!!
I chose this particular race mainly because I couldn't run the LA Marathon as it conflicted with Around the Bay (in Hamilton, Ontario). Also the February date was great because there is a long gap from the Hamilton marathon of last November and the Toronto Goodlife in May of 2012. Basically, it was the one race that fit best on the calendar.
I wanted to do a race in California so that I could share the experience with my family who live in sunny California. My brother, sister in law, niece, nephew and my parents made the drive down to see me race.
I was worried about how they would find a good spot near the finish line with a 3 and 5 year old in tow. As I approached the finish line, I saw the little munchkins about 5 yards from the finish line with their noses right up against the fence.....what a moment!!!!
Personally, that made my race experience great no matter what else happened. However, I'd like to share some other thoughts.
1) Aid stations - Excellent! I couldn't believe how frequent they were. I always carry a water belt during races. For the first time, I wondered why I was carrying the extra weight. I heard some aid stations ran out of cups near the busiest part of the half marathon. That's unfortunate but the organizers have taken note and that should be an easy fix for next year. Nothing is every perfect when you have 20,000 runners barrelling through.
2) Start time was 6:30 AM. At first I was worried that this was too early, however the sight of the sun rising over the horizon as we started was pretty damn cool!!
3) Crowd Support was very good. This isn't a big deal to me since I much prefer the support of familiar faces to well meaning strangers reading the name off my bib yelling "Way to go Chuck!!!" Still this is a plus.
4) The Course was very nice. My only small complaint is the number of turnarounds. I hate turnarounds as I feel that I lose momentum and retrace my steps. I'd prefer a big circle but it did give us lots of time on the PCH with the views of the ocean. One of the runners yelled out that he saw some dolphins jumping....I missed it but that would have been pretty damn cool!!!
5) The weather was picture perfect at the start.....cool and dry. At the half way mark, I found myself running along the PCH without any shade and a fierce sun. Well that sucks but the weather is the weather. I suppose if it had rained people would have complained about that.
6) The expo was superior to any of the 5 prior expos I've been to (all in Canada). Lots of freebies and reasonably priced stuff for sale.
I had a good race with my familiar fade at the end. I was on pace to qualify for Boston with tie to spare after 30km (18.6 miles). As has happened at so many of my recent races, I faded into the finish. Still I recorded a personal best at 3:22. (5 minutes better than the prior race). Since it was a flat course, if there was a handicap system in marathons, this would be a zero handicap....ie a good benchmark. I am newly inspired to work on qualifying at my next attempt in May. I need to shave off 7 minutes...doable but tough.
Overall, I give the Surf City Marathon top marks. Their staff have been very active in seeking the opinions of participants on facebook after the race. I'm sure the race experience will be even better next year!!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The EU's Fatal (Future) Flaw
Of course in hindsight everything appears so much clearer.
The Euro project's currency union (of which 17 countries are a part) was flawed right from the start due to the lack of a fiscal union. Pundits from across the spectrum are now pointing out this fatal flaw. It all seems pretty obvious in retrospect. Seventeen countries are used the same currency but several members spent too much, putting the project at risk.....the other nations are powerless to stop these profligate nations.
So in response to the Greek crisis (as well as Irish crisis, Italian crisis, Spanish crisis, Portugal crisis), European leaders have introduced a mechanism by which EU headquarters in Brussels can veto a nation's budget plans if it is deemed to be unsatisfactory. This treaty was an attempt to introduce some external discipline to the nations deemed to be spending irresponsibly.
This measure is a band-aid which will work well during good times (when it is not invoked) but cause considerable social unrest and lead to ultimate failure during hard times.
Many of the problems of the European Union stem from a lack of common purpose despite the decision to be in a common boat together. Proponents of greater fiscal, political and monetary union imagined a grand project that effectively becomes "The United States of Europe." This is seen in the creation of several federal institutions such as the European Court of Justice, European Commission on Human Rights, the European Central Bank, the European Union Presidency. These institutions can sometimes override the laws of a member nation.
Yet while such federal institutions are developed, where is the accountability to the people? In the United States, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of last resort. Membership in the Supreme Court involves nomination by the President followed by Senate confirmation. A Judge can be removed via the Impeachment process.
As budget decision making moves from Athens to Brussels, how is it that the people of Greece will express dissatisfaction with budgetary decisions? They cannot vote out the bureaucrats in Brussels. Demonstrating in front of the Greek parliament would be pointless since the ultimate decisions are made in Brussels. Greeks have taken to the streets in anger over the actions of their government....imagine the anger if harsher decisions are made for them in another country. The temptation on the part of local politicians to "Campaign against those Brussels Bureaucrats" will be irresistible. This democratic deficit is not sustainable.
Europeans certainly have not accepted the level of fiscal and political union necessary to make the grand project a success. I doubt that they will ever accept such a level of integration.
European has long had forces at work attempting to "unify" the continent under common rule. This was often done through invasion, religious conversion or alliances. This has been true since all of Europe was ruled from Rome. Each of these attempts have failed and the result is a continent full of nations that act like divorced spouses. Some have attempted to put their differences aside for a common purpose (France and Germany), while others remain embittered and estranged (pick any two nations in the Balkan region).
In this complicated web of cultural differences and historical grievances, the EU is only capable of "bold" half measures. That is why this latest treat will fail. While centralizing power in Brussels appears to address the lack of fiscal union.....the lack of political union will be its undoing.
The Euro project's currency union (of which 17 countries are a part) was flawed right from the start due to the lack of a fiscal union. Pundits from across the spectrum are now pointing out this fatal flaw. It all seems pretty obvious in retrospect. Seventeen countries are used the same currency but several members spent too much, putting the project at risk.....the other nations are powerless to stop these profligate nations.
So in response to the Greek crisis (as well as Irish crisis, Italian crisis, Spanish crisis, Portugal crisis), European leaders have introduced a mechanism by which EU headquarters in Brussels can veto a nation's budget plans if it is deemed to be unsatisfactory. This treaty was an attempt to introduce some external discipline to the nations deemed to be spending irresponsibly.
This measure is a band-aid which will work well during good times (when it is not invoked) but cause considerable social unrest and lead to ultimate failure during hard times.
Many of the problems of the European Union stem from a lack of common purpose despite the decision to be in a common boat together. Proponents of greater fiscal, political and monetary union imagined a grand project that effectively becomes "The United States of Europe." This is seen in the creation of several federal institutions such as the European Court of Justice, European Commission on Human Rights, the European Central Bank, the European Union Presidency. These institutions can sometimes override the laws of a member nation.
Yet while such federal institutions are developed, where is the accountability to the people? In the United States, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of last resort. Membership in the Supreme Court involves nomination by the President followed by Senate confirmation. A Judge can be removed via the Impeachment process.
As budget decision making moves from Athens to Brussels, how is it that the people of Greece will express dissatisfaction with budgetary decisions? They cannot vote out the bureaucrats in Brussels. Demonstrating in front of the Greek parliament would be pointless since the ultimate decisions are made in Brussels. Greeks have taken to the streets in anger over the actions of their government....imagine the anger if harsher decisions are made for them in another country. The temptation on the part of local politicians to "Campaign against those Brussels Bureaucrats" will be irresistible. This democratic deficit is not sustainable.
Europeans certainly have not accepted the level of fiscal and political union necessary to make the grand project a success. I doubt that they will ever accept such a level of integration.
European has long had forces at work attempting to "unify" the continent under common rule. This was often done through invasion, religious conversion or alliances. This has been true since all of Europe was ruled from Rome. Each of these attempts have failed and the result is a continent full of nations that act like divorced spouses. Some have attempted to put their differences aside for a common purpose (France and Germany), while others remain embittered and estranged (pick any two nations in the Balkan region).
In this complicated web of cultural differences and historical grievances, the EU is only capable of "bold" half measures. That is why this latest treat will fail. While centralizing power in Brussels appears to address the lack of fiscal union.....the lack of political union will be its undoing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
