I read the transcript of Harper's speech to the MCBD conference and did not find it as upsetting as other conservatives have. When Harper claims Wall Street abused its freedoms he says nothing but the truth: bad debt was peddled as solid gold through CDOs and auditing companies abused (more like didn't use) their freedom to write off some securities as junk. The present credit crisis is a gigantic systematic screw-up with no justification, as the entire economy bought into a Ponzi scheme by whose comparison Bernard Madoff is an innocent lamb.
Truth is, whatever we may seek to blame the crisis on it lands two personalities on the defendant's bench: social engineering and immorality. Liberals are to blame for the former (bullying banks for the sake of equal home ownership), while conservatives could take the blame for the latter. As the idea that looks to the future, conservatives in America failed to emphasize the concept of added value and ownership.
Handing out junk mortgages for the simple sake of selling a garbage CDO isn't banking, isn't libertarian and isn't moral. Giving mortgages with a policy to add value to the branch's area, hoping to attract more professionals, more banking business and more wealth is added-value lending.
Example: a young professional is more likely to marry and make career progress. This means he or she will put more money in a savings account and bring another customer to the bank while paying back the mortgage. As more young professionals move in, the area gets gentrified, more affluent and requires more banking. That's looking to the future from a conservative perspective.
When you give out a mortgage, it's your money in play. Until we hammer this concept back into the system we will not learn any lessons from this mess. That's ownership. You own the house, but I own the risk. If ownership is the nail and regulation is the hammer, so be it. We are defending a free market in which everyone passed the buck together with a time bomb. It ain't right. Banning CDOs won't work (after all, solid debt is still debt) but we can't keep them in their present form either.
Harper's emphasis on family and faith isn't big news either, nor is it an ultimatum to libertarians. The family is the foundation of society and Harper's faith in the speech's context is the belief in the existence of good and evil beyond mere economic calculation. Don't libertarians believe in morals too? Where's the problem? Fears of a socially conservative agenda are easily assuaged: if the so-cons even try it, we will have 1993 all over again.
Harper's speech is simply stating that there's a mess to sort out and it's not just liberals who are to blame. Those balking at government spending didn't have the prospect of losing one's seat in the PMO.
He could have said some things better, and I for one take offence at the allegation that libertarians don't like to take responsibility. It's the faux libertarians who are ready to go liberal at the turn of the tide, whom we tried to defend as members of the free market who refuse to be responsible for the cleanup. True libertarians will not peddle garbage and true libertarians will not ask for a bailout.
Harper didn't walk into a libertarian meeting with the intention of alienating his audience, he still wants to win elections (duh). He merely wanted to set the record straight, that things will change after this crisis toward a more qualitative rather than quantitative approach and if someone wants to criticize the stimulus one should first try stepping into the PM's shoes. Imagine handing over the country to Dion, Layton and Duceppe, who would undo almost three years of hard work grinding through the slimmest minority.
I still like Harper. True he still throws out the occasional bungle or two, but the man has cojones. He came out in the heart of dissent and faced it head-on. We should take it as an opportunity: he is now up to discussing policy rather than just politics. We can take offence and sulk, or we can respond. This time we'll have more public attention because the media portrays it as if Harper's bullying us. Nothing's further from the truth. Were he a bully, he wouldn't have come into the Manning conference.
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Thoughts on a rising UK Tory star
Michael Gove MP is a fascinating person. Brilliant education, excellent journalist, skyrocketing political career and firm opinions and confidence make him a very good candidate for the Shadow Cabinet. However I don't like him, and here's why.
My first encounter with a speaking Gove was at a reception organized by Conservative Friends of Israel in London. I appreciated his views on terrorism and certain aspects of interventionist foreign policy. On education his record was squeaking clean. However he made a slip that put him in my blacklist for a long time.
Aiming evidently to pander to the audience, he criticized the then recent trials of Russian oligarchs stating that they were fueled by clear anti-Semitism because most of them were Jewish. At that point I nearly exploded. Firstly, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail, whatever religion you adopt. Secondly, the Russian oligarchs are mostly crooks who obtained their wealth shadily. Thirdly, they were using their immense wealths to attempt buying back the political system that slipped from their claws in recent years.
Pandering to audiences seems, however, to be a virtue or, at most, an excusable momentary defect for Gove. In an article he justified Obama's emptiness in his Berlin speech through the notion that he (Obama) still needs to win an election, so he looked to offend no-one and pander. His praise for Obama's own speechwriting, however, seems to conflict with Gove's own helping out with speeches for many Conservative politicians and leaders. An activity that, however condemned by him nowadays, definitely earned him more clout in the high floors of the Party HQ complex.
Gove lacks judgement in another area which he should instead claim as his own turf. In late March 2003, the following appeared on the BBC website:
I disagree. Everyone else make up their minds.
Finally, Monday Mr Gove gave a speech where he criticized men's magazines such as Zoo and Nuts (the titles speak for themselves) for family breakdown, teenage pregnancies and God knows what else. His quote is as follows:
Though I don't read either Nuts or Zoo, I can't fail to feel consternation at such drivel being spouted by a member of the Shadow Cabinet that hopes to take office. He is no different from an old lady poking her stick at thin air and blaming everything on television or some other gift of modernity.
Mr Gove should be reminded that family solidity is built by expunging the nonsensical welfare benefit system that rewards breakdown, giving power of education and discipline back to parents and schools and dealing away with the "permissive philosophy of self-expression" that Margaret Thatcher condemned in the education system as far back as 1986.
Lad's mags as well as gal's mags and everything in between have absolutely nada, zip, zilch to do with family breakdown. Surprisingly he didn't attack the Sun's Page 3. The reason is clear: attacking the Sun may lose the support of the most-read English-language newspaper and its readership. Pandering and avoiding offending anyone again, just the sins he pardons Obama.
Michael Gove exposes himself as an overconfident controlling octopus, seeking to expand Government's reach into the realm of free expression and freedom to enjoy the daily digest of unnatural breasts if one so wishes. As if freedom of expression in Britain wasn't abridged enough by the current Orwellian Soviet.
Never mind the skyrocketing career, Gove needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party wants to deal away with Labour's meddling, not tweak it to its own agenda. His views on terrorism and education, when thorough and well-thought, are of extreme scholarity and appeal. The pandering Oxfordian may be well advised to be less superficial and pandering in the future, lest he become a liability to the Party. Firing him for the nonsense he may spout next would cause the Tories enough damage to see a smooth General Election win slip from their safe reach.
My first encounter with a speaking Gove was at a reception organized by Conservative Friends of Israel in London. I appreciated his views on terrorism and certain aspects of interventionist foreign policy. On education his record was squeaking clean. However he made a slip that put him in my blacklist for a long time.
Aiming evidently to pander to the audience, he criticized the then recent trials of Russian oligarchs stating that they were fueled by clear anti-Semitism because most of them were Jewish. At that point I nearly exploded. Firstly, if you don't pay taxes you go to jail, whatever religion you adopt. Secondly, the Russian oligarchs are mostly crooks who obtained their wealth shadily. Thirdly, they were using their immense wealths to attempt buying back the political system that slipped from their claws in recent years.
Pandering to audiences seems, however, to be a virtue or, at most, an excusable momentary defect for Gove. In an article he justified Obama's emptiness in his Berlin speech through the notion that he (Obama) still needs to win an election, so he looked to offend no-one and pander. His praise for Obama's own speechwriting, however, seems to conflict with Gove's own helping out with speeches for many Conservative politicians and leaders. An activity that, however condemned by him nowadays, definitely earned him more clout in the high floors of the Party HQ complex.
Gove lacks judgement in another area which he should instead claim as his own turf. In late March 2003, the following appeared on the BBC website:
A columnist for the London Times, Michael Gove, compared him to William Pitt, who fought against Napoleon.
"He is the pilot who weathered the storm. Tony Blair may not appreciate the comparison with William Pitt but the prime minister is a leader who has seen through a war and emerged with his international reputation enhanced," wrote Gove two years ago.
Michael Gove now says that events since 11 September have enhanced Tony Blair's role with the Americans and have shown that he is "neither a geopolitical gnat nor a poodle".
I disagree. Everyone else make up their minds.
Finally, Monday Mr Gove gave a speech where he criticized men's magazines such as Zoo and Nuts (the titles speak for themselves) for family breakdown, teenage pregnancies and God knows what else. His quote is as follows:
"Titles such as Nuts and Zoo paint a picture of women as permanently, lasciviously, uncomplicatedly available," he said."We should ask those who make profits out of revelling in, or encouraging, selfish irresponsibility among young men what they think they're doing.
"They celebrate thrill-seeking and instant gratification without ever allowing any thought of responsibility towards others, or commitment, to intrude."
Though I don't read either Nuts or Zoo, I can't fail to feel consternation at such drivel being spouted by a member of the Shadow Cabinet that hopes to take office. He is no different from an old lady poking her stick at thin air and blaming everything on television or some other gift of modernity.
Mr Gove should be reminded that family solidity is built by expunging the nonsensical welfare benefit system that rewards breakdown, giving power of education and discipline back to parents and schools and dealing away with the "permissive philosophy of self-expression" that Margaret Thatcher condemned in the education system as far back as 1986.
Lad's mags as well as gal's mags and everything in between have absolutely nada, zip, zilch to do with family breakdown. Surprisingly he didn't attack the Sun's Page 3. The reason is clear: attacking the Sun may lose the support of the most-read English-language newspaper and its readership. Pandering and avoiding offending anyone again, just the sins he pardons Obama.
Michael Gove exposes himself as an overconfident controlling octopus, seeking to expand Government's reach into the realm of free expression and freedom to enjoy the daily digest of unnatural breasts if one so wishes. As if freedom of expression in Britain wasn't abridged enough by the current Orwellian Soviet.
Never mind the skyrocketing career, Gove needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party wants to deal away with Labour's meddling, not tweak it to its own agenda. His views on terrorism and education, when thorough and well-thought, are of extreme scholarity and appeal. The pandering Oxfordian may be well advised to be less superficial and pandering in the future, lest he become a liability to the Party. Firing him for the nonsense he may spout next would cause the Tories enough damage to see a smooth General Election win slip from their safe reach.
Saturday, 2 August 2008
Why we aren't winning yet
After three weeks of vacationing plus a few days of other sadly more important business to sort out, I'd like to offer a honest opinion as to why the Tories have been shown in a poll again in a smaller lead over the Liberals than they truly deserve. Plus, a poll shows the Party at odds with Quebeckers and Ontarians. In a whole month since the beginning of July's poll, hardly anything has changed.
Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.
Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?
Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.
Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.
Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.
So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.
What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.
Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.
Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:
It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.
Quebec first. Declaring the Quebecois a nation within Canada and emphasizing their role in a united federation is excellent PR, however I believe more is needed to sway the complex lot that inhabits the east shore of the Ottawa river. Far from advocating more Quebec-focused policies and subsidies to ailing industries, the central government should be helping (or putting pressure on the QC government) those hit by economic change out of their trade by shifting their focus. Facing the facts, with Chinese workforce and Siberian taiga paper and wood will soon all come from Asia. Aiding the forestry sector and papermaking industry isn't a long-term solution. Why not help shift logging to maple cultivation? With Quebec's soon-to-be negotiating autonomy with France overseas demand for our syrup may well increase if the industry plays its cards well. Just a thought.
Ontario inhabits the realm of my ignorance, but McGuinty has been outsmarting Tory and bolstering the image of the red party in the province. As far as I know he holds the initiative of going on a disputable sales trip to Europe and introducing re-training schemes for displaced automotive industry workforce. Trade, competition, investment and labor mobility are typical Conservative battle horses. Where were our troops?
Recently I read an article in the Globe and Mail titled "The Tories' almost forgotten policy". Forgotten allright, and it's our fault entirely.
Without wanting to sound too pretentious or judgmental, the Party's communications strategy is lacking in appeal to those voters who are wholly uninterested in political wrangling. Therefore rubbishing Stephane Dion is not a long-term vote winner but a mere tool for keeping him at bay. Associating the Green Shift policy with the punchbag Liberal leader is also a double-edged sword.
Steve Janke pointed out that the two provinces expected to take the shaft from the Carbon Tax do not elect one Liberal MP save Ralph Goodale. Pandering to voters in those districts would seem a risky if at all worthwhile time and energy investment. On the other hand Ontarians may see higher taxes trickling down to higher prices at the pump, but the Liberal typical promise of more social programs and dish-outs can outweigh this concern.
So we all get shafted one way or the other, but for the proposing leader two provinces are hopeless and eight may be persuaded to risk income redistribution. Simplistic as it may sound, Dion's gambling with the odds in his favor. Compounded with widespread inbuilt social distaste for the oil industry and its profits, the Green Shaft touches a sensitive nerve in many Canadians' minds.
What can the Party do to send the GS to the rubbish bin? Step one is achieved: discreditation by association. But it isn't enough. The Tories must offer a viable alternative that would ensure both emission reduction and that the money redistributed by an eventual economic adjustment do travel out of oil companies' wallets into those of other Canadians.
Despite a company's only purpose being a profit, a government's duty is to promote investment and growth, especially in times of economic duress. Therefore instead of further reducing the GST the current Government should encourage inter-province investment. Alberta is raking in huge profits with the current oil prices, while Ontario motor industry is in a slump and British Columbians are shafted with the provincial carbon tax.
Tax credits for profits re-routed to viable investment in other provinces could help hammer out a new message:
Liberal Ontario/BC waste and tax, Tory Alberta/SK invest and enrich.
It's time to cut out the wrangling and show Canadians we can not just out-fundraise and out-campaign, but out-smart, out-initiative and out-policy the Liberals as well.
Thursday, 10 January 2008
Torify it slow
A very very special mention for my friend Tim Mak, who wrote a striking comment in the McGill Tribune outlining the case for incrementalist conservatism over the radical folk who want torification, want it all and want it now. He said it so well I barely have anything to add on the topic. :)
But let me drift off and ramble: incrementalism IS conservatism, provided we accept the inevitability of change.
Whatever the color of your Tory inner self (corollary: there's a bit of Tory in everyone) conservatism has always been an ideology without a utopia, for we do not idealize human charity, human reason or human selflessness. Tories treasure people's right to do as they please within the limits of the law, fully recognizing that individual self-interest is not a deterministic quantity. Since we can't quantify the interest of a whole nation (but merely gauge it through elections) a government cannot impose courses of action or aims but merely steer the system in the direction of greater freedom and smaller government when the opportunity arises or the people want it. Many governments run out of steam because they fulfil all their promises by making sweeping reforms and then lounge around asking themselves "Now what?". Incrementalist conservatism yields governments that can be eternal, because they act wisely when the time is ripe, not when the election and propaganda schedule imposes it.
Monday, 7 January 2008
One king, two kings... Where's the third?
Since yesterday it was Epiphany, I wondered whether I could come up with three good gifts that have been brought to the cause of conservatism since the beginning of the year 2008. There might have been many, but I'd like to focus on two good facts and a hope for a third in the coming.
First off, Canadian conservatism scored a tremendous goal with the GST reduction. While one per cent less tax seems not much of a gift, it reduces government GST income by 15%, and gives every Canadian more money to spend as they please. Guard the pennies and the dollars will come by themselves.
Secondly, in Britain the Conservative Party received a Liberal Democrat defector. Faraz Bhatti, a Manchester city council member, switched to the Tories claiming the Party was the only one that could bring real change. The Tories now have their first Councillor in Manchester in decades. Score one for the Tories, their policies and their voice.
The third hope didn't materialize. I hoped Iowa Republicans would choose a conservative who didn't place an enormous emphasis on faith and abortion. Mike Huckabee is not what America needs if it is to stay true to real conservatism. The results of the Democratic primary propelled ultra-spender Obama to sky-high point leads. If he wins the nomination and the presidential election, after four years of his spending inflation maybe Republicans will wake up to the fact that the most powerful nation in the world can't decide its destiny based solely on religious faith or strictly personal beliefs. Hopefully NH will be wiser.
The third wise king got stuck on his way.
First off, Canadian conservatism scored a tremendous goal with the GST reduction. While one per cent less tax seems not much of a gift, it reduces government GST income by 15%, and gives every Canadian more money to spend as they please. Guard the pennies and the dollars will come by themselves.
Secondly, in Britain the Conservative Party received a Liberal Democrat defector. Faraz Bhatti, a Manchester city council member, switched to the Tories claiming the Party was the only one that could bring real change. The Tories now have their first Councillor in Manchester in decades. Score one for the Tories, their policies and their voice.
The third hope didn't materialize. I hoped Iowa Republicans would choose a conservative who didn't place an enormous emphasis on faith and abortion. Mike Huckabee is not what America needs if it is to stay true to real conservatism. The results of the Democratic primary propelled ultra-spender Obama to sky-high point leads. If he wins the nomination and the presidential election, after four years of his spending inflation maybe Republicans will wake up to the fact that the most powerful nation in the world can't decide its destiny based solely on religious faith or strictly personal beliefs. Hopefully NH will be wiser.
The third wise king got stuck on his way.
Thursday, 11 October 2007
The Bloc in agony?
The Bloc Quebecois is running out of steam, as is blind Quebec nationalism at last.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071011.duceppe11/BNStory/National/home
While Mr Duceppe might relish in the knowledge that only his party is truly Quebecois, one seriously asks oneself the question of whether people actually care. To add to his ill-concealed xenophobia he garnishes his anti-Conservative and anti-Ottawa rants with slammings of multiculturalism, immigrants, English language and anything else he can think of, citing Quebec culture as ever so special as to not be manageable by some federal party that wasn't truly Quebecois.
Quebec is different from the rest of Canada, as is Ontario from Nunavut or PEI from Alberta, however speaking French more than the rest of the country seems to be a valid excuse for Mr Duceppe to lambast the Federation and claim even more protection for French in the province.
This kind of ill-aimed vitriol is a symptom of a deep ideological crisis within the Bloc. As always a party on its way into oblivion resorts to last-minute populism, trying to stir up the most mediocre feelings of those still foolable by harsh talk and gratuitious abuse. Conservatism will bury nationalism under the banner of freedom, common sense and tolerance. Forward!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071011.duceppe11/BNStory/National/home
While Mr Duceppe might relish in the knowledge that only his party is truly Quebecois, one seriously asks oneself the question of whether people actually care. To add to his ill-concealed xenophobia he garnishes his anti-Conservative and anti-Ottawa rants with slammings of multiculturalism, immigrants, English language and anything else he can think of, citing Quebec culture as ever so special as to not be manageable by some federal party that wasn't truly Quebecois.
Quebec is different from the rest of Canada, as is Ontario from Nunavut or PEI from Alberta, however speaking French more than the rest of the country seems to be a valid excuse for Mr Duceppe to lambast the Federation and claim even more protection for French in the province.
This kind of ill-aimed vitriol is a symptom of a deep ideological crisis within the Bloc. As always a party on its way into oblivion resorts to last-minute populism, trying to stir up the most mediocre feelings of those still foolable by harsh talk and gratuitious abuse. Conservatism will bury nationalism under the banner of freedom, common sense and tolerance. Forward!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)