In a portion of his Special To North Shore News column this past Sunday, Mr. Bell wrote the following;
On another political matter, I checked in with one of my favorite blogs recently, North Vancouver school board trustee Barry Forward's North Vancouver Politics, to discover that the once-vibrant discussions have dwindled to near nothing.
Forward blames "summer holidays" for the slowdown in political dialogue, but many of those political junkies who participated on the board in the past are speculating that Forward has his eye on bigger political fish -- trophies such as a future B.C. Liberal nomination in West Vancouver-Capilano.
If that is the case, Forward might worry about some of the off-the-wall postings on his board that would get him in trouble with the Liberal green light committee, the group that checks out a potential candidate's background to ensure there is no potential for embarrassment.
One prolific blogger wrote me saying: "The rumours (and I emphasize this is what they are) are that Barry would like the Liberal nomination when Ralph Sultan chooses to hang it up, and (that he) is terrified by what the Liberal green-light candidate vetting committee might say about some of the comments (especially the anonymous ones) on his blog."
My guess is that many bloggers (I being one of them) got tired of the nasty anonymous postings and went back to more credible newspapers and websites.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Bob Rae comes to North Vancouver: some thoughts
Bob Rae came to North Vancouver yesterday. Unfortunately I came late and so missed his opening talk. I was there for some of the question period though.
First thing I took note of is just how patient Rae is. Not every question asked of him made sense. Others were not questions at all but short editorials. Finally, most questions were buried in lengthy preambles. Still, Rae was polite to a fault, responded to each in timely manner and at length and he was never short or cutting. In other words, Rae not only has the gift of the gab he also knows how to listen and how to make people feel listened too.
That said, even Rae can not turn lead into gold. When someone asked him just what the Liberal party stood for his response was less than satisfactory. He said that Liberals were committed to enshrining good parliamentary process into law and enacting legislation that would protect institutions such as Stats Canada and elections Canada from an overly aggressive PMO. I could not agree more and think level headed people of all political stripes would feel the same. However, this is a far cry from "just society".
The other pillars mentioned by Rae were sustainability and early childhood education. The problem with the former is that it is so nebulous that it is hard to see why anyone -- even the Conservatives -- could not claim to be committed to sustainability. As for the later, it is politically useless. For the vast majority of Canadians, the Liberal promise to work out a different deal with each province amounts to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare sometime in the future. Canadians could not figure out what this would mean for their lives in 2006 and not surprisingly they preferred the Conservative baby bonus. Nothing has changed.
In order for the Liberals to capitalize on the issue they need make a clear offer to Canadian voters. They could, for example, offer all day preschool and kindergarten for every kid in Canada. That would garner them votes and provide them with the option of juxtaposing such a policy with the Conservative plan to build more prisons.
Speaking of prisons, someone asked Rae what the Liberals planed to do about the biggest mass murder in the world --- "drugs". As I mentioned before, some questions could have been worded better. Anyway, Rae said that diseases associated with poverty were a bigger killer and then went on to question the wisdom of Harper's war on drugs. He said that addiction is better thought of as a medical issue and not criminal one. This is fine as far as it goes, but other than Insite, he did not mention anything specific and he did not deal with Ignatieff's worries about "marijuana cigarettes" or how the Liberals have supported every Conservative crime bill since Ignatieff came on as leader. Later that night, I remembered his hollow answer as I watched a CBC story about California's November referendum on whether to legalize marijuana and read that former Mexican President Vicente fox Fox said that all drugs should be legalized.
First thing I took note of is just how patient Rae is. Not every question asked of him made sense. Others were not questions at all but short editorials. Finally, most questions were buried in lengthy preambles. Still, Rae was polite to a fault, responded to each in timely manner and at length and he was never short or cutting. In other words, Rae not only has the gift of the gab he also knows how to listen and how to make people feel listened too.
That said, even Rae can not turn lead into gold. When someone asked him just what the Liberal party stood for his response was less than satisfactory. He said that Liberals were committed to enshrining good parliamentary process into law and enacting legislation that would protect institutions such as Stats Canada and elections Canada from an overly aggressive PMO. I could not agree more and think level headed people of all political stripes would feel the same. However, this is a far cry from "just society".
The other pillars mentioned by Rae were sustainability and early childhood education. The problem with the former is that it is so nebulous that it is hard to see why anyone -- even the Conservatives -- could not claim to be committed to sustainability. As for the later, it is politically useless. For the vast majority of Canadians, the Liberal promise to work out a different deal with each province amounts to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare sometime in the future. Canadians could not figure out what this would mean for their lives in 2006 and not surprisingly they preferred the Conservative baby bonus. Nothing has changed.
In order for the Liberals to capitalize on the issue they need make a clear offer to Canadian voters. They could, for example, offer all day preschool and kindergarten for every kid in Canada. That would garner them votes and provide them with the option of juxtaposing such a policy with the Conservative plan to build more prisons.
Speaking of prisons, someone asked Rae what the Liberals planed to do about the biggest mass murder in the world --- "drugs". As I mentioned before, some questions could have been worded better. Anyway, Rae said that diseases associated with poverty were a bigger killer and then went on to question the wisdom of Harper's war on drugs. He said that addiction is better thought of as a medical issue and not criminal one. This is fine as far as it goes, but other than Insite, he did not mention anything specific and he did not deal with Ignatieff's worries about "marijuana cigarettes" or how the Liberals have supported every Conservative crime bill since Ignatieff came on as leader. Later that night, I remembered his hollow answer as I watched a CBC story about California's November referendum on whether to legalize marijuana and read that former Mexican President Vicente fox Fox said that all drugs should be legalized.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
I'll Go Back Under My Rock Now
I was asked today by one list member where I had disappeared to. Honestly life is way too busy, work too irregular, and school is fast approaching, but the real excuse is that politics in Canada has gone from bizarre and entertaining to downright otherworldly. The more I watch Harper the more I despair, and the more I wish there was an Opposition party.Then again, we could be in the U.S. - or is this a picture of Harper's dream for Canada?
"The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the 'no fun police' on the left," said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud, in a statement. "I can't think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed 'right-wing Judy Garland' - Ann Coulter."
"I can promise you, Homocon 2010 will be a hell of a lot more fun than chaining yourself to the White House fence."
Andrew Saxton's comment was of course "Hold on - where did I put that fax from the PMO with my script?"
*Note to complainers: a) yes there are gay people in North Vancouver b) yes they suffer discrimination and c) yes, Harper does get most of his ideas form US neo-cons.
Friday, June 25, 2010
DNV Council to Vote on Parkgate 11 Storey Hi-Rise as early as July 5th
www.noparkgatehighrise.net
Back to issues truly North Vancouver.
The issue of to build or not to build the 11 Storey Parkgate Hi-Rise, A.K.A. '3600 Block Mount Seymour Parkway OCP Amendment and Rezoning' has come and gone via a public hearing on Tuesday, June 22.
The signatures of some 977 people 'against' the project some of which I canvassed for, were virtually all Parkgate residents, have now been presented to DNV Council.
In comparison, as of 2:30pm Jun 22nd upon review of the DNV 'public file' on this controversial project, there were only 90 signatures 'for' it; and many of those were from non-DNV voters and taxpayers.
The Public hearing was held Jun 22nd and, with a packed speakers list, went very late into the evening - actually until about 12:40 am (5 1/2 hours).
The developer literally stacked the meeting with two busloads of supporters - the buses were in the DNV parking lot - including many seniors from its Summerhill Tower. In fact, most of the speakers on June 22nd in 'support' of the developer do not live or vote in the DNV.
One can only hope that Council has the good-sense to properly balance the real interests of all of the 'outsiders' who spoke as PAG supporters with the express wishes of almost 1000 local residents who have signed petitions and written letters, as well as the fact that the SLP does not allow for Hi-Rises.
Mayor Walton indicated that the DNV Council decision could be as early as July 5th.
Back to issues truly North Vancouver.
The issue of to build or not to build the 11 Storey Parkgate Hi-Rise, A.K.A. '3600 Block Mount Seymour Parkway OCP Amendment and Rezoning' has come and gone via a public hearing on Tuesday, June 22.
The signatures of some 977 people 'against' the project some of which I canvassed for, were virtually all Parkgate residents, have now been presented to DNV Council.
In comparison, as of 2:30pm Jun 22nd upon review of the DNV 'public file' on this controversial project, there were only 90 signatures 'for' it; and many of those were from non-DNV voters and taxpayers.
The Public hearing was held Jun 22nd and, with a packed speakers list, went very late into the evening - actually until about 12:40 am (5 1/2 hours).
The developer literally stacked the meeting with two busloads of supporters - the buses were in the DNV parking lot - including many seniors from its Summerhill Tower. In fact, most of the speakers on June 22nd in 'support' of the developer do not live or vote in the DNV.
One can only hope that Council has the good-sense to properly balance the real interests of all of the 'outsiders' who spoke as PAG supporters with the express wishes of almost 1000 local residents who have signed petitions and written letters, as well as the fact that the SLP does not allow for Hi-Rises.
Mayor Walton indicated that the DNV Council decision could be as early as July 5th.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Debt Myths
Debt and deficit are likely to be two hot topics in the next Federal election and North Vancouver will be no exception.
Myth 1: Government spending under Trudeau and Pearson accounts for most of Canada's debt
The notion that the Trudeau and Pearson spent Canada into debt is laughable. Leaving aside the fact that most of Canada's debt accumulated under Brian Mulroney, when Trudeau left office Canada's debt to GDP ratio was slightly less than it was under Diefenbaker and for most of 60s and 70s debt to GDP ratios were well below what they were in 1960. Moreover, it was only in Trudeau's last term in office that deficits to GDP reached troubling levels and that had nothing to do with new government spending.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the US Fed and other Western countries declared a war on inflation. The war was won, but it came at a terrible cost. Sky rocketing interest rates meant sky rocketing deficits in both Canada and the US. An example should put things into perspective. In September 1980 interest rates stood at already ridiculously high 13%; three months later the US Fed had raised them to 20%.
Monetary policy and not government largeness explains Canada's debt crisis in the 1990s.
It was also helps to explain why Martin was able to tackle the deficit. The last of those ridiculously high yield bonds had run out by 1993 and by 1992 new bonds were issued at a much lower rate. Lower interest rates also increased demand at the same time as they helped lower the Canadian dollar against US dollar.
Myth 2: Canadian government spending is out of control
Using the mid 1990s as a reference, pundits, such as Andrew Coyne, like to point out that government spending has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, it has. The problem is government spending in the mid 1990s was lower than it was at any point since the 1950s and given the demands of a modern economy, such low levels of spending were unsustainable. In other words, what we have witnessed in the last 10 years is not a spike in government spending but an inevitable and needed rebound. The amount of government spending in Canada as percentage of GDP is lower than most Western countries and is even lower then what it is in the States.
Furthermore, what is true for other countries in recent years is also true for Canada. What accounts for most of the deficit is a massive decline in revenues and not "Canada's Action plan".
Myth 3: The debt crisis in Europe is a result of government largeness
The acronym PIGS make it seem that Europe's debt crisis is a result of government spending. This is simply not true. Prior to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, had debt levels that were either comparable to Canada's or lower. Moreover, none of these countries were running huge deficits prior to the crash. Indeed, Spain was running surpluses. The huge deficits these countries are running now are a consequence of a massive decline in government revenues and the massive increase in debt levels is a consequence of large amount of private debt being transferred to the government books in the face of crisis brought on by a US private debt crisis and huge spike in oil prices in the summer of 2008. The UK is perhaps the best example of the later
Italy and Greece, of course, had higher debt levels. However, even here this has arguably more to do with with the revenue side than the spending side. This is especially true in Italy's case. Tax evasion is widespread in both countries. The situation in Italy is so bad that the former government proposed that every Italian's income be made public so that people could rat out tax evaders.
The origins of the debt crisis matter. If the cause of crisis is massive reduction in revenues, fiscal stimulus may be the only way out. Getting on with the business of reducing the debt in the face of 20% unemployment in Spain's case, is likely to make things worse. First there is the question of there being a liquidity trap. Then there is this. However big the real estate bubble was in the States it was far bigger in many European countries and where there are real estate bubbles there are high consumer debt levels and in most cases highly leveraged banks. Slashing services, rising interest rates, raising taxes that will in turn lead to increased financial burden for households will only serve to bring various European economies closer to the edge. It will lead to defaults which will in turn lead to bank failures. The consumer debt problem and public debt problem are actually one problem.
There is no easy answers and things only stand to get more complicated. For one, the true European debt crisis lies in wait. While there is nothing to suggest that the timing of the current crisis was consequence of government largeness, a rapidly aging population endangers every major European economy. Europe's "implicit debt", most notably generous but uncosted public pensions, will become more of a problem as Europe ages. This is especially true for the PIGS. Italy is Europe's oldest country and, if memory serves, Greece has its lowest birth rate. Spain, meanwhile, is on course to have one pensioner for every one worker by 2050. Many Europeans have been loath to embrace immigration for fears that it would erode national identity. Europe must now embrace higher immigration if it wants to maintain its current way of life.
To further complicate matters, there is the Euro. Greece has been in and out of default for a good portion of the last hundred years. What makes this most recent crisis different is that should it default the future of the Euro would be in called into question. As Paul Krugman et al, have suggested default may be impossible to head off. The problem is that countries in Greece's position have traditionally devalued their currency in order to get back on their feet again. (To very real extent that is exactly what Canada did in the 1990s.) So long as Greece uses the Euro, that option is not open to them though. In order for Greek business to complete with their German counterparts, for example, there must be a real reduction in Greek wages. If Greece was not a Euro member, it could accomplish the same by devaluing its currency.
Myth 4: This is 1995 all over again
Canada is also vulnerable. Sure are banks are better shape, but this is no small measure do to the fact that Canadian housing corporation and not the banks and AIGs of the world are on hook should the real estate bubble burst in Canada's biggest cities.
You see, one of the first things the Conservatives did upon taking office was to extend the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extend it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extend it yet again to 40 years in November 2006. During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence.
Such actions allowed Canadians to take on mountains more debt, house prices went through the roof and so has the Canadian housing corporation liabilities. It was 100 billion in 2006. It is expected to reach $500 billion by the end of the year. A sharp increase in defaults will add billions and billions and billions to Canada's net debt.
The slash and burn policies of the 1990s will only make a bad situation worse. Indeed, with Canadian consumer debt growing at amazing 7% a year and Canadian consumer debt levels some of the highest in the world, slashing services will only serve to bring the Canadian economy closer to the edge. Canada needs to take action least a private debt problem become a public debt one. That means above all insuring that real estate does not continue to rise and to lessen the financial burden of young families in particular. A national day care program is great place to start. The type of services that Canada should be cutting -- if not gutting -- are the ones that offer no direct financial benefit to Canadians. Military spending and the Conservatives daft get tough on crime policies are great place to start.
Myth 1: Government spending under Trudeau and Pearson accounts for most of Canada's debt
The notion that the Trudeau and Pearson spent Canada into debt is laughable. Leaving aside the fact that most of Canada's debt accumulated under Brian Mulroney, when Trudeau left office Canada's debt to GDP ratio was slightly less than it was under Diefenbaker and for most of 60s and 70s debt to GDP ratios were well below what they were in 1960. Moreover, it was only in Trudeau's last term in office that deficits to GDP reached troubling levels and that had nothing to do with new government spending.
At the beginning of the 1980s, the US Fed and other Western countries declared a war on inflation. The war was won, but it came at a terrible cost. Sky rocketing interest rates meant sky rocketing deficits in both Canada and the US. An example should put things into perspective. In September 1980 interest rates stood at already ridiculously high 13%; three months later the US Fed had raised them to 20%.
Monetary policy and not government largeness explains Canada's debt crisis in the 1990s.
It was also helps to explain why Martin was able to tackle the deficit. The last of those ridiculously high yield bonds had run out by 1993 and by 1992 new bonds were issued at a much lower rate. Lower interest rates also increased demand at the same time as they helped lower the Canadian dollar against US dollar.
Myth 2: Canadian government spending is out of control
Using the mid 1990s as a reference, pundits, such as Andrew Coyne, like to point out that government spending has grown by leaps and bounds. Indeed, it has. The problem is government spending in the mid 1990s was lower than it was at any point since the 1950s and given the demands of a modern economy, such low levels of spending were unsustainable. In other words, what we have witnessed in the last 10 years is not a spike in government spending but an inevitable and needed rebound. The amount of government spending in Canada as percentage of GDP is lower than most Western countries and is even lower then what it is in the States.
Furthermore, what is true for other countries in recent years is also true for Canada. What accounts for most of the deficit is a massive decline in revenues and not "Canada's Action plan".
Myth 3: The debt crisis in Europe is a result of government largeness
The acronym PIGS make it seem that Europe's debt crisis is a result of government spending. This is simply not true. Prior to the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, had debt levels that were either comparable to Canada's or lower. Moreover, none of these countries were running huge deficits prior to the crash. Indeed, Spain was running surpluses. The huge deficits these countries are running now are a consequence of a massive decline in government revenues and the massive increase in debt levels is a consequence of large amount of private debt being transferred to the government books in the face of crisis brought on by a US private debt crisis and huge spike in oil prices in the summer of 2008. The UK is perhaps the best example of the later
Italy and Greece, of course, had higher debt levels. However, even here this has arguably more to do with with the revenue side than the spending side. This is especially true in Italy's case. Tax evasion is widespread in both countries. The situation in Italy is so bad that the former government proposed that every Italian's income be made public so that people could rat out tax evaders.
The origins of the debt crisis matter. If the cause of crisis is massive reduction in revenues, fiscal stimulus may be the only way out. Getting on with the business of reducing the debt in the face of 20% unemployment in Spain's case, is likely to make things worse. First there is the question of there being a liquidity trap. Then there is this. However big the real estate bubble was in the States it was far bigger in many European countries and where there are real estate bubbles there are high consumer debt levels and in most cases highly leveraged banks. Slashing services, rising interest rates, raising taxes that will in turn lead to increased financial burden for households will only serve to bring various European economies closer to the edge. It will lead to defaults which will in turn lead to bank failures. The consumer debt problem and public debt problem are actually one problem.
There is no easy answers and things only stand to get more complicated. For one, the true European debt crisis lies in wait. While there is nothing to suggest that the timing of the current crisis was consequence of government largeness, a rapidly aging population endangers every major European economy. Europe's "implicit debt", most notably generous but uncosted public pensions, will become more of a problem as Europe ages. This is especially true for the PIGS. Italy is Europe's oldest country and, if memory serves, Greece has its lowest birth rate. Spain, meanwhile, is on course to have one pensioner for every one worker by 2050. Many Europeans have been loath to embrace immigration for fears that it would erode national identity. Europe must now embrace higher immigration if it wants to maintain its current way of life.
To further complicate matters, there is the Euro. Greece has been in and out of default for a good portion of the last hundred years. What makes this most recent crisis different is that should it default the future of the Euro would be in called into question. As Paul Krugman et al, have suggested default may be impossible to head off. The problem is that countries in Greece's position have traditionally devalued their currency in order to get back on their feet again. (To very real extent that is exactly what Canada did in the 1990s.) So long as Greece uses the Euro, that option is not open to them though. In order for Greek business to complete with their German counterparts, for example, there must be a real reduction in Greek wages. If Greece was not a Euro member, it could accomplish the same by devaluing its currency.
Myth 4: This is 1995 all over again
Canada is also vulnerable. Sure are banks are better shape, but this is no small measure do to the fact that Canadian housing corporation and not the banks and AIGs of the world are on hook should the real estate bubble burst in Canada's biggest cities.
You see, one of the first things the Conservatives did upon taking office was to extend the mortgage amortization period from 25 years to 30 years in February 2006, extend it to 35 years in July of 2006 and extend it yet again to 40 years in November 2006. During this period they also reduced the needed down payment on second properties from 20% to 5% and allowed for 0 down on one's primary residence.
Such actions allowed Canadians to take on mountains more debt, house prices went through the roof and so has the Canadian housing corporation liabilities. It was 100 billion in 2006. It is expected to reach $500 billion by the end of the year. A sharp increase in defaults will add billions and billions and billions to Canada's net debt.
The slash and burn policies of the 1990s will only make a bad situation worse. Indeed, with Canadian consumer debt growing at amazing 7% a year and Canadian consumer debt levels some of the highest in the world, slashing services will only serve to bring the Canadian economy closer to the edge. Canada needs to take action least a private debt problem become a public debt one. That means above all insuring that real estate does not continue to rise and to lessen the financial burden of young families in particular. A national day care program is great place to start. The type of services that Canada should be cutting -- if not gutting -- are the ones that offer no direct financial benefit to Canadians. Military spending and the Conservatives daft get tough on crime policies are great place to start.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Summer Fun!
Whilst awaiting response to my letter to Jane Thornthwaite re her response to Blair Lekstrom`s resignation (Hello? Jane?) I happened upon a newish (to me) web site called The Canadian Political Review.
In a nutshell, it allows you to rate and comment on any MLA or MP in Canada.
Go have some fun folks.
One one hand you have: I met Andrew once and was very impressed with him. He seems like a very approachable guy."`
On the other: "based on Sasha and Veronica’s (sic) I have high hoppes for Andrew to be able to help stop the HST. I voted for you in this past election and hope that you return the favour. Thanks Andrew in advance."
Andrew's rating is flat at 0.
For Jane: No comments, currently at -4.
For Jane: No comments, currently at -4.
And Naomi is sitting with a -3 rating.
Go have some fun folks.
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Just imagine...
This morning I was reading yet another article about the Federal Liberal plans to gain power (click on the title to read the article). The topic-du-jour? A coalition with whomever will deliver them power.
One thought struck me: What if the Federal Liberals spent as much energy and time talking and strategizing about governance and policy as they do posturing for power?
Imagine...
The media would be reporting on policy and blogs would be discussing it.
Committees would actually work.
Perhaps the following issues might show some progress: Stewardship of fisheries in Canada. National Defense. Federal / Co-operation on taxation in areas such as fuel taxes & transportation infrastructure funding. Health Care. Crime prevention. Immigration efficiency. You name it. All I can see is that the Liberals oppose not on principles, but for the sake of opposition.
If they spent half the effort on making parliament work that they spend on plotting its downfall, so many things would already be accomplished. For this reason I wish for a Conservative majority parliament.
Not don't get me wrong... Do I think the Liberals are the only problem in parliament? No... what with Jack Layton announcing that the NDP would vote against last year's budget without even knowing what's in it, and the Bloc's single-minded dedication to Quebec interests and separation.
It's a wonder anything gets done at all.
And, as I close, a shout out to Mr. Harper for such excellent work on the international scene lately... TOTALLY AGREE with the rejection of a bank tax! Thank you Steven!
One thought struck me: What if the Federal Liberals spent as much energy and time talking and strategizing about governance and policy as they do posturing for power?
Imagine...
The media would be reporting on policy and blogs would be discussing it.
Committees would actually work.
Perhaps the following issues might show some progress: Stewardship of fisheries in Canada. National Defense. Federal / Co-operation on taxation in areas such as fuel taxes & transportation infrastructure funding. Health Care. Crime prevention. Immigration efficiency. You name it. All I can see is that the Liberals oppose not on principles, but for the sake of opposition.
If they spent half the effort on making parliament work that they spend on plotting its downfall, so many things would already be accomplished. For this reason I wish for a Conservative majority parliament.
Not don't get me wrong... Do I think the Liberals are the only problem in parliament? No... what with Jack Layton announcing that the NDP would vote against last year's budget without even knowing what's in it, and the Bloc's single-minded dedication to Quebec interests and separation.
It's a wonder anything gets done at all.
And, as I close, a shout out to Mr. Harper for such excellent work on the international scene lately... TOTALLY AGREE with the rejection of a bank tax! Thank you Steven!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)