Professional Politicians vs. Citizen Politicians

The untimely passing of the leader of Canada's official opposition and the NDP, Jack Layton today reminded me of this issue.   As much as Jack was an honourable man and a skillful politician,  he represented what I believe is one of the fundamental political problems in the West these days.  Of his too brief 61 years,  half were spent as a politician.  His employment outside politics was less than a decade as a university professor.   A someway dated but prescient letter to the editor of the New York Times back in 1989 here said it marvellously:

"The founders of our system envisioned citizens who would take a leave from their jobs and lives, ''lend'' their experience to the business of government and then return to private life. Through career politicians we have allowed a culture of access, influence and self-interest to grow up."  

Now lets keep in mind that this was one of the founding differences between the U.S. and Canada.   Canada, though, has moved further towards the original American model of citizen politicians and America toward the professional politician pattern.     There is more political turnover in Canada than in the U.S.   It doesn't cost as much here to mount a political campaign.  There are, however, tendencies.   And they are dangerous.    An elite can develop and both self-perpetuate.

As much as I liked Jack,  he represented what I see as a political scourge,  the professional politician.

Now certainly there are advantages to professional politicians.  They know their way around.   They become skilled in the ways of government and politics.     The trouble is implicit in this.     After ten years or more, there is not much else they can do and so it becomes in their own interest to ensure that they remain.  They may depart one level of government (either by their own choice or the electorate's) and then entrench themselves at another level.      What happens is that they become detached from ordinary life.   How can you represent ordinary people (those without fat pensions and benefits, for example, or those who must meet a payroll) when it has been years since you were one of them?

They may pretend to be ordinary, but it reminds me of George Bush Sr. on encountering a cashier's scanner at a supermarket some years ago and being astonished at such technology.  Where had he been all those years?

It is the job of the civil service to provide the continuity and stability in government.   It is the job of politicians to lead and represent the people as they do so.     They should be both responsive and forward looking.    But not self-interested.    You ought to enter politics later in life as a way of giving back to society, of sharing your talents, experience and ideas.     The people can either support you or reject you.

Unfortunately,   Barack Obama is a classic professional politician.   Consider his resume.   His success is buttressed by his immense talent as a public speaker.    He was able to ride the Web 2.0 wave supported by the second scourge of 21st century politics, the cult of personality, as was Jack Layton.

Here is an interesting discussion on the issue of career vs. citizen politicians.  It is from last year and the context is American, but the dialogue is very enlightening.

Happy Canada Day

It's Canada Day and so apropos the title of this blog, I should write a post.   But not a rant.

What of Canada in 2011?  I am more optimistic than I have been in the past.  We are a pretty good place in the world to live when one considers the alternatives.    We are repeatedly rated among the top countries in quality of life indices.   Let’s avoid the sin of hubris though, and the pull of inertia.   Thankfully the elites no longer hold the sway they once did.  The information and communications revolutions founded on IT and education have seen to that. We are no longer dominated by Quebec and Ontario politically and economically. There are significant economic, cultural and political cleavages, but nothing like what one sees in places like Greece, France or Libya.  Unlike Thailand, there is no looming civil war.   Unlike Japan, our population is stable and our economy is strong.   We do not face the complicated and entrenched mess of the United States.  It is peaceful here, clean and convenient.  Most Canadians don't need to fear getting sick.  Our health care system does a decent job for most.  There is lots of land.  People can largely live as they wish, whether as conformists or eccentrics.

Significant challenges remain, but better to face these from a position of strength than weakness.   Despite our low inflation rate, the cost of living is rising faster than family incomes.   Maintaining our quality of life is not a given.  Remember Argentina.    I sometimes wonder if my generation will live as well as my parents’ generation.  Many things remain skewed.  Our universities are producing too many lawyers and not enough engineers.  We need people who know how to make, fix and improve things, not how to complicate life in order to further their own ends.  We need to become more energy efficient as energy costs will continue to rise.  It is also a good thing to mitigate pollution and global warming.  We need to fix our democracy in order to engage the public and reflect public opinion in forming and applying public policy.     We need to apply the latest ideas and intelligence to the smooth and equitable functioning of this polity called Canada.

This is a country of tremendous potential.   This is a country of tremendous goodwill founded on good people (recent riots notwithstanding).     This is a country of sound institutions that can be ‘tweaked’.    It has been suggested that we should be a model for other countries.     Some people complain a great deal, but remember our history.   After 500 years of Western colonization and nation-building we have reached this point.   How have other countries fared in that time?     If we had gone in other directions, followed other paths we might be as poor and strife-ridden as other places.   We did not.   We should not reject our history as we move forward.   We can celebrate it.   That is part of who we are.    Continuity is important.    As we celebrate this day, have an eye to the present, but also the past and the future.     Happy Canada Day!

An amazing speech by Conservative British Prime Minister David Cameron

 I came across this revolutionary and inspiring speech by British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron
on TED.    The speech,  "The Next Age of Government"  is a TED talk  given in February 2010,  several months before Cameron became prime minister.     He proposes some radical ideas for government.   Here is the transcript of the speech.

Proceeding from the premise that governments in the West are faced with incredible cost pressures that limit their ability to expand programs as a means of improving the quality of life,  he proposes harnessing the intelligence of information and communications technology to reshape how government attacks its job.

With a focus on things that underlie well-being, such as family relationships, friendship, community and values,
Cameron then suggests that political philosophy, political thinking and the information revolution can remake politics, government and public services for the better.

Some of the ideas:

1.  Conservative political philosophy:   Give people more power and control over their lives.  Give them
     more choice.   Connect this with the communications and information revolution.

2.  Conservative political philosophy:   Go with the grain of human nature assisted by the latest knowledge in    
     behavioral economics.

2.   Political thinking:   Emphasize transparency, choice and accountability.  Again this should be connected to
     IT and Web2.0

Read/listen to the short speech for the details.   It is just an introduction.   The premise of not enough money is questionable.  Most left-leaning sorts would say we need to tax corporations more and that will provide gobs of money for improved social services.   I question whether more money and more programs fixes things.
Look at Vancouver's downtown  East side,   Nunavut and the Aboriginal situation in Canada and poverty in general.   How much money have governments at all levels spent to alleviate poverty and how much have things improved?   Compare with 50 years ago.  

Unfortunately,  David Cameron left out reforms to the democratic process in his speech and successfully saw nixed a couple of months ago a fundamental change to this.   I hope that an improvement to the political process married with IT and Web2.0  is a part of this thesis.

An interesting libertarian -- Charles Murray

No stranger to controversy,  Charles Murray has been at the forefront of conservative-libertarian policy analysis for the past twenty-five years.      His theses shock us, but make us think.

Open your mind and view this recent speech  

Representation by Population and Quebec

Quebec is complaining about changes to the makeup of parliament that will reflect population growth in Ontario and the West by giving additional seats to these areas (17 to Ontario, 7 to BC and 5 to Alberta).   Today in the Globe and Mail  

Well, if you had wanted to fight this battle, you should have elected Conservatives and so had a say in government. You chose to be out of the loop and so you must bear your fate.

Unfortunately, seats cannot be taken away from regions of stagnant or declining population, so our parliament will simply have to grow and grow. Oh God!  If provinces and regions want to maintain or increase their presence in parliament, then they need to get their house in order and attract more people nor have more babies.

Look at the present situation. The government is simply adjusting things to make underrepresented provinces more fairly represented.

Province	Percent of National Population	Percent of Parliament	under/over representation
Ontario	38.7	34.4	under
Quebec	23.2	24.4	over
BC	13.3	11.7	under
Alberta	10.9	9.1	under
Manitoba	3.7	4.5	over
Saskatchewan	3.1	4.5	over
Nova Scotia	2.8	3.6	over
New Brunswick	2.3	3.2	over
Newfoundland	1.5	2.3	over
PEI	0.4	1.3	over

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population


And further ...  very interesting reading on population growth statistics from Statistics Canada:

Provincial and territorial projections

Ontario and British Columbia are the only provinces in which average annual growth would exceed the growth rate for Canada as a whole between 2009 and 2036, according to all scenarios.

Ontario's population would increase from nearly 13.1 million in 2009 to between 16.1 million and 19.4 million in 2036, depending on the scenario. Under the medium-growth scenario, it would account for 40.5% of the national population in 2036, up from 38.7% in 2009.

The population of British Columbia would increase from nearly 4.5 million in 2009 to between 5.8 million and 7.1 million in 2036. Under the medium-growth scenario, its share of Canada's total population would rise from 13.2% to 14.5%.

Quebec would remain the second most populous province. Its population would rise from 7.8 million in 2009 to between 8.6 million and 10.0 million in 2036.

Under the lowest-growth scenario, Newfoundland and Labrador's population would decline from 508,900 in 2009 to 483,400 in 2036. Under the highest-growth scenario, it would rise to 544,500.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100526/dq100526b-eng.htm

So, what do slow growing regions propose? Do we punish faster growing regions by not allowing their political representation to reflect this?  Do we change the Senate to provide regional population or abolish it?
Very interesting dynamics at play here.   The NDP in BC approves of the changes.  Where does Smiling Jack stand?  Ah, such a balanced and delicate dance is required when you have a sizeable number of MPs from Quebec!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Theodore Dalrymple

I first encountered this trenchant critic of contemporary culture a couple of years ago when I read his book
Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses.

His scathing commentary on modern Western society didn't surprise me altogether, but the way he
wrote it and his supporting examples were astonishing.   He has been called a modern George Orwell.
I highly recommend reading some of his essays.   There are some good websites about him and lots of his stuff is available on the internet.

Here are some good links:

The Skeptical Doctor (Dedicated to the work of Theodore Dalrymple)

Life at the Bottom  (Dalrymple's 2003 book available free online via City Journal)

CBC Ideas Interview   (An interview with Dalrymple from 2006)

Whither Canada?

Wither Canada?

We are in a relatively good place right now in comparison with other nations in the world, but putting national policy on cruise control is always a dangerous move. Federally at the moment the choice is quite clear between the 'right' and the 'left'. The Conservatives and the NDP have starkly contrasting visions of where they want to take Canada.

An interesting way to look at this is to compare nations based on the amount of government expenditure as a percentage of GDP and their tax burden as a percentage of GDP. The numbers should be somewhat similar, otherwise there will be a serious shortfall. (See Greece and Britain)

Former NDP MP Tony Martin looks back on his time in Ottawa.

I thought we had a real chance at a progressive government in the fall and winter of 2008-2009 – the coalition. For me, the lowlight was not being able to achieve that. I thought we had a chance to achieve a progressive government that would have allowed us to do a whole bunch of things, including working on the reduction of poverty. The government we have has no interest in doing anything about poverty. The lowlight was we didn’t achieve it and that the Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out.

Do not be fooled. You cannot say they haven't indicated whither they will take us.

Some samples (this is taken from OECD stats) for 2011:

Country	Gov’t Tax Burden % of GDP	Gov’t Expenditure % of GDP
Argentina	26.1	24.7
Australia	30.8	34.3
Austria	42.9	49.0
Belgium	46.5	50.0
Brazi	l 34.4	41.0
Canada	32.2	39.7
Chile	18.6	21.1
China	18.0	20.8
Cuba	41.2	78.1
Czech Republic	36.2	42.9
Denmark	49.0	51.8
Finland	43.2	49.5
France	44.6	52.8
Germany	40.6	43.7
Greece	35.1	46.8
Hong Kong	13.0	18.6
Israel	33.5	42.9
Italy	43.1	48.8
Japan	28.3	37.1
Malaysia	15.3	26.3
Mexico	8.2	23.7
Netherlands	39.	8 45.9
New Zealand	34.5	41.1
Norway	42.1	40.2
Singapore	14.2	17.0
South Korea	26.6	30.0
Spain	33.9	41.1
Sweden	47.9	52.5
Switzerland	29.4	32.0
Taiwan	12.9	18.5
UK	38.9	47.3
US	26.9	38.9

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SNA_TABLE11



Right now I would estimate the OECD average to be about 42%, but I need to do a little number crunching. Two important points to consider:

1. Know your competition. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong must keep their taxes and government spending similar to compete, as must
South Korea and Japan, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and America.
It makes no sense to say we must compete with the likes of China or Taiwan, but we must remember they are breathing down our necks.

2. In public policy, one establishes models (stated or unstated). Governments can move their expenditure and tax numbers up or down over time, depending on different factors. Canada right now, at about 40% government spending is in a comfortable spot for many (but not the hard core libertarians). I can live with this. The problem is that demographic forces will cause this to grow (as it will in many other nations) unless we re-allocate spending.

Here, we must be careful. If the feds cut, but provinces make up the difference by increased spending, then we gain nothing. And the fastest growing bit of government in North America in recent years has been the one most off the radar (except the radar of the public sector unions) has been local government. How much do your local city and school board administrators make these days? How much has the staffing size and costs increased in recent years. It doesn't make headlines, but it should.

Now back to Jack. The darling of the NDP for oh so many years has been the lovely social democratic country of Sweden, where the government cares for your from cradle to grave, where daycare is free, retirement is comfortable (and health care is a mix of public and private services!). In Sweden, government spending is 52.5% of GDP. Taxes are 47.9%. And these will grow in coming years. For Canada to get here, our total taxes would have to rise by 49% and government spending by 32%. I guess the only comfort is that the NDP mainstream has quietly written off Cuba
(78% government expenditure)! Maybe the NDP equivocates and claims that Sweden isn't their only model. The other Scandinavian countries are similar in government spending: Denmark 51.8%, Netherlands 45.9, Finland 49.5%. Norway is the exception, but their numbers are distorted by their immense North Sea oil revenues.

Some things to consider in coming years. Do you want more government in your life? Do you want more taxes? This is what Jack Layton said in response to the recent federal cabinet appointments. His priorities are:

Making life more affordable for ordinary Canadians
More health care
Better Retirement security
Family supporting jobs (?!)

It is nice to say, but it must be squared with the reality of the situation. Look at the stats. Compare countries. Remember demographics.







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad