Time for a paradigm shift

Society has always had and always will have its faults. The trouble is that these days many of these faults are unacceptable because we are wiser and should know better. We can fix the problems if we have the will. The trouble is too many people don’t have the will. The rights and responsibilities equation is all out of kilter. Lawyers and academics have too much say and so we equivocate. Fence sitters and grey-shaders lead us to where? A warm fuzzy world where there is no right and wrong. But be careful as your child might be nabbed from his sleeping bed or you might be hit by a street racer while you’re out for an afternoon walk.



Witness the recent incident in Vancouver where thirteen luxury cars were impounded for the equivalent of street racing. They were driven during rush hour at speeds of up to 200 km/hr by drivers between the ages of 18 and 22, six of whom still had new driver class licenses. The ‘criminals’ were fined $196 and their autos impounded. I fear that in not too long a time, the vehicles will be returned and that will be the end of it. The lawyers will have won and society will have lost. We will have been taken for suckers.



Another case is the disingenuous polls being bandied about in the recent Ontario election. One poll put out by the (liberal) Globe and Mail has the provincial Liberals ahead by ten points. Another poll published by the (conservative) Sun Media has the Conservatives ahead by ten points. What’s going on? In this case, society is not being suckered by lawyers, but by pollsters and the media. But only if we believe them. Many educated people are indeed governed by a healthy amount of skepticism, and some by outright cynicism. Too many though, are too busy or naive and believe the stories and narratives the entrenched elites proffer them.


What to do? This is the problem. Both situations I’ve illustrated are unacceptable. The trouble is that I lean towards libertarianism and so fear the heavy hand of government regulating evermore even the minutiae of our lives. First and foremost the job of government is to protect us from dangers like 18-year-olds driving Lamborghini's at 200 km/hr at rush hour. If they can’t stop it, they punish the culprits to the hilt thereby dissuading others from following in the same footsteps. Who would disagree other than a few civil libertarian lawyers and academics? This should be easy. 

The next bit is considerably harder, but in some ways more important as it shapes the very way we are governed. It has to do with influence and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) willful or not of information. The curmudgeon in me leans towards W.C. Fields admonition that “It’s a sin against nature to leave a sucker in full possession of his assets.” However, if a government is thereby elected because voters were sucked in, then I begin to doubt this. It’s better to inculcate the healthy skepticism necessary for a healthy democracy. Voters should hence view a poll published by the (liberal) Globe and Mail that shows the Liberals leading in the polls with suspicion rather that an opportunity to jump on the proffered public opinion bandwagon. What if following an election it turns out that voters were duped, either by the politicians or by the media? Can the election be overturned? I remember my fury some years back (even though I was far removed and living in Thailand) when the government of British Columbia was re-elected largely on the premise that the budget was balanced. Unfortunately, soon after it was discovered that this was not the case and the premier in the election knew this. Elected on a lie! The electorate had no recourse but to wait four or five years to turf the bums out. 

The only real solution as I see it is a paradigm shift. There should be no more four-year dictatorships. A government should not be able to enact major policies without public consultation and approval. A government should not be able to govern without public sanction. The premier or prime minister should not have the power of an autocrat. Of course, the equivocators (fearing any loss of their entrenched power) will say that public opinion serves as an effective sanction. That’s a lot of horsefeathers. Referenda and right of recall à la California is not the solution either as monied interests (special and corporate) love this. You move society toward that ideal America’s founding fathers described many years ago -- ‘a government by the people and for the people’. You have citizen politicians not professional politicians. Government moves forward via dialogue, not dictate. Harmony is fostered, not discord. Rather than waste time and money playing political games, political time and effort is dedicated towards remedying faults and enabling society. Not easy ends by any means, but that is what a paradigm shift entails. The world is undergoing such a fundamental change supported by new technology and communications that it is laughable to think that our society continues to be governed by the same politics as has been in play the last two hundred years.

Are Canadians political suckers?

In Canadian politics,  the voters are taken for suckers.    Our leaders lie to us incessantly.
After running on a campaign opposing wage and price controls in 1974, no sooner does Pierre Trudeau win election than he brings in mandatory wage and price controls.    “We will cancel the GST ,”promised Jean Chretien.   “We won’t tax income trusts,” claimed Stephen Harper.
“An HST is not being considered”, said Gordon Campbell before winning the last British Columbia election.     At least in the last case the deceiver was pretty much forced out of office for his shameless lie.    

Some interesting suggestions are being made in the media that the NDP was trying to pull a fast one on the Canadian public during the last federal election by not disclosing the true medical condition of Jack Layton, who was seeking the office of Prime Minister.  
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lysiane-gagnon/what-if-quebeckers-had-known-the-whole-story-about-jack-layton/article2160221/)   Had Canadians known that Jack’s broken hip was caused by his previous prostate cancer having metastasized into his bones,  would they have so readily given their votes to him (and the NDP)?    I don’t wish to curse the dead in writing this, but to shine a light on the dirty machinations of politics engaged in by all parties.     One good thing that can be said about American politics is that you know that you are voting for the one you wish to be president and that his or her chosen running mate could well become the president should anything happen.    In Canada as in Britain, this is not at all the case.   A prime minister or premier can step down or die in office and anyone can assume their role, elected or not.   What kind of democracy is this?   Had Jack Layton maintained his momentum and become Prime Minister, who would be leading the country now?  Some closet separatist/socialist nobody outside of Quebec has ever heard of?  Who knows what NDP bigwigs were planning in the event of  electoral triumph.  In British Columbia,  we are being led by a woman who was never elected as premier, but merely won her party’s leadership convention and was elected as MLA by 7500 people in a largely conservative riding.  Her initial suggestion (promise?) of calling an early election to earn a mandate has been nixed due to the HST referendum fiasco, and so she will govern British Columbia until 2013 based on this mandate given by 7500 voters.      All this should provide even  more impetus for a fundamental shift in how politics works in Canada.

Managing the narrative (or at least attempting to)

It was interesting to listen to British Columbia's minister of finance, Kevin Falcon, in a recent interview.    He has the unenviable task of managing a catastrophe due to the rejection of a tax that would clearly have helped the government manage the substantial growth in demand for government services to come with the fundamental demographic shifts due to aging baby boomers and low birth rates among the younger generation.   Instead of lamenting the failure on the revenue side,  he has framed the outcome as a political message to manage spending better (read spend less and cut waste).   This is certainly not the case and the referendum outcome should not be taken as a mandate for anything except a rejection of government stupidity and arrogance.   However, smart politicians try to control the message rather than be controlled by it.    Sound bites are important.  Narrative is critical.

There have even been suggestions that government unions which supported the anti--tax forces may  be hoisted on their own petard.   This is perfectly true.  How can you seek substantial wage and benefits when there is no increase in revenues to pay for it?  With a tax like the HST, the government could easily equate an increase in cost pressures with an increase in the tax.   Give the public the option -- we can pay for this, but it will mean x% increase in the HST.   It would have been nice, but it is history now.  Let's move on.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is government spending in Canada out of control?

Last month,  British Columbia voters in a historical referendum rejected the recently implemented HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) which combined the 7% provincial sales tax and 5% federal goods and services tax.   54% of the 1.6 million people who voted, opted to chuck the new tax, more for political than purely economic reasons.

There is stupidity and there is monumental stupidity.   Bringing in a new tax without consulting with people and without effectively selling it and providing incentives to adopt it is stupidity. Monumental stupidity is asking people to vote on a new tax.    Monumental stupidity is allowing a referendum question on an issue to be framed such that “yes” indicates rejection rather than support for the issue.   My only comfort is that by limiting the revenue that the HST would provide, perhaps the government will have to limit the growth of spending.   This could be the silver lining to the whole HST disaster.

British Columbia total government spending from 2001 to 2011 rose 80% , from $24 billion to $44 billion.   The growth in population was 12%.   From 2001-2011 cumulative inflation in Canada was 20-25%.    That means that the net spending increase outside of population growth and inflation was at least 43%.   This is nearly 50% over ten years.

It was worse with the federal government.  Federal government program spending grew from    $116 billion in 2001 to a projected $249 billion in 2011.  This is a 115% increase compared with 20-25% cumulative inflation and national growth in population of 15%.  That leaves a net growth in spending of 75%.  So much for arguments about government cutbacks the past decade.   These numbers are astounding. Revenues over the same period grew a meagre 42% (17% real growth).

One should also relate this to the economy via GDP figures and growth.  It’s not so bad then as average per capita GDP national and provincial British Columbia growth over the past decade has been about 3% annually , which translates into a 31.7% increase in provincial GDP and a 29,1% increase in national GDP  (from Statistics Canada 2000-2009).   If one buys into the argument that increased GDP should lead to increased government spending, not a given by any means, then provincial and federal government spending growth in excess of inflation,  population and economic growth (the last two of which are included in the per capita GDP figures) for the past decade are  are 23.3% for British Colombia (more reasonable) and the still rampant 61% for the federal government.

All of this neglects the stealth-like growth of municipal spending.   One recent report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business claimed that between 2000 and 2008,  municipal spending in British Columbia was 59%.   Add another couple of years and it is probably close to the provincial growth numbers.   Amazing!   There are quite a lot of little political kingdoms being built and entrenched under the radar that will be hard to cut or slow in future years.

Beware.  Eventually somebody has to pay for all this and it won’t be the international multinational corporations the left loves to claim are not paying their fair share. And all this growth in spending is before the really significant cost pressures from the interplay of demographics and our public health care system hit the fan.