September 23, 2011
September 22, 2011
This is why the Ontario election has been such a snooze-fest
Scott Stinson explains that there is barely any difference between the warmed-over bowl of snot being offered by Premier Dalton McGuinty and the bucket of snot that Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives would like you to choose instead:
Mr. McGuinty himself put it this way: “He’s basically saying, ‘Whatever McGuinty’s doing on health care, I’ll do that. Whatever McGuinty’s doing on education, I’ll do that.’”
This is not entirely true, since there are certain differences in the way the governing Liberals and the opposition PCs would address each file — Mr. Hudak, to pick one example, vows to scrap the Local Health Integration Networks that were brought in under the McGuinty government. But on the whole, both men say they would govern Ontario, a province with a recently ballooned deficit and with a highly optimistic plan to return to balance, by spending the same amount on its most costly ministries.
This, however, does not make for a particularly compelling battle cry. “A Vote for Hudak Is A Vote For Incremental Change!” Or “Vote Liberal: We’re Pretty Much Like the Other Guy But Our Signs Are a More Pleasing Red.” And so, the leaders would much rather play up their differences.
This may be the first election since I became eligible to vote that I will not bother to go to the polls. I have the incumbent PC candidate, a Liberal, an NDP’er, and a Green. That is, centre-left, centre-left, left, and enviro-fascist. Such a choice!
Update: I’m clearly not alone in my distate for all the electoral options:
Hudak has forfeited a slam-dunk opportunity to ride that conservative tidal wave that made Rob Ford mayor and gave Stephen Harper a majority. He could’ve run on a simple “respect for taxpayers” platform, promising to axe the HST. That alone would’ve carried the day. Instead, he yammers on about chain gangs.
Come Oct. 6, I’m choosing option “D” on Ontario’s multiple-choice quiz: None of the Above.
I’m declining my ballot.
September 21, 2011
Not much “liberal” about Britain’s Liberal Democrats
Patrick Hayes reports from the Liberal Democrat conference:
What is the most ridiculous aspect of the Liberal Democrat 2011 conference? MP Sarah Teather’s cringeworthy attempt at a stand-up routine during her speech? Or maybe business secretary Vince Cable’s attempt to paint the current economic crisis as the equivalent of a war?
Actually, far and away the most farcical element of the four-day conference so far has been the fact that the Liberal Democrats persist in calling themselves ‘Liberals’, while at the same time announcing a range of policies that could deal a bodyblow to individual freedom. From plans to introduce parenting classes, to proposals to ban Page 3 girls and give the state powers to put investigative journalists behind bars, a rebranding as the Illiberal Democrats must surely be in the pipeline.
This trend was evident before the conference had even begun, with an unprecedented vetting of conference delegates that reportedly led to lots of members refusing to attend on the basis that the checks were ‘authoritarian, disproportionate and wrong’. Police advised that at least two individuals should be banned outright from the conference, with the Lib Dems agreeing in one of the cases.
September 20, 2011
Finnish MP calls for military coup in Greece
I guess somebody felt they needed a bit of international headline stimulant:
Jussi Halla-aho, an MP for the populist True Finns party, wrote on social networking website Facebook on Wednesday that the Greek government should use military force against workers on strike.
“What Greece needs at this particular point in time is a military junta that would not have to worry about its popularity and could use tanks to enforce some order among strikers and rioters,” Halla-aho wrote.
The Facebook entry soon sparked outrage, with Halla-aho removing it and retracting his comment.
September 19, 2011
The “Day of Rage” turns into a damp squib
Apparently it wasn’t the start of the anti-capitalist revolution after all:
September 17 was supposed to be the Day of Rage, the starting point of an anti-capitalist revolution that (in theory) was going to sweep the country coast-to-coast. As I noted yesterday, “The plan is to protest in state capitals and major cities across the nation, but the focus of the revolution will be in New York, where a hoped-for 20,000 anti-capitalists will ‘occupy’ Wall Street.”
I dutifully sent my operatives out to cover what were to be three of the largest Day of Rage protests — in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles — so humanity would have a full record of this pivotal moment in history.
Really, I should have learned my lesson by now: The bigger the build-up to a protest, and the more grandiose the promises, the louder the sound of the bellyflop onto the dustbin of irrelevancy.
In other words: “Day of Rage” was a massive FAIL.
Lots of sad photos at the link. Even the fringy-est of fringe movements were represented. As one of the photo captions says, “Down in L.A., there were so few authentic protesters, that the LaRoucheites comprised a significant proportion of the attendees.”
September 18, 2011
“One would have to go back to 1973 to find a more perilous time for the Jewish state”
David Harsanyi on the increasing UN pressure on Israel:
Sure, the United Nations has historically vacillated between deep irrelevance and monumental ineffectiveness. But with all its prevaricating and impotence on genuine threats to human rights across the world, next week it will be actively precipitating violence and endorsing ethnic cleansing.
It is understood that one of the preconditions for the existence of a Palestinian state is the judenrein West Bank. It will be purified of Jews, regardless of their political inclinations, Zionist or not, because effectively speaking no Jew will be able to live in the West Bank or East Jerusalem safely. Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States, Maen Rashid Areikat, has admitted as much.
[. . .]
Another onetime ally the increasingly Islamic Turkey has similarly turned on Israel, kicking out the Israeli ambassador, and ending military ties and trade pacts. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to send warships as escorts to “aid ships” in the next activist-filled flotilla trying to reach the Palestinians. A United Nations failure will only provoke more hostility and put the two nations in a potentially catastrophic position.
Supporters of Israel often speak in perfunctory tones about the existential threat Israel faces. But one would have to go back to 1973 to find a more perilous time for the Jewish state. With this vote, the United Nations is simply giving in to its seemingly pathological need to undermine Israel — no matter the circumstance, no matter the consequence.
There can be no other reason for a vote that is simultaneously so dangerous and so utterly useless.
Then again, that’s the perfect way to describe the United Nations.
September 17, 2011
September 16, 2011
How not to run an election campaign
I’ve been referring to Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak as “McGuinty Lite” for a few months now. Christina Blizzard has the same nickname for him:
He wants all-day kindergarten, has no problem with Muslim prayer in schools — and won’t talk about a greater role for the private sector in health care.
Dalton McGuinty?
Nope. It’s Dalton Light — aka Tim Hudak.
The beleaguered PC leader seems stuck.
The wheels on his campaign bus just don’t have any traction.
He went into the campaign 12 points ahead in the polls. Now, nine days into the campaign, he’s fighting to stay even with McGuinty.
Yet even this, “me-too,” campaign, has been branded as “Tea Party North,” by the Liberals.
Hudak has failed Politics 101.
I have two theories to account for this (neither of which is particularly convincing). First theory: there is some really nasty surprise waiting to be sprung on the premier soon after the election, and Hudak wants to avoid being the patsy. Second theory: Hudak has become really comfortable as leader of the opposition and doesn’t want to risk becoming premier.
Either of those, or perhaps Hudak is really a sleeper agent of the Liberal Party. That might account for it . . . he’s being called a “Tea Party” candidate, but it must be homeopathic tea, as there’s no strength to it at all. It’s been diluted down to nothingness.
Ontario’s clean energy Potemkin village
John Ivison reports on a recent photo op by Premier Dalton McGuinty:
The solar energy company touted this week by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as a flagship of the province’s clean energy economy has halted production because of slow demand.
Mr. McGuinty was flanked by Eclipsall Energy Corp.’s workforce when he visited its Scarborough solar panel plant Tuesday, but there was no mention that the production line is temporarily shut down. When my colleague Tamsin McMahon visited the plant she found the reception desk was empty, the cafeteria was closed and only a handful of employees milling around inside the sparsely furnished building.
Leo Mednik, Eclipsall’s chief financial officer, said the production line halt is because the company has already completed its current order book. “It’s no secret that the market is slow and there have been delays. That’s part of it — part of it is logistics. Our production team went through our purchased inventory a lot quicker than expected,” he said.
Not only is the plant not working to capacity: it’s only working at all because of government subsidies:
The Liberal government’s efforts have created jobs — though the 20,000 number touted by Mr. McGuinty seems highly questionable, far less the 50,000 he says will be created by the end of next year. In addition, they are hardly high wage, high skilled jobs the Premier claims (Eclipsall pays 20% over minimum wage to its workers, who assemble glass and solar cells imported from Asia, thereby qualifying for the Liberal Green Energy Act’s 60% domestic content rule).
The question is: how sustainable are these jobs? Mr. Mednik admitted that if the domestic content rule was removed, Eclipsall and other Ontario manufacturers would not be able to survive. “Frankly, it would be very difficult for any start-up to compete” against cheaper Chinese producers, he said.
He said it is a question of when, rather than if, the 60% threshold is removed. Both the European Union and Japan have taken the FIT program to the World Trade Organization and want the local content requirements removed. They claim this Buy Ontario provision is a prohibited subsidy. The FIT program might also soon become subject to a NAFTA dispute case, after American renewable company Mesa Power Group said it would file a complaint.
September 15, 2011
Belgium “without a government may be remembered as an economic and political golden age”
Doug Saunders looks at the situation in Belgium, which has gone without a government for over 450 days so far:
To look around the elegant city of Antwerp, you wouldn’t know that Belgium has now gone longer without a government than any country in modern history.
The trains still run on time, the teachers show up in their classrooms, museums are packed, taxes are collected, welfare is paid, and the country’s F-16 fighter jets are dropping bombs in Libya — even though Belgium has now gone a year and a quarter without a federal government, after the June 13, 2010 elections produced no majority and the feuding parties became locked in perpetual disagreement over coalition plans.
[. . .]
For some, this might sound like a libertarian’s idea of utopia: A country with nobody to raise taxes, or to slash spending, or to introduce major new government programs.
And indeed, Belgium has just managed, despite having only a largely powerless caretaker government, to post second-quarter economic growth rates — of 0.7 per cent — that exceeded neighbouring Germany, France and Britain. The country’s world-leading beer industry, analysts say, has remained aloft as the world drinks away its financial sorrows. And the government deficit has even been cut somewhat.
Well, it’s rather short of an anarchist’s utopia, but it’s a bit closer to a minarchist’s version. The “government” in question is, of course, the political one: the bureaucracy is still ticking over as before (one wonders if they’ve noticed the lack of politicians and their sometimes malign influence over the everyday activities of the bureaucracy).
It should be no surprise that the lack of new political initiatives has had a moderating influence on the business environment: it has reduced some of the “normal” instability of government activity. The European market and the world markets are still providing sufficient distortion and uncertainty, of course, but at least for some businesses they are not having to make business decisions with a wary eye on the current prime minister’s whim.
September 14, 2011
A response to the chefs’ open letter
A group of well-known chefs recently issued an open letter about the relationship of cooking to the wider world. Rob Lyons would prefer them to stick to what they do so well and avoid being pawns for dietary puritans and scolds who want us to live poorer lives:
Dear chefs,
I would like to be a great admirer of your collective works. However, I’ve never had enough money to eat in your elite restaurants, so I’ll just have to trust that you really are the best in the business. I read with interest your recent Open Letter to the Chefs of Tomorrow. It clearly expresses your views on the way you think cooking should be done and how the restaurant business can interact with the rest of the world. But what you are suggesting is just nonsense. You should stop talking to your well-off customers and the food industry’s dreadful hangers on, and get a sense of perspective.
[. . .]
Please, stop now. St Jamie of Oliver is doing quite enough on behalf of chefs to scare us about what we eat without you lot joining in. Authoritarian busybodies have spent the past two or three decades lecturing us about our eating habits. They now want to exploit your reputations as chefs to justify their prescriptions. You may be flattered by the attention, but those miserable puritans have nothing in common with you.
Good food — especially restaurant food — is about pleasure and excess. It’s about oodles of butter, oil, salt and vino. It’s about staggering away from the table stuffed but happy. The petty puritans of the health lobby want low-fat, low-salt and no booze, in mean and miserable portions. If you go along with that health agenda, it will only prove you’re not the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer.
[. . .]
Face it, guys. What you do isn’t about food at all. You’re an expensive and exclusive branch of the entertainment industry; you have more in common with high opera than family dinners. And in that respect, I wouldn’t want you to change a thing (except, perhaps, those prices). But please don’t use your success and reputation to parrot the sickly prejudices of the foodie crowd.
September 10, 2011
Opposing the EDL as a way of expressing class hatred?
The English Defence League (EDL) has come in for a lot of criticism for its provocative approach to expressing their concerns about issues like immigration. The critics, however, are not all pure in their opposition, however:
This video, currently causing a stink on Twitter, rather confirms what draws many young middle-class liberals towards anti-English Defence League campaigning: it provides them with a semi-legit cover for expressing their fear and loathing of the white working classes.
In the video, two well-bred kids say things about working-class EDL supporters that could have been lifted straight from the pages of John Carey’s The Intellectuals and the Masses, that exposé of early twentieth-century snobs’ disdain for vulgar little people. The anti-EDL campaigners describe a female supporter of the EDL as “the most tattooed, horrible scrote of a woman” they have ever seen and then laugh as they talk about how she was “kicked up the arse” by a left-wing protester. It’s not normally okay to hit women, they admit, but you can make an exception when it comes to female EDL supporters because “they aren’t women — they’re dogs”.
The video has proved enormously embarrassing for Left-wing campaigners against the EDL, who are desperately trying to distance themselves from the naked class hatred expressed by these two twits. Yet the fact is that a great deal of anti-EDL protesting is driven by a barely disguised hatred for that apparently ugly, uncouth, un-PC blob of white flesh that inhabits inner-city council estates. The two guys in the video have only stated it in a more explicit fashion.
September 7, 2011
The Perry-Paul pie-fight
The Ron Paul campaign released a new video, pointing out the fact that Paul had been one of a small group that originally supported Ronald Reagan for president (on the basis of Reagan’s professed desire for small government and lower taxes). Rick Perry, on the other hand, worked for Al Gore’s first presidential bid:
As Michael Suede says, it’s amazing that the Perry campaign’s response actually highlights Paul’s consistency and principles:
The Perry campaign released this statement in response to the pummeling:
“Rep. Paul’s letter is a broadside attack on every element of President Reagan’s record and philosophy. Paul thought President Reagan was so bad, he left the GOP,” said [Perry spokesman Mark] Miner. “It will be interesting to hear Rep. Paul explain why Reagan drove him from the party at tomorrow’s debate on the grounds of the Reagan Library.”
In one part of the letter, Paul wrote, “There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.”
Paul continued, “Thanks to the President and Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished.”
Paul even went so far as to call Reaganomics, “warmed-over Keynesianism.”
In other words, Paul initially supported Reagan because Reagan talked a great game on issues that Paul supported: reducing the size of government and lowering taxes. Reagan was elected, continued talking the talk, but failing to actually do anything — in fact, government continued to grow during his presidency (even if you discount the military build-up). Paul broke with Reagan because Reagan hadn’t done what he was elected to do. And the Perry campaign thinks this is a negative?
You can say a lot of positive things about Reagan, but his actual record was not what his Republican hagiographers pretend that it was.
In the letter, Ron Paul explains that spending under Reagan exploded and that the administration didn’t live up to its promises to keep the debt under control. Then Ron goes on to PREDICT THE FUTURE as he explains the dangers behind exploding deficits. So in essence, the Perry campaign is saying Ron Paul is bad because HE IS TOO CONSERVATIVE.
September 4, 2011
Scottish Conservative party too tainted to survive, claims leadership candidate
Scotland has not been kind to the Conservative party for the last few decades, and a candidate for the leadership thinks the solution is to destroy the party in order to save it:
The Scottish Tory party could be scrapped and replaced by a new centre-right party, under radical reform proposals drafted by the favourite to become its next leader.
Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, will launch his campaign to head the party on Monday by claiming that its only hope to attract greater popular support would be to split off from the UK party led by David Cameron.
Fraser, a former chairman of the Scottish Young Conservatives, will argue that creating a new Scottish centre-right, tax-cutting party would allow it to build up a fresh political mandate and attract voters disenchanted by the current party, which has failed to recover significantly from 25 years of decline.
After losing every Scottish seat at the 1997 Westminster election, the party now has only one MP at Westminster, David Mundell, the Scotland Office minister. It won just 15 out of 129 seats for the Scottish parliament at the last Holyrood elections and has failed to benefit from the collapse in Liberal Democrat support in Scotland.
