Quotulatiousness

March 3, 2019

We need more data on the SNC-Lavalin affair

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Andrew Coyne insists the whole story must come out before we call in the RCMP:

Where do we go from here? It is important not to get ahead of ourselves. Opposition calls for the prime minister to resign over the SNC-Lavalin affair, or for the RCMP to investigate, are premature at this point. However compelling Wednesday’s testimony before the Commons justice committee by the former minister of justice and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, may have been, all of the facts are not in.

It is still open to the government to provide those missing facts, and still possible to hope they may prove exculpatory. That they have done their level best so far to provide none, alas, strongly suggests the contrary. Even in response to Wilson-Raybould’s detailed, documented account of the many and sustained ways in which he and officials in his government attempted to interfere with a criminal prosecution, to the point not only of threatening her job but, it would seem, of carrying out the threat, the best that Justin Trudeau could offer was that he “disagreed” with it.

The prime minister prevented Wilson-Raybould from speaking for as long as he dared, and is still insisting she may not discuss potentially significant conversations with him and his cabinet after she was shuffled out of Justice. The prime minister’s former principal secretary, Gerry Butts, has agreed to testify before the committee, but no current employee of the prime minister’s office has yet been called, nor have any of the others Wilson-Raybould identified as having pressured her to go easy on SNC-Lavalin, save the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick.

Demands for a public inquiry, then, or at least for all of the relevant witnesses to be called before the committee, are closer to the mark. Whatever the prime minister and his people may or may not be guilty of, they cannot be allowed to get away with this blatant stonewalling. So, too, the Conservative and NDP leaders were justified in calling for Parliament to continue to sit next week, rather than take the next two weeks off. Indeed, they would be within their rights to hold up all parliamentary business, including the budget, until they get satisfaction. It is that important.

February 22, 2019

The odd dual role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Colby Cosh provides an interesting tidbit of Canadian constitutional detail in the SNC-Lavalin affair:

As a minister she can be expected, and will have expected, to sometimes be given advice and orders from the PM. It would not be an unusual feature of her job to have one of the PM’s close advisers visit her with delegated instructions. Maybe sometimes those instructions would be delivered somewhat abruptly. It happens.

But. The minister of justice also bears an associated title: she is also the attorney general of Canada. You may have gotten the idea that this is just a matter of tradition, a romantic holdover from olden times. It is in fact a matter of explicit statute, the Department of Justice Act, as well as an important constitutional concept. The minister of justice is a politician who writes legislation and oversees the operation of law and courts. The attorney general, although always and necessarily the same human as the minister of justice, is a distinct person charged with the royal authority to commence, manage and cancel criminal prosecutions. When someone sues the Crown it is normally the attorney general who answers, and when the Crown sues it is done through her.

What does this mean? It means that if you are the prime minister’s trusted old chum who does his dirty work, it is all right for you to visit a mere minister of justice, operating in that capacity, and to tell her what the boss wants done for crude partisan reasons. But it is quite strictly forbidden to do that to an attorney general.

In matters of hiring or statute-writing, you can go ahead, kick down her door, and tell her “Orillia needs more red-headed Hungarian judges!” or “There really oughta be a law against candy.” When it comes to prosecutions — when madame has her attorney general hat on — it is very different. You, as a sunny-ways enforcer, are not even supposed to provide unsolicited advice or hints from the prime minister. The PM may be the minister of justice’s boss, but he is not in the chain of command between the attorney general and the sovereign at all.

An attorney general is supposed to make prosecution decisions with the good of the country in mind, and she can ask ministers for their opinions about what would be good, just as she could consult any other schmuck. But for a PM or his dogsbody to venture such an opinion spontaneously, whatever the motive, is not cool. If someone tried to give an attorney general such advice, and she told that person to shove off back to Cape Breton in a leaky dory, and she woke up one morning not long after and turned on the radio and heard that she was no longer attorney general, that would certainly be a mighty big deal.

January 25, 2019

Putting the federal cabinet on a radical diet

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Cancon, Government — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Earlier this week, Ted Campbell suggested that one (of many) problems Justin Trudeau faces is the sheer size of his cabinet: there are limits to the number of people who can be successfully managed to achieve an organization’s goals by a single person. This is the reason most armies limit the size of their smallest tactical units to at most ten soldiers … much more than that, and the average leader is unable to maintain direct control without delegating sub-groups to subordinates. Running a federal government is a much more complicated task than running an infantry section. He begins by praising what he feels was the best cabinet in federal history:

A friend and regular interlocutor, reacting to a comment I made about a week ago, suggesting that the Trudeau cabinet is still too large, challenged me to look at the “ideal” cabinet. Now, it is certainly no secret that I think the “best” government Canada ever had, in modern times, say during the past century, was a Liberal one, led by Louis St Laurent. It was firmly grounded in liberal political philosophy that was shared, and broadly accepted, by most Canadians; the St Laurent cabinet was determined to govern for the people, for each person, not just to govern the people; it was economically bold but, at the same time, fiscally prudent; it believed, firmly, in a principled foreign policy and a strong enough military to give it the muscle it would need, from time to time; it advanced increasingly progressive social policies, step-by-step, but always in moderation; it was about as competent and as honest as almost any government was ever going to be … bearing in mind that governments are composed of men and women much like us.

This was the St Laurent cabinet:

There is some doubt about the date of this picture; one Government of Canada source says 1948 and another says 1953; the few familiar faces around the table, Douglas Abbott, Brooke Claxton, Brigadier Milton Gregg VC, C.D. Howe and Lester B. Pearson all served throughout that entire period. What is not in doubt is that the cabinet was much smaller than what we see today: fewer than 20 members. Today’s cabinet has over 35 members.

The problems of large cabinets are grounded in two realities: more and more complex issues, especially social issues, and more choices. Louis St. Laurent had between 245 and 265 MPs in the whole House of Commons and he governed with between 118 and 191 Liberal MPs on the government side. Justin Trudeau has a bigger problem: any modern majority government has 170+ members and Canadians are much better informed (or at least aware) of what government might do for (and to) them. He, like every prime minister before him, responds to the challenge by giving every group a voice. The outcome is a larger and larger cabinet. It’s not Justin Trudeau’s fault, it wasn’t Pierre Trudeau’s fault, either.

The correct answer, in my opinion, is a two tier cabinet: senior and junior ministers or an “inner” and “full” cabinet.

January 22, 2019

QotD: From Athenian democracy to the Magna Carta

Filed under: Britain, Europe, History, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

It is always tempting to look for our roots in ancient Athens … tempting, but wrong. The ancient Athenian “democracy” in the agora was, to be charitable, just mob rule, and the mob was incited, most often bought and paid for, by a series of loud mouthed bullies and celebrities ~ so, I can hear some of you saying, not much different from Canada and the USA in the 21st century, right? Now and again, Thucydides, for example, the loud mouth bully also had some brains and good ideas, but, more often than not they were just unqualified pretty boys and clowns.

The Romans gave us something a wee, tiny bit better: rule by law. But the Romans are, rightfully, often best remembered as engineers and they “engineered”, rigged, their political system to ensure that while there were, indeed, laws, to protect and serve the interests of the common people, the plebeians, the system ensured that no law could stand if it ever threatened the privileges of the patricians ~ Rome’s equivalent of our Laurentian elites.

The first time we find something that I think we can properly claim as a “root” of our, modern, liberal democracy is in Anglo Saxon England where, somewhat haphazardly to be sure, a council, called the Witan, advised and constrained and sometimes even elected the monarch for about 400 years, until the Norman conquest. The Witan (members of the Witenaġemot ~ the “meeting of wise men”) were the first privy council, the prototype of modern, Australian, British and Canadian cabinet government.

Next, in Norman times, came Magna Carta, echoes of which can still be heard in our great common law. Magna Carta itself was not as important as two men who, in their turn, gave it life. King John had no difficulty in persuading the Pope to disallow Magna Carta but the British barons actually went into open revolt and, first, William Marshal, acting as Earl Marshal of England and regent for the boy King Henry III, traded Magna Carta for an independent exchequer, and then Simon de Montfort, acting for the barons against the grown King Henry III, forced Magna Carta and parliamentary supremacy on to England.

Ted Campbell, “Our Conservative Roots”, Ted Campbell’s Point of View, 2017-03-05.

January 2, 2019

In non-breaking, non-news … politicians lie

Filed under: Britain, Government, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Hector Dummond explains why what might seem like a shocking revelation from a former Thatcher MP isn’t even getting a raised eyebrow from the British media:

In a highly revealing article former MP Matthew Parris admits that the Conservative Party would often lie so that it could do what it wanted. And when it didn’t lie it fudged and avoided issues in order to prevent the ‘people’ having any say in the country’s governance:

    our challenge was to find ways of ducking the issue. Once I became an MP, I did so by voting for the principle and against the practice. This subversion of democracy (in Theresa May’s phrase) caused me embarrassment, but not a second’s guilt. Sod democracy: hanging was wrong …

    Among ourselves we talked cheerfully about subterfuge. The Britain of 1979 and 1983 most emphatically did not vote for a massive confrontation with the coal miners. We made sure the electorate was never asked.

These candid admissions have been completely ignored by the media. One reason they’ve been ignored is, of course, that most people have come to work this out for themselves, so Parris isn’t telling us anything we don’t already know. But surely hearing it from the horse’s mouth has great value? Why hasn’t the media splashed on this? Why haven’t Parris’s old enemies in the Labour party made hay with it?

The main reason is that most of the media, and virtually all the Labour party, is on his side over this. Even newspapers like the Guardian. You might think the Guardian would be the natural enemy of a former Tory MP, especially one who worked with Thatcher, and certainly on some issues they will regard Parris as an enemy, but the fact is that the Guardian wants government to be free of restraint by the people, because its vision of the state involves a leftist government getting into power, imposing its own ideology onto society and removing the power for the people to have a democratic say from most areas of life. So it can hardly criticise Parris for having done what it longs to do. It doesn’t want to bring about anything that might lessen the freedom government currently has to ignore the voter.

December 23, 2018

Parliamentary renovations

Filed under: Cancon, Government — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Andrew Coyne on the as-yet unclear path forward for the required renovations to the Parliament buildings in Ottawa:

Centre Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Photo by S Nameirakpam via Wikimedia Commons.

… nobody seems to know much of anything about the project: not only how long it will take (Public Services and Procurement has already begun backing away from the original 10-year estimate for completion), but how much it will cost (just to move the Commons and Senate into their temporary digs in the West Block and Government Conference Centre, respectively, is estimated to cost over $1 billion; there are no cost estimates as yet for the renovation itself), or even what exactly it entails.

The building itself, constructed in 1916-27 after a fire destroyed the original, is part of the mystery: no one knows quite how it was built, or what went into it. Officials explain they will have to get in and gut the place before they can assess what needs to be done to restore it, let alone update it with such mod cons as air conditioning or Wi-Fi. But part of it is, as usual, a problem of governance. Responsibility for the project seems to have been assumed to be a matter between bureaucrats at Public Services and the House of Commons, who took it upon themselves to make decisions on project design, cost etc with little to no input from those affected: MPs, Senators, or staff, let alone the public who will have to pay for it all.

Not only has there been no consultation, there is no body formally tasked with conducting it: when the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee temporarily assigned itself the role last week, it was very much stepping into a void. Like the renovation itself, the oversight process gives every appearance of being improvised on the fly.

It’s all a little too symbolic: the renovation of the “people’s house,” the home of our democracy, is proceeding with no budget, no timetable, no plan and only the most rudimentary democratic oversight. The one consolation is that it is likely to get far worse.

Assuming MPs now get their hooks into it, and pouring through the breech after them every interest group and activist organization in the country, the whole thing is likely to devolve into the same chaotic tangle of cross-purposes that is the fate of every other attempt at large-scale collective enterprise in this country — Trans Mountain meets the Meech Lake Accord. There are children not yet born, I’d wager, who will be voting in their first election before this is completed, at a cost of God knows how many billions.

December 13, 2018

QotD: The Cabinet

Filed under: Britain, Government, Humour, Politics, Quotations — Tags: — Nicholas @ 01:00

[T]here is a clear similarity between the Prime Minister’s cabinet and the wardrobe/closet from the Narnia Chronicles: neither has any back to it and people who spend an excessive amount of time in either find themselves in a fantasy land.

Eric Kirkland, 2005-03-24.

November 30, 2018

England: South Sea Bubble – Lies – Extra History

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Business, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Extra Credits
Published on 9 May 2015

Support us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
____________

No historian is perfect, so it’s important we acknowledge our mistakes where we find them (with the help of our viewers, no less)! After we clear up some discrepancies that emerged during the South Sea Bubble series, we turn to answering some common questions that came up during this series on economic history. In a period where financial masterminds like John Blunt engaged in trickery meant to confuse other people and hide his real activities, it’s no wonder that many viewers had questions about what insider trading is and how Blunt could endlessly inflate stock prices for his unprofitable company. This is a history show, but we do our best to explain! As a bonus, James also reads Robert Knight’s letter to Parliament on the eve of his illegal flight and tells some cool stories about Robert “It was Me” Walpole.

November 29, 2018

England: South Sea Bubble – It Was Walpole – Extra History – #5

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Business, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Extra Credits
Published on 25 Apr 2015

Support us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
____________

Robert Walpole’s attempts to use the South Sea Company scandal to enhance his own ambitions are threatened by the appearance of Robert Knight, a former South Sea employee whose records of corporate bribery implicate Walpole and his friends in Parliament. But faced with threats of retribution if he ever shares these records, Knight flees the country rather than face a public inquiry. Although he gets caught and sent to prison in Antwerp, Walpole deftly engineers his release and escape. With Knight finally gone, Walpole teams up with John Blunt to pin the blame for the South Sea stock bubble on his political opponents, conveniently clearing the way for himself to become essentially the first Prime Minister of England. He also makes sure that all of his own supporters get off easy (if not scot free) for their involvement, and even Blunt walks away from the South Sea Bubble with more money than he started with.

November 28, 2018

England: South Sea Bubble – The Bubble Pops – Extra History – #4

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Business, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Extra Credits
Published on 11 Apr 2015

Support us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
____________

With the South Sea Company’s value dangerously inflated, Blunt drives one more scheme to raise stock prices – and it finally backfires on him. Early investors (including the famous politician Robert Walpole) seize the opportunity to sell their stock while the value is high, and the general public finally realizes that the South Sea Company has no actual worth. Everyone who didn’t sell their stock in the first round finds themselves suddenly bankrupt as the stock value plummets. Even King George, on vacation when disaster strikes, loses a large amount of the royal fortune. Robert Walpole, however, sees this as an opportunity to make himself a hero of the public. Hiding his own involvement in the South Sea Swindle, he cancels all debts owed for the company’s stock to help put its public investors back on their feet. Despite this, the public demands an inquiry and Walpole must walk a thin line between his facade as defender of the people and the reality of his, his party, and the King’s blatant corruption.

November 27, 2018

England: South Sea Bubble – Buying Out Britain – Extra History – #3

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Business, Economics, Government, History — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Extra Credits
Published on 28 Mar 2015

Support us on Patreon! http://bit.ly/EHPatreon
____________

The time has come for Blunt to enact the final act of his scheme: taking on the 31 million pound British debt. When Parliament initially balks at transferring responsibility for that much money to Blunt’s insolvent South Sea Company, he bribes them with special deals on his own stock. Despite a legal clause that should have locked the stock price until the company began paying off the debt, Blunt keeps introducing new plans to inflate the stock price and pocket the money for himself. He does everything from selling stocks on layaway to loaning people money so they could buy more stocks from him, creating an artificial demand for South Sea Company stock that drives the company’s worth up to 300 million pounds: a staggering ten times the initial value of the already stunning debt it had assumed. His success, founded entirely on speculation with no actual revenue from trade, not only starves out other businesses across Britain but exceeds the total amount of money in the country’s entire economy. This bubble can not last.

November 5, 2018

Who Was Guy Fawkes? – Anglophenia Ep 18

Filed under: Britain, History, Religion — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Anglophenia
Published on 5 Nov 2014

Remember, remember the 5th of November: Guy Fawkes is one of Britain’s most infamous figures. Who’s the man behind the mask made famous by V For Vendetta and the protest group Anonymous? Siobhan Thompson explains.

September 27, 2018

“Oops” indeed!

Filed under: Asia, Cancon, Politics, Religion — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

Colby Cosh has a bit of good-natured fun-poking at the great and the good of the Canadian Establishment as an honorary Canadian turns out to be presiding over something that might be described as genocide:

President Barack Obama and Aung San Suu Kyi in 2014
Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes I am convinced that Canada is a name that will endure through the ages and travel with mankind throughout the galaxy. Sometimes I am convinced that we should be considered exclusively as a subject for absurdist fairy tales, a real-life Ruritania or Grand Fenwick. I guess it goes about 50-50. But I am afraid the emerging controversy over Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary Canadian citizenship puts us firmly in kooky Zembla territory.

The present State Counsellor of Burma was the fourth person ever to receive this distinction. Now we are talking about withdrawing her honorary citizenship because, as first minister of Burma, she has been heavily implicated in massacres and ethnic cleansing of the Muslim Rohingya people of the country’s Rakhine state.

One in four: not such a great batting average, is it? Our political class devised the highest and most permanent form of honour that could be envisioned for a foreign do-gooder, and literally the fourth person on the entire surface of the planet who was deemed to have met the criteria went and became CEO of a genocide. What does this suggest about the collective judgment of Canada’s elite? You don’t suppose anyone is going to lose a job over this, do you?

[…]

Our prime minister is now spitballing the idea of having Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary citizenship withdrawn, and one supposes that if this might help save innocent lives, it ought to be considered, even at the price of turning this concocted showpiece institution of “honorary citizenship” into garbage. One of the essential meanings of citizenship is that it cannot be withdrawn, even with due process, even when a citizen has perpetrated unspeakable crimes. “Honorary citizenship” does not confer the legal rights of the real thing, but surely it is at least supposed to resemble the real thing — to represent a commitment of analogous significance and irreversibility as that which we enter into with immigrants taking the oath and joining the club over at the courthouse.

Since honorary citizenship is not conferred by Parliament, it is not clear that it could be revoked by Parliament. Probably an Order-in-Council would do (because, again, no enforceable rights are at stake). If this is done in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, it seems obvious that we should just put the institution in abeyance for a century or so. Let later generations see if they can manage not to screw up this honorary citizenship thing so thoroughly.

September 26, 2018

The last British carriers before the Queen Elizabeth class

Filed under: Britain, History, Military — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

This is a long, long thread from @EngageStrategy, so I’m putting it below the fold for those who aren’t interested and don’t want to scroll down for hours…

It covers the near-death experience of British carriers in the 1960s (the cancellation of the last fleet carriers), the odd evolution of the “through deck command cruisers” (Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal), the development of the Harrier, and the very near-run thing that was the carriers’ share of combat duty during the Falklands War.

(more…)

September 18, 2018

A case to keep Theresa May in power … at least until March, 2019

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Sean Gabb offers about the only possible justification for the British Tories to keep Theresa May on as Prime Minister:

Let us imagine that there is a vote of no-confidence in Mrs May as Leader of the Conservative Party. Let us imagine what is not certain — that someone more committed to leaving then becomes the Prime Minister. We can suppose that Anna Soubry and Damian Green will resign the Conservative whip — they and perhaps several dozen others of their kind. They are held from doing this at the moment because the ghostly electoral mandate Mrs May has gives them no excuse for splitting. A new Prime Minister without any mandate would give them their excuse. This would leave the Government with no majority. But there is worse.

Between a third and half the Parliamentary Labour Party would like an excuse to peel away and form a new party. So far, they have not found this excuse. A Conservative split would be their excuse. I can imagine a “centrist” block of 150 Members in the House of Commons. Add the Scottish Nationalists and the Liberal Democrats — that would be enough to form a new coalition government. Whether this new government then called a second referendum or found some less honest method, there would be no departure of any kind from the European Union. And, thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, they would keep their seats until 2022. After that, they could look forward to a shower of corporate sinecures.

Bearing this in mind, I call on the Conservative leavers not to allow a vote of no-confidence in Mrs May. Instead, let them focus on making it impossible for the Government we have to offer new concessions to the European negotiators. I call on the relevant Jewish organisations to keep up their pressure on the Labour leadership — but not to try for any killing blow. They can have Mr Corbyn’s head on a plate after next March. In short, I pray for no change in any direction in British politics until after we have left the European Union. Then, we can have blood on the moon — the more, the better. Until then, let the May Government continue shuffling towards departure on whatever terms they can get or want to get.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress