Pinch your nose fellas, politics is a stinky business.

I am glad we have a first-past-the-post system in Canada. It usually means I can vote for a local candidate I like without endorsing the party's leader directly. Not that I can vote of course, but you get my point.

I haven't read the Fraser institute analysis of the stimulus spending, and the pitiful effect it had on the Canadian economy. I am sure their basis is solid and their methods sound. I tend to believe think-tanks rather than politicians, mostly because it is in a politician's short-term interest to lie or play ignorant.

By slamming the Fraser Institute's findings, the PM does pure politics. He has to defend the enormous deficit to his party and Parliament, which is no small task if you don't believe your stimulus either. It is hard to fathom why, otherwise, would he unsheath his rhetorical sword against a reputable sympathetic think-tank so publicly and so violently. 

Yet there is a monumental difference between politely rejecting what is politically inconvenient and making a philosophical counter-argument. Stephen Harper could have just as easily said his advisers disagreed, or been cocky as befits a person of power and simply dismissed the report as a mere opinion which he, and the economy apparently, disagreed with.

Instead he openly advocated for a government role in assigning funds to the economy without even the slightest reference to a politician's fallibility in such great matters. No humble concession that such measures should only be a desperate last resort. 

Some bloggers reacted by withdrawing their support for the PM. I am tempted, but will refrain from doing so. The reasoning is simple. Would we be in power today without the stimulus being passed? We would currently reside under a coalition government with a deficit three times the size of today's and a Quebec gobbling up our chances of ever turning a surplus again. In the event the coalition collapsed, we'd still need to deal with a disastrous Budget left by the predecessors. It isn't a good prospect.

An admission of having wasted taxpayer dollars, which acceptance of the Fraser report would amount to, is nothing short of political suicide. We would be drubbed at the polls, and the Liberals wanted no better opportunity to call an election.

I like to think of myself as a fiscal conservative, and the PM has disappointed me. Yet I contemplate the alternative and, for the time being, pinch my nose and sign off my monthly contribution to the Conservative fund. Harper is a smart politician, he knows what he's doing. I solely hope he wins back the wavering fiscal conservatives before they mount a leadership challenge.

That's a cheap swipe, Ann!

Ann Coulter jabs at Canada and expects a positive human rights tribunal process. Ack! I still like her, but I am hurt. Does that mean I am whipped?

Don't judge a country by a bunch of lefties and their sidekicks. In particular please refrain from insulting the country that is kindly hosting you and allowing you to earn quite a bit in speaking fees.

I know you're a feisty and unrestrained one, yet not proving the general consensus of you being batshit crazy might help your cause a little.

Just a thought.

Every stone left unturned, doctor!

It was to be expected. With a House majority and the ability to ram through a reform bill, the Democrats would have done so without batting an eyelid.

While we wait for November to come and, hopefully, a new majority, let's hope some of this jumble of a healthcare bill works. And that the Republicans get their message right. Judging by some of the gratuitous and pathetic outbursts in the House yesterday such hopes are misplaced.

There are tons of arguments against this reform. It does almost nothing to change tort law, it compels citizens by virtue of their existence and violates the key tenet of a solid economy: "I am free not to want your business". Compelling businesses to extend services to customers they do not want is a dangerous enterprise.

All they've done is taken a problem and spread it over the rest of the population.

Call me thick, my concept of an insurer is similar to the one of a bookmaker. The insurer bets that you will pay in money and not require the healthcare service. Therefore some people will be susceptible to certain conditions and will need to give the insurer better odds if they are to get coverage.

Pelosi did what liberals do best and milked the feel-good factor. "Being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition". From the depths of my ignorance I know that women are 100 times more likely than men to have breast cancer and are the only half of the human population that can develop cervical and ovarian cancers, require a hysterectomy or maternity services. Men are the only ones to require prostate surgery or to develop testicular cancer, but that's another story.

I would much rather have had a full NHS-style reform than this concoction of dirigism. We can all agree not being covered for a preexisting condition is shocking, many poor people can't afford the premium and the cost of care is soaring in no small part due to over-zealous attorneys.

What was wrong with a public option for pre-existing conditions? Why can't we spend money on no-fault public malpractice insurance? Why couldn't they open up the market to inter-state coverage?

And why, in the name of all that's holy, are the Republicans putting up such a childish show about a deeply controversial and polarizing moral issue when there's so many faults in the law to pick on?

The fillet is before them, and they lunge for the offal.

What's the campaign issue?

Election timing punditry seems a national sport in anglophone media. As the speculation about a UK election on may 6th dies out, Don Newman treats us to his conclusion that "the election clock will start ticking" in the fall.

It all depends, of course, on whether the Tories find a campaign issue that would justify triggering an election. That's a gigantic "if". The Budget was voted through without too much ruckus and there doesn't seem to be any major political minefield on the horizon. We must find one witin the next couple of months.

A fall election is definitely the right way to go. The summer is a dead season where people are too busy attending festivals and sorting out arrangements for the next academic year. In winter we greet Flaherty's cleaver and wave goodbye to our hard earned cash: hardly an enthusing prospect.

What can keep voters interested in July and August and bring them to the polls in late September? Ignatieff won't throw us the Green Shift bone, we'll have to smoke him out. I recommend we keep it at home. I'd say we avoid all international policy except free trade. The Liberals are masters at milking the feel-good-about-yourself factor in that regard; we can out-milk them if we play the free trade card right.

The prospect of higher energy bills in the coming winter months could help using energy policy as a good starter. Quebec has a huge gas shale which, if developed properly, could make the region very rich. Chalk River needs replacing. There's still plenty of hydro energy to be tapped. As long as we stay away from bioethanol we should be fine.

Imagine the ballot question. A viable cleaner source of energy today (shale gas) versus an unsightly utopia tomorrow (wind farms, solar panels and perpetual motion).

All I'm saying is we have to relate our election trigger to people's pockets in more ways than just saying we will spend their money wiser.

Support is back.

At last some good news. The Tories are clawing back some support from the Liberals, and all seems to be well.

I don't particularly like the fact a lot of people believe the country to be on the wrong track, however Ignatieff has even greater cause for worry.

Surely if his party were to be the answer to the country's problems, the LPC would rule the poll and grow in preferences as the "wrong track" opinion gains traction. But it doesn't.

Despite Tory support growing in Alberta (where we wipe the floor with the opposition) and declining in BC (where we need to gain seats), the Ekos poll is a damning verdict for Ignatieff.

Canadians seem to trust the people who put us in the debt mess to pull the country out of it. Ignatieff will have a very hard time explaining that one.

Is the public warming up to us and the prospect of big cuts? Or are they still in love with big-government Conservative spending and dread a repeat of the Chretien slashes? A million dollar question indeed.

By the power of parma ham...

Question: what is the biggest threat to democracy, if Italy is the standard to go by?

Answer: a common sandwich.

The paninus vulgaris is knows to lure candidates' campaign managers and administrators into distraction, causing deadlines to be missed and said candidates being excluded from the elections. This cock-up is magnified by Italy's proportional system in electing regional assemblies, which means scores of Berlusconi's candidates ended up off the ballot.

All because someone wanted a sandwich.

The storm has so far resulted in a useless candidate re-admission law, endless comedy and Berlusconi proclaiming it's all a communist plot against his party.

It isn't. Your staff is incompetent. Moral of the story: hand in the paperwork a day early!

Take my exemption, but not all at once

My graduate association has brought to my attention that postdoctoral fellowships will be taxed beginning this year if the Budget passes in its current form. I read the relevant section and happen to agree with Flaherty's assessment.

The tax exemptions for grad stipends (like mine) are excellent because we study to get a qualification and the stipends would be, realistically speaking, quite small if the tax was applied. 

A postdoctoral fellowship is a larger paycheck, and the Government is creating 75,000 dollar whoppers to boot. Moreover, one is training for a faculty position which will earn not only a higher salary, but eventual tenure and lots of access to NSERC funding.

So there's nothing wrong with bringing postdoctoral money into the tax system. But is such an abrupt change the best way to address the issue?

If from one day to another you were whammed with a 20% tax you wouldn't be happy, never mind having to scrap plenty of plans. With a mortgage to pay or a child coming up, the situation becomes serious.

I would much rather the tax was introduced gradually over three years. Postdocs would pay 11% of the full rate in the 2010 fiscal year, 33% in 2011 and 100% in 2012. This way contingency plans can be made or an alternative, more lucrative career sought. Otherwise we are disgruntling a potential pool of non-liberal professors, which is a bit of a waste methinks.

Unnecessary lack of class

As I keep thinking about last week's events I can't help feeling like an old grumpy crank. I want to like this Budget and Throne Speech, but it would be an undeserved compliment. Flaherty's buzzwords for cuts in the public service aren't convincing, the estimates are a politician's ones and the spending freeze at 2010 levels is like climbing to the top of Everest and saying "we shall climb no higher".

In a minority government anyone's radical policies and vision need to be watered down. I appreciate this quirk of democracy, yet it doesn't oblige me to cheerfully lead choruses of praise.

The most bitter aspect of this saga is the O Canada wording fiasco. As we discover the Tories never intended to change the words of the national anthem we understand the callousness of the Throne Speech tactic: throw the media a juicy bone and distract everyone while the Budget is tabled and leaves the "fresh news" shelf. Burying potental sources of criticism is nothing new. Did we really need to use the Governor General to do so? When did Harper receive advice that such an unclassy move was OK?

Such desperation to divert the public's and media's attention betrays a deep insecurity about whatever is being buried. As a Tory I deduce that the Government is not confident its own budget can stand the test of scrutiny by its base and the opposition. It needn't be that way. It's a spending binge that was promised last year and will result in large cuts in the coming years. What's wrong with saying so?

Loyal party activists and conservative commentators have classified Harper as a big-government conservative for times on end. He has nothing left to hide, so he might at least have the courtesy of being honest and calling this budget for what it is: delaying the headache of a hangover.

Number-crunching the Throne Speech

Apparently the Throne Speech is 6000 words long and will take a whopping hour and a half to deliver. Let's crunch some numbers.

Assume the standard policy announcement goes as follows: "This government is committed to job creation in Canada following the most severe crisis in decades. Corporation tax will be reduced to incentivise hiring and investment". Twenty-six words. Political BS brings it up to, say, 35. We further assume 15% on either end of the speech is introduction, self-congratulation, ordinary administration, grandstanding and general bells and whistles.

I therefore expect 150 policy initiatives or changes to be announced. It'd better be close: this extended vacation has to yield impressive results or we will fail Canadians who actually trusted the Government to get cracking.

This Throne Speech and budget might be the swan song of this Parliament, while the Liberals play all-in to reverse the Senate majority. We are about to hear our campaign spiel and our to-do list for the next legislative session. There will be no more stalling in Senate committees and Canadians will want an ambitious and sufficiently Tory agenda.

How else can the base be energized to drum up support for a Tory majority? I am sure the PM knows what's at stake, which is why I expect nothing but a political masterpiece.

A good day for Luca

Today I am more free than I was yesterday. My thesis has been signed off for external review, which means I am very happy and very tempted to imbibe celebratory pints.

In other news, a friend of mine swore allegiance to Her Majesty today and became a Canadian citizen. Which made me look forward to the autumn of 2011 when I will file my application.

Maggie Thatcher sums up my feelings for today: "Look at a day when you are supremely satisfied at the end. It's not a day when you lounge around doing nothing: it's when you've had everything to do and you've done it".

Speaking of which, I still need to do laundry.