Randy Hillier is leading the charge to repeal one of Dalton McGuinty's many bans, the ban on pit bulls. He is being joined by MPPs from both the Liberal Party and the NDP. Considering the multiparty nature of this move and the minority parliament, I am pretty hopeful that it will get through.
The pit bull ban is a classic example of government policy at its worst. It amounted to nothing more than headline chasing and lacked any pretense of being a measured response. For the sake of a positive news cycle the government took a little bit of freedom away from the people.
Showing posts with label Ontario politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario politics. Show all posts
The new Ontario minority Parliament may turn out alright
This article from the Toronto Star has given me the clearest vision, thus far, on how the new Liberal minority government can be made to work for the benefit of Ontarians.
Tim Hudak is pushing for the government to make some cuts and the Liberal government appears to be agreeing to work with the PC Party to bring forward such cuts. The rhetoric on both sides, in contrast the former federal minority Parliament, has been highly cooperative.
I was afraid that the PCs would see it as their mission to bring down the government, but instead they appear to be acting responsibly and are willing to work with the government to push for better policies.
All that being said, the Taxpayers Federation is right to say that both parties are being far too timid.
But for the first time I see a glimmer of hope that this new Parliament can actually do something, anything, to tackle the numerous problems now facing Ontario.
Tim Hudak is pushing for the government to make some cuts and the Liberal government appears to be agreeing to work with the PC Party to bring forward such cuts. The rhetoric on both sides, in contrast the former federal minority Parliament, has been highly cooperative.
I was afraid that the PCs would see it as their mission to bring down the government, but instead they appear to be acting responsibly and are willing to work with the government to push for better policies.
All that being said, the Taxpayers Federation is right to say that both parties are being far too timid.
But for the first time I see a glimmer of hope that this new Parliament can actually do something, anything, to tackle the numerous problems now facing Ontario.
Paul McKeever of the Freedom Party responds to my post
This post, that I published yesterday explaining why I was voting for the Libertarian Party and not the Freedom Party, was picked up by the National Post’s Full Comment page this morning. Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever responded in the comment section with this:
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Hello Hugh:
Just one correction. Freedom Party does welcome you and does want your vote.
For all of the reasons you cite, voting FP is the best choice for anyone who wants the sorts of changes we are proposing (see here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/... ). As always, everyone who supports Freedom Party's planks is welcomed by FP. Our candidates, supporters, members, and voters include a wide variety of people, having a wide variety of different beliefs or philosophies. Whether you live your life according to one philosophy or another is of no importance to me, or to Freedom Party. If you support Freedom Party's planks, you are a Freedom Party person, and that support is all that matters.
There are many people who genuinely want more individual freedom. One convenient/common handle often used by such a person is "libertarian". However, the reality is that a great number of people who label themselves "libertarian" are not advocates of "libertarianISM". Libertarianism is a word that refers to a failed, irrational, and morally subjective anti-government electoral strategy and movement. Libertarianism is, in fact, the strategy of the Libertarian party.
For those interested in why I condemn libertarianism (not those who merely, out of convenience, refer to themselves as "libertarian"), and for all who want to understand - properly - what "libertarianism" truly means and entails - I would encourage the National Post's readers to read/watch the following:
From my personal blog: "If you want freedom…" Q&A: Libertarianism - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/pa...
Video: "Damned to Repeat It" - http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/20...
Regards,
Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
All of this makes me think that Mr. McKeever has missed my point.
This is what I wrote yesterday:
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting the Freedom Party is objectivist, rather than libertarian, Mr. McKeever is basically saying that you have to not just agree with his policies, but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist, because I agree with his political goals.
And so his explanation of libertarianism is beside the point. Why not encourage moral subjectivists to be members of your party? Why condemn them when you can work with them towards a mutual political goal?
I should say that I do not wish the Freedom Party or Mr. McKeever ill. I would have voted for them if I didn’t have the Libertarian Party as an option. My one and only issue with the Freedom Party is that they allow a narrow and largely irrelevant ideological distinction to get in the way of building a more united and stronger non-statist movement.
Ontario Election prediction 2011
I predict that the Liberals and PC Party will be within 10 seats of each other with the plurality going either way. The Liberals will form a government with some sort of arrangement with the NDP. Most likely it will be the guarantee of no election for one year in the exchange for one or two key policies (hopefully not Buy Ontario).
To see how brilliant I am, check out my federal election prediction.
To see how brilliant I am, check out my federal election prediction.
Should I vote Freedom or Libertarian?
Voting tomorrow in the Ontario election will be difficult for me. I have never had as much difficulty making up my mind on how I would vote for an election as I have for this one. For the first time I have been given the opportunity to vote for one of two political parties that both have important things to say and are both offering platforms that will bring about true prosperity to the province of Ontario. I have had to take a serious look at both political parties and decide who it is that truly deserves my vote more. I speak of course of the Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
I am fortunate that both political parties are running a candidate in my riding (St. Paul’s) and so I don’t have to pick between vomiting and not voting.
Both parties offer a vision of a more modest state that does not unnecessarily interfere with the lives of the individual and recognizes the free market as the primary driver of prosperity. There are some nuanced policy differences but the differences are so small or so technical that there isn’t much to choose between them. I would feel comfortable that with either platform the individuals in Ontario will be better off.
So without policy to offer me a guide to choose I turn my eye to the parties as organizations.
I have to say I have been impressed with the Freedom Party during this election. I have posted several of their adverts, and with one notable exception, they have been the best political adverts of this campaign. They are clear, to the point, and offer a policy idea that makes me stand up and cheer (screw you Liquor Control Board of Ontario).
Furthermore the Freedom Party leader has been able to attract a decent amount of media attention given the low profile of his party. They have also organized themselves enough to run candidates in most of Ontario’s ridings. This is no small accomplishment for a political organization that is perpetually strapped for resources.
The Freedom Party has worked hard to earn my vote whilst the Libertarian Party has been pretty much invisible.
Still, I can’t bring myself to vote for the Freedom Party and the reason I can’t is the party’s leader: Paul McKeever.
Some of you, if not most of you, are likely pretty confused by all of this.
“Hang on!” you may be crying out, “what do you mean there are two libertarian parties? Why would there be two parties splitting the libertarian vote? It’s not like there are so many of you to begin with.”
The explanation to your reasonable confusion is silly: Paul McKeever insists that the Freedom Party is objectivist and not libertarian.
I won’t bother going into the difference between objectivism and libertarianism because, as my friend Peter Jaworski points out here, one is a moral philosophy and the other is a political philosophy. By insisting that the Freedom Party is objectivist rather than libertarian basically Mr. McKeever is saying you have to not just agree with his policies but also agree with the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Plenty of people’s political philosophy is rooted in their personal moral philosophy. In fact I would wager that this is true of most people. But from different origins political movements come together around specific political principles and goals. It doesn’t matter why two people agree that the political principle is good, as long as they can work together. I don’t care that Mr. McKeever is an objectivist because I agree with his political goals.
This isn’t good enough for Mr. McKeever. In fact he can be pretty insulting about it. He has on several occasions spoken derisively about libertarians. To my mind this means he doesn’t really want my vote. If ideological purity is what he wants then he doesn’t want me.
So I will be voting Libertarian Party because I agree with the party’s policies and the party leader doesn’t purposefully alienate me.
National Post endorsement shows what is wrong with Tim Hudak's campaign
The National Post’s endorsement of PC Party leader Tim Hudak in a weird way shows exactly what is wrong with his campaign. And make no mistake, win or lose on Thursday, something has gone terribly wrong with the PC Party campaign.
The endorsement begins with a long description of exactly how and why Dalton McGuinty has been a bad premier for Ontario. It seems obvious that such a bad government, for it has been a bad government, needs to be replaced. The National Post says that the NDP leader may be a swell person but socialism isn’t the thing and so there can only be one choice: Tim Hudak.
It has been pretty obvious throughout the election that this has been exactly the attitude of the PC Party. Ontarians don’t really have an option. Voters don’t like McGuinty and so Tim Hudak is the default choice. The campaign as a result has been pretty lackluster. They repeatedly say they are about change but they offer little of substance and most of their attacks have been extremely lazy and vague. Basically they didn’t think they would have to fight for it, and so they aren’t fighting for it.
The National Post tries to jazz up Tim Hudak by pointing out that he is proposing to change the government’s relationship with the public sector unions. Taking on the unions is something that is needed but that alone won’t fix the problems that Mr. McGuinty has caused. None of the other proposals that have come out of the PC platform would fix the fiscal mess either.
I am going to say that again because it’s important:
Nothing that Tim Hudak is promising to do will fix Ontario’s fiscal crisis any faster or any better than anything that Dalton McGuinty is promising to do.
Even the National Post in the midst of endorsing Tim Hudak expresses frustration that he has pledged to protect 2/3 of the budget while somehow ending the deficit at the same time. The National Post tries to get around this by saying that politicians are probably all liars anyway, but that is part of Mr. Hudak’s problem. He can’t credibly say that Dalton McGuinty lacks credibility on fiscal issues because he too lacks credibility of fiscal issues.
Ultimately the National Post is supporting Tim Hudak because he isn’t Dalton McGuinty and a lot of people will vote PC for the same reason.
But the PC party has yet to give anyone a good reason to vote FOR them. And if they lose that is why they will lose.
The endorsement begins with a long description of exactly how and why Dalton McGuinty has been a bad premier for Ontario. It seems obvious that such a bad government, for it has been a bad government, needs to be replaced. The National Post says that the NDP leader may be a swell person but socialism isn’t the thing and so there can only be one choice: Tim Hudak.
It has been pretty obvious throughout the election that this has been exactly the attitude of the PC Party. Ontarians don’t really have an option. Voters don’t like McGuinty and so Tim Hudak is the default choice. The campaign as a result has been pretty lackluster. They repeatedly say they are about change but they offer little of substance and most of their attacks have been extremely lazy and vague. Basically they didn’t think they would have to fight for it, and so they aren’t fighting for it.
The National Post tries to jazz up Tim Hudak by pointing out that he is proposing to change the government’s relationship with the public sector unions. Taking on the unions is something that is needed but that alone won’t fix the problems that Mr. McGuinty has caused. None of the other proposals that have come out of the PC platform would fix the fiscal mess either.
I am going to say that again because it’s important:
Nothing that Tim Hudak is promising to do will fix Ontario’s fiscal crisis any faster or any better than anything that Dalton McGuinty is promising to do.
Even the National Post in the midst of endorsing Tim Hudak expresses frustration that he has pledged to protect 2/3 of the budget while somehow ending the deficit at the same time. The National Post tries to get around this by saying that politicians are probably all liars anyway, but that is part of Mr. Hudak’s problem. He can’t credibly say that Dalton McGuinty lacks credibility on fiscal issues because he too lacks credibility of fiscal issues.
Ultimately the National Post is supporting Tim Hudak because he isn’t Dalton McGuinty and a lot of people will vote PC for the same reason.
But the PC party has yet to give anyone a good reason to vote FOR them. And if they lose that is why they will lose.
Ontario Leaders Debate 2011: fiddling while Ontario burns
To the credit of the three leaders of Ontario’s largest political parties, there was a great deal of talk about policy in last night’s leaders debate. That is always nice to see both from the perspective of a policy wonk and a voter. I found, however, that most of the policies that were being hotly debated were pretty irrelevant.
Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.
The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.
Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.
Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).
Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.
The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.
Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).
Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).
Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).
There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.
Ontario is in economic and financial trouble. This is the issue that should be dominating the election but by tacit agreement none of the major parties are really talking about it. There are two questions that were asked that should have brought this issue to the forefront but all three leaders allowed each other off the hook and gave incredibly weak answers.
The first question was how the budget is going to be balanced.
Dalton McGuinty responded by talking about how much spending he introduced and plans to introduce.
Tim Hudak responded by talking about how he will make sure that ¾ of the budget is defended from cuts (health and education).
Andrea Horwath responded by saying something about blank cheques to corporations which I think was referring to corporate tax cuts, but that doesn’t make any sense on a couple of levels.
The second question is closely related to the first question, although perhaps not many people realize it. The last question of the night asked if the party leaders would be open to more private participation in the health care system. With health care spending growing faster than government revenue and taking up about half of the budget this is an important question for deciding how to get Ontario out of deficits.
Dalton McGuinty responded by saying he will beg for more money from the federal government (forgetting it seams that there is only one taxpayer).
Tim Hudak responded with an anecdote about how it sucks to have a child that is sick (I have absolutely no doubt that it sucks a lot).
Andrea Horwath responded with a rant against the capitalist system (which to be fair is at least on message).
There was another question that asked why politicians aren’t bolder. Each tried to respond by saying that they are bold, but the answers described above makes a lie of these claims. Yet the solutions to Ontario’s problems will require boldness and none of the leaders last night showed that they have an ounce of it.
Is the Premier Office too powerful?
With the debate in the provincial election mostly focused on the leaders, I think this is a good opportunity to take a moment and consider if the Premier of Ontario has too much power compared to the other political institutions.
According to the NDP, being a responsible adult is a punishment
Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has announced that if she was Premier of Ontario students wouldn’t have to pay interest on their government loans. She defends this position by saying:
Punishing people? In what way is demanding an interest payment on a loan punishing someone? Interest is what you pay to compensate a lender for losing the opportunity to do something else with the money they are lending you. Without such compensation this “loan” basically turns into a gift and the borrower turns into a charity case.
The distinction is important.
When a student is considering his/her course of study she/he must decide the best way to invest the money that he/she has borrowed. If he/she makes an unwise investment and has difficulty paying the interest then it is the fault of the student. To put it another way, the student is responsible.
If the student does not have to worry about paying interest then there is less of an incentive to invest wisely with what is essentially free money. Again, to put it another way, the student is not responsible.
In the NDP’s mind making someone responsible for their own actions is a punishment. To force someone to pay for the cost of their decision is somehow unfair.
In NDPverse no one should be responsible for themselves because then tough choices might have to be made and that is just too darn hard.
“We have to stop punishing people for investing in their future. It doesn’t help any of us when people graduate buried under a mountain of debt,” she said, flanked by Ryerson students and Trinity-Spadina candidate Rosario Marchese.
Punishing people? In what way is demanding an interest payment on a loan punishing someone? Interest is what you pay to compensate a lender for losing the opportunity to do something else with the money they are lending you. Without such compensation this “loan” basically turns into a gift and the borrower turns into a charity case.
The distinction is important.
When a student is considering his/her course of study she/he must decide the best way to invest the money that he/she has borrowed. If he/she makes an unwise investment and has difficulty paying the interest then it is the fault of the student. To put it another way, the student is responsible.
If the student does not have to worry about paying interest then there is less of an incentive to invest wisely with what is essentially free money. Again, to put it another way, the student is not responsible.
In the NDP’s mind making someone responsible for their own actions is a punishment. To force someone to pay for the cost of their decision is somehow unfair.
In NDPverse no one should be responsible for themselves because then tough choices might have to be made and that is just too darn hard.
Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name (ii)
Yesterday I wrote that NDP leader Andrea Horwath was deserving of respect for telling local campaigns not to use the death of Jack Layton to win sympathy. She said that the NDP campaign will be focused on people, which I assume means on public policy.
Today it has come out that the central campaign has also used Jack Layton’s name to raise money. I don’t know if Ms. Horwath approved the fundraising letter or not, but either way I find it pretty disappointing.
It is disappointing because it appears from this article that Ms. Horwath has no intention of enforcing her directive not to employ Mr. Layton’s corpse as a political prop.
Today it has come out that the central campaign has also used Jack Layton’s name to raise money. I don’t know if Ms. Horwath approved the fundraising letter or not, but either way I find it pretty disappointing.
It is disappointing because it appears from this article that Ms. Horwath has no intention of enforcing her directive not to employ Mr. Layton’s corpse as a political prop.
Making sex offender registry public is a bad idea for public safety
The PC Party’s idea of a website of registered sex offenders makes no sense as a public safety proposal. I can understand the concept behind a registration for sex offenders and I can certainly understand restrictions on where someone convicted of specific sex crimes can live, but I don’t understand how a website would do anything for “a law-abiding family’s right to safety.”
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
No other policy would be as certain to turn a complying registered sex offender into a noncompliant convict running from the law. A sex offender that is known by his/her neighbours is certain to be driven out wherever she/he goes. Eventually any individual is bound to start ignoring the rules and refusing to cooperate with authorities.
Since there are 14,000 registered sex offenders in Ontario, it would be an impossible task to hunt them all down if they all or most decide to become noncompliant. So then you won’t know if your neighbour is a convicted sex offender and neither would the police.
Furthermore vigilantes are not uncommon where this policy has been introduced in the States. I can definitely understand the desire to beat your neighbour to a pulp if you discovered that your neighbour had once sexually assaulted a child (I actually got a little angry just typing the words “sexually assaulted a child). But that natural human emotion is not conducive to public safety and it does great injustice to sex offenders who were convicted of more minor crimes.
If anything it is likely that publishing the names of sex offenders would be bad for public safety.
Ontario NDP using Jack Layton's name
Yesterday the local NDP candidate was canvassing my building. I didn’t get a chance to talk to him because my life partner was the one that answered the door and she gave him a curt no thanks. I thought this was unfortunate because I dearly wanted to ask him about something on his biographical blurb (what the hell is a Ph.D in corporate responsibility and economics?). I did however get my hand on his pamphlet (by stealing it from a neighbour) and I noted a reference to Jack Layton.
It was pretty blatant. The reference was a quote from Jack Layton’s death bed press release and that odd outline shape of Mr. Layton that has become popular among certain union activists. There was no claim that Mr. Layton endorsed the candidate, but it did serve as a reminder of the emotions that many felt after they heard of the federal leader’s death. It was obvious that the designer of the pamphlet thought that this would help the candidate’s chances.
I’m not surprised that the Ontario NDP is trying to use the death of Jack Layton for electoral gain. I was, however, disgusted that they would be so overt about it. It seemed indecent and made me wish more that I could have talked to the candidate to ask him why he felt it was appropriate.
In a move that is even more inappropriate, some NDP candidates have been using Jack Layton’s name in automatic phone calls. The scripts of the calls basically suggest that people should vote for the provincial NDP’s in memory of Mr. Layton.
I was happy to read today that the NDP leader Andrea Horwath has told the local candidates to stop this nonsense. She has gained some respect in my eyes.
It was pretty blatant. The reference was a quote from Jack Layton’s death bed press release and that odd outline shape of Mr. Layton that has become popular among certain union activists. There was no claim that Mr. Layton endorsed the candidate, but it did serve as a reminder of the emotions that many felt after they heard of the federal leader’s death. It was obvious that the designer of the pamphlet thought that this would help the candidate’s chances.
I’m not surprised that the Ontario NDP is trying to use the death of Jack Layton for electoral gain. I was, however, disgusted that they would be so overt about it. It seemed indecent and made me wish more that I could have talked to the candidate to ask him why he felt it was appropriate.
In a move that is even more inappropriate, some NDP candidates have been using Jack Layton’s name in automatic phone calls. The scripts of the calls basically suggest that people should vote for the provincial NDP’s in memory of Mr. Layton.
I was happy to read today that the NDP leader Andrea Horwath has told the local candidates to stop this nonsense. She has gained some respect in my eyes.
The Politics of Xenophobia: the 2007 and 2011 Ontario elections
There is emerging an interesting similarity between the 2007 and the 2011 Ontario elections. In both elections one of the worst human reflexes, xenophobia, has been used to turn a relatively minor policy proposal into a central point of the electoral debate. In 2007 the Liberals argued that religious school funding would mean funding Muslim schools, which they subtly and not so subtly suggested would be the same as funding radical Muslims and possibly terrorists. In the 2011 election the PC Party is arguing that a proposal to subsidize the hiring of recent immigrants is screwing over locals in favour of “foreign workers.”
I have often argued that the school funding issue was not the reason that the PC Party lost the 2007 election. It was a symptom of a deeper problem with the strategy and platform of the party. Still it is undeniable that the issue had an impact on the outcome.
It was interesting watching the Liberal Party, who have traditionally accused Conservatives of being racist, get away with a fundamentally racist argument. As I suggested above their argument came down to, “we don’t want to fund more religious schools because then we would have to fund Muslim schools. And Muslims are nasty radical terrorists.” It tapped into the worst element of human nature, the fear of the other. It was a disgusting strategy that seemed to have worked.
The PC strategy in 2011 is not quite as racist, but still cultivates the same xenophobic fear of the other. Many if not most people have a sneaking suspicion that other people are taking up resources that they could be using. If someone does not belong to what that person sees as their group, then often that suspicion becomes outright paranoia. In policy debates this emerges as an assertion that immigrants “take” the jobs away from locals.
By using phrases like “Ontarians need not apply,” and “foreign workers” to discuss the Liberal Party’s proposed subsidy the PC Party is pretty blatantly appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment. To be fair this policy does represent the taking of resources from one group and giving it to another, but that also describes almost every other government policy that has ever existed. You have to wonder why this particular redistribution is worse than any other.
Two more similarities between the debates around the religious school funding and immigrant job subsidy policies strike me.
First, they are both pretty minor policies. The spending being proposed in both policies, when taken as part of the total government expenditure, is about the equivalent of someone forgetting to round correctly. Also the number of people directly affected by these policies would be pretty underwhelming. Furthermore neither policy represents a major shift in government philosophy, but are both a natural extension of a principle already inherent in current government practice. This is hardly what you would expect parties to fight elections over.
Second, they are both bad policies that could be easily criticized without having to resort to racist or anti-immigrant sentiment. It would not take much effort to poke holes into either policy, especially the job subsidy idea. This suggests to me that the point isn’t to criticize the policies. The point appears to be to actually utilize people’s xenophobia for electoral gain. The proposed policies in of themselves are not important, but they do open the door to allowing politicians to use certain rhetoric.
In a province that prides itself for being cosmopolitan, it strikes me odd that xenophobia is playing such a prominent role in two elections in a role.
I have often argued that the school funding issue was not the reason that the PC Party lost the 2007 election. It was a symptom of a deeper problem with the strategy and platform of the party. Still it is undeniable that the issue had an impact on the outcome.
It was interesting watching the Liberal Party, who have traditionally accused Conservatives of being racist, get away with a fundamentally racist argument. As I suggested above their argument came down to, “we don’t want to fund more religious schools because then we would have to fund Muslim schools. And Muslims are nasty radical terrorists.” It tapped into the worst element of human nature, the fear of the other. It was a disgusting strategy that seemed to have worked.
The PC strategy in 2011 is not quite as racist, but still cultivates the same xenophobic fear of the other. Many if not most people have a sneaking suspicion that other people are taking up resources that they could be using. If someone does not belong to what that person sees as their group, then often that suspicion becomes outright paranoia. In policy debates this emerges as an assertion that immigrants “take” the jobs away from locals.
By using phrases like “Ontarians need not apply,” and “foreign workers” to discuss the Liberal Party’s proposed subsidy the PC Party is pretty blatantly appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment. To be fair this policy does represent the taking of resources from one group and giving it to another, but that also describes almost every other government policy that has ever existed. You have to wonder why this particular redistribution is worse than any other.
Two more similarities between the debates around the religious school funding and immigrant job subsidy policies strike me.
First, they are both pretty minor policies. The spending being proposed in both policies, when taken as part of the total government expenditure, is about the equivalent of someone forgetting to round correctly. Also the number of people directly affected by these policies would be pretty underwhelming. Furthermore neither policy represents a major shift in government philosophy, but are both a natural extension of a principle already inherent in current government practice. This is hardly what you would expect parties to fight elections over.
Second, they are both bad policies that could be easily criticized without having to resort to racist or anti-immigrant sentiment. It would not take much effort to poke holes into either policy, especially the job subsidy idea. This suggests to me that the point isn’t to criticize the policies. The point appears to be to actually utilize people’s xenophobia for electoral gain. The proposed policies in of themselves are not important, but they do open the door to allowing politicians to use certain rhetoric.
In a province that prides itself for being cosmopolitan, it strikes me odd that xenophobia is playing such a prominent role in two elections in a role.
Dalton McGuinty picking emotion over logic
Dalton McGuinty has “dared” Tim Hudak to go to London and “look the people in the eye” and tell them that he will cancel the government’s deal with Samsung to “create 16,000 solar and clean energy jobs.” The London mayor joined in on the taunt pointing out that London has an unemployment rate of 9.1%. It is this sort of appeal to emotion argument that makes me despair of politicians.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Having a job and keeping a job is an emotional issue for everybody. It is the way that you support yourself and any family that you may have. Without a job people often feel humiliated and degraded (plus you can’t afford stuff). I went nearly a year without employment after I graduated university, and so I have a taste of what the unemployed suffer through.
This is not a good argument for public policy.
If Dalton McGuinty wants to argue that solar power is the greatest benefit for the cost, fine because then we can have a fruitful discussion.
Instead Mr. McGuinty wants to paint the PC Party as being callous. Instead of having an honest debate the Liberals want to pull on people’s heart strings.
All political parties do this to one degree or another, but I fine this case to be particularly irritating. It must be hard to look someone in the eye and say that they have to find a new job, but if keeping that person employed is costing more than it is worth then it is the rest of us that are hurting.
At the same time if the market was allowed to distribute resources without government interference, it is more than likely that these people would be able to find a job producing something that people actually want to pay for. Thus they will the benefit the rest of us rather than hurt us.
But no, such a logical argument cannot be allowed to be heard.
Dalton McGuinty's new post-secondary student subsidy is a bad idea
Dalton McGuinty has announced that if re-elected he will introduce yet another subsidy for people who want a post-secondary education. This is a bad idea. Even if the province was not drowning in red and could actually afford the cost of this program, it would still be a bad idea. It either endangers the very worth of Ontario’s post secondary education system or it simply wastes money.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
The core concept behind a post-secondary student subsidy is fundamentally flawed to begin with. The idea is that: we can observe that people with degrees make more money, thus if more people have a degree then more people will make more money. This reasoning completely ignores why people with degrees do have higher incomes.
At least part of the reason why people with degrees make more money is that they tend to be more motivated people. An individual that is willing to invest in himself/herself is likely the same sort of individual that will work hard and advance her/his career. At the same time the reason why such a person would go to university in the first place is because employers find value in a degree or a college diploma.
So there is a demand for workers with a post-secondary education, but like everything else there is not an unlimited demand. Government subsidies can increase the supply of educated workers but the demand is reliant on market forces, thus supply outpaces demand. Anyone who has taken grade 11 economics knows (no university required) that if supply is greater than demand then the value of the supply decreases. This means that all those people who got degrees won’t be making as much as the government thought.
There is an old adage that people only value what they pay for. This popular wisdom is supported by evidence when it comes to post-secondary education. A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that where there is a high subsidy for education students tend to be less motivated. If it isn’t a struggle for a student to afford school then they are more likely to take it less seriously.
This has an effect of furthering the devaluation of post-secondary education. Since students get the same degree or diploma regardless of grades, employers don’t know if they spent a few years learning to think critically or perfecting the art of beer pong. Some employers ask for transcripts but that it not always practical.
The end result is that Mr. McGuinty’s plan would likely strip Ontario’s post-secondary education of its value. This is, however, the worst case scenario.
The best case scenario is that it will turn out that pretty much everyone who is going to go to university or college are already going. Then there wouldn’t be a drastically increased supply to devalue degrees and diplomas. The only result is that government would have wasted yet another few million dollars.
Another scenario is that universities and colleges say thank you very much for the extra money and increase tuition by exactly the same as the subsidy (which would screw over the 1 in 6 that don’t qualify for the subsidy). The net result would be pretty much nil except that the government would have wasted even more of tax payer’s money.
So this program will either be a waste of money or destroy Ontario’s post-secondary education system. I’ll say it again, this is a bad idea.
Ernie Eves says that he doesn't like democracy
Okay he didn’t exactly say that but that is what he meant.
Ernie Eves, the former Premier that confused Magna International with the legislator of Ontario, made some snarling comments about Norm Sterling being replaced by Jack MacLaren as PC candidate in that riding.
In case you aren’t familiar with the story: Mr. MacLaren and his friends felt that Mr. Sterling wasn’t representing their views. So they organized themselves and challenged Mr. Sterling in an election to choose the PC candidate. Due to the superior organizational abilities of Mr. MacLaren, and despite the interference of the outgoing association executive, he won.
This is how Mr. Eves characterized it:
Yes the horror and unfairness of a democratic vote. Clearly Mr. MacLaren didn’t understand that the point of internal party democracy is just to make people think that political parties are democratic institutions. You aren’t actually supposed to vote for someone that represents your views and aspirations. That would not be fair or compassionate!
I also think that the Tea Party comparison is hilarious. The Landowners Association is only superficially similar to the Tea Party activists. Unlike the Tea Party, the Landowners is a single advocacy group with a pretty clear political agenda. I’m not totally sure what the political agenda of the Tea Party is except “we are mad and we want you to do something about it.”
Really the thing that they most have in common is that they share a political strategy of being active within a political party; both organize and vote in internal party elections. That is to say, they both make use of grassroots democratic tools to make their opinions heard. Again it seems that Mr. Eves’ fundamental problem is that he doesn’t like democracy.
To PC leader Tim Hudak’s credit, his response was pretty good:
“It’s difficult to go through, no doubt about it,” he said. “But it’s democracy, and democracy can sometimes be messy.”
By messy I assume he means that you don’t always get the response that you want. By messy I think he means that sometimes you lose. Mr. MacLaren claimed that Mr. Sterling had become complacent, doesn’t the attitude that you shouldn’t be allowed to lose prove that?
I for one applaud the PC Party of Ontario for having the maturity and the sense to allow true democracy within its ranks.
Ernie Eves, the former Premier that confused Magna International with the legislator of Ontario, made some snarling comments about Norm Sterling being replaced by Jack MacLaren as PC candidate in that riding.
In case you aren’t familiar with the story: Mr. MacLaren and his friends felt that Mr. Sterling wasn’t representing their views. So they organized themselves and challenged Mr. Sterling in an election to choose the PC candidate. Due to the superior organizational abilities of Mr. MacLaren, and despite the interference of the outgoing association executive, he won.
This is how Mr. Eves characterized it:
“I don’t care who hears this,” Eves said at a recent tribute dinner for Sterling at a golf club outside Carleton Place. “The treatment that Norm got from his own party was not very polite, was not fair, it was not loyal, it was not compassionate, it was not even and it was not honest.”
Yes the horror and unfairness of a democratic vote. Clearly Mr. MacLaren didn’t understand that the point of internal party democracy is just to make people think that political parties are democratic institutions. You aren’t actually supposed to vote for someone that represents your views and aspirations. That would not be fair or compassionate!
I also think that the Tea Party comparison is hilarious. The Landowners Association is only superficially similar to the Tea Party activists. Unlike the Tea Party, the Landowners is a single advocacy group with a pretty clear political agenda. I’m not totally sure what the political agenda of the Tea Party is except “we are mad and we want you to do something about it.”
Really the thing that they most have in common is that they share a political strategy of being active within a political party; both organize and vote in internal party elections. That is to say, they both make use of grassroots democratic tools to make their opinions heard. Again it seems that Mr. Eves’ fundamental problem is that he doesn’t like democracy.
To PC leader Tim Hudak’s credit, his response was pretty good:
“It’s difficult to go through, no doubt about it,” he said. “But it’s democracy, and democracy can sometimes be messy.”
By messy I assume he means that you don’t always get the response that you want. By messy I think he means that sometimes you lose. Mr. MacLaren claimed that Mr. Sterling had become complacent, doesn’t the attitude that you shouldn’t be allowed to lose prove that?
I for one applaud the PC Party of Ontario for having the maturity and the sense to allow true democracy within its ranks.
Tim Hudak is bad because drugs are bad (mmkay)
PC Party leader Tim Hudak hits the nail on the head. When asked today if he had ever used marijuana he responded:
He lived a normal life and so of course he smoked up as a young man. It is normal…IT IS NORMAL…for people to consume this illicit drug.
This drug has been banned since 1923 and yet almost 80 years later it is still considered normal to consume it. Hell I will wager that it is far more normal than it was in the 1920s. Talk about a failure of government policy.
It also begs the question of what is the point of trying to stop people from smoking cannabis in the first place.
Watch out kids! If you smoke up that weed stick you might end up being some loser, like the leader of a major political party in Canada’s largest province (or like the President of the United States for that matter).
The pointlessness of marijuana prohibition is mind boggling.
"I lived a pretty normal life as a kid growing up so yes, I have. It's been some time."
He lived a normal life and so of course he smoked up as a young man. It is normal…IT IS NORMAL…for people to consume this illicit drug.
This drug has been banned since 1923 and yet almost 80 years later it is still considered normal to consume it. Hell I will wager that it is far more normal than it was in the 1920s. Talk about a failure of government policy.
It also begs the question of what is the point of trying to stop people from smoking cannabis in the first place.
Watch out kids! If you smoke up that weed stick you might end up being some loser, like the leader of a major political party in Canada’s largest province (or like the President of the United States for that matter).
The pointlessness of marijuana prohibition is mind boggling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)