Werner Patels.com

Reboot, or the boot, for Stelmach?

 For the Alberta Tories, and Albertans, this is the moment of truth, the end game. The next twelve to 24 months will decide the fate of the Tories, who have been in power since 1971. Since December 2006, when Ed Stelmach took the reins of the Tory party and became premier of Alberta, the party has been in a steady decline. Nothing the premier has ever touched has turned out as planned, and Albertans, not surprisingly, have soured on Stelmach and the party they have held dear for close to forty years.

Stelmach’s biggest sin has been his “reform” of the royalties scheme for oil and gas companies, the very lifeblood of the province. His call on companies to part with more of their profits for the privilege of drilling in Alberta, all in the name of giving Albertans their “fair share”, has been a source of major discontent, resulting in many companies suspending production or moving to greener pastures, including the Middle East, where, as some oil executives said, there was less economic uncertainty than in Stelmach’s Alberta.

Stung by the emergence of the small-c conservative Wildrose Alliance as a viable opponent, the Tories now understand that they have to start living up to their “conservative” label again if they do not want to lose the next provincial election, which will take place by 2012. The Wildrose Alliance has already won a by-election in a Tory Calgary riding and welcomed two floor-crossing Tory MLAs over to their corner in the Legislative Assembly. Every poll taken since last fall has ranked the Wildrose Alliance as Albertans’ top choice if an election were held now; in Calgary and Edmonton, the Tories have actually fallen behind both the Wildrose Alliance and the Alberta Liberals and now find themselves in third place. Soon, according to the scuttlebutt in political circles, Guy Boutilier, a Tory MLA booted from the government caucus and now sitting as an independent, could join the Wildrose Alliance in a matter of days.

The 'State-of-Failure Address'

Over a year ago, Barack Obama inspired not only Americans, but also people around the world, with his “Yes, we can” chant. As it turns out, a chant is all it ever was, devoid of any substance. The lofty promises of “post-partisanship” and “reaching out across the aisle” have been empty ones at best, or bald-faced lies at worst.

It’s not all Obama’s fault; while he does and must shoulder most of the blame, the main forces behind his government’s shift to the radical and extreme left have been such Communist-Democrats (or “progressives”, as Glenn Beck calls them) as Nancy Pelosi. Not surprisingly, there has been praise for former Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung from within the Democratic party, while the “czars” appointed by Obama really do live up to the Russian origin of the word.

After Scott Brown’s overwhelming victory over Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts, Obama and the Democrats have been scrambling to put a happy face on the first major slap in the face for this leftward administration. The president’s State of the Union Address was supposed to undo some of the damage and give his government a new sense of direction so as to avoid a bloodbath in the midterm elections in November of this year.

It’s safe to say that the condescending, manipulative and arrogant tone of the speech has not averted that threat. In fact, a complete slaughter of the Democrats this November is now almost assured.

Where is that brave, new world?

Apple boss Steve Jobs presented, with much fanfare, the arrival of his company’s latest product: the iPad, essentially a bigger version of the iPhone or iPod Touch. The latest toy can be had for US$499, but that price can quickly double if you wish to have WiFi and 3G capabilities as well as larger memory. As the iPhone before it, the iPad, too, will be linked to AT&T to provide the necessary wireless connection to the Internet.

In Canada, so this pundit’s prediction goes, the iPad will not be a major success. Actually, it could be a colossal failure here. First of all, its price will definitely be higher, and the data plans available through Apple’s Canadian 3G partner, Rogers, will be much, much costlier – and, no doubt, unlike the AT&T plan in the US, the Rogers plan will most likely be contingent on a contract.

Is this the brave, new world of wireless and mobile technology that everyone keeps telling us about? The ease of accessing content and information wherever you are, as they show us in TV shows and movies? When Canadians hear “mobile”, they instinctively think of the usual cellphone providers that act as the gatekeepers to the “mobile Internet”. Since there has been hardly any competition in the wireless market in Canada, data-transfer rates are steep, and users can often find themselves with an additional $80, $100 or more on their cellphone bill just for surfing the Internet or sending e-mails via their smartphones.

Reform tax system and let Canadians prosper

After stimulus spending and corporate bailouts for companies that will eventually disappear anyway, Canada is now saddled with a considerable deficit and must start looking at ways of reducing, containing or, hopefully, eliminating it, while continuing to grow its economy and create jobs. This is not an easy task, as it will require substantial cuts to government spending and a major overhaul of the tax system.

Spending cuts will put the government of Stephen Harper in a predicament. Canada’s government programs are mostly geared to special interests that, even though they constitute a minority only, can make a lot of noise and cost the Conservatives dearly at the polls. But any anticipated screaming of such groups notwithstanding, cuts will have to be made, including to the tax dollars that go to political parties, preferably by scaling back the entire increase in government outlays that has built up since Mr. Harper took office in early 2006 – the biggest increase in modern history, even exceeding by far the mostly abysmal track record of previous Liberal governments.

But there is a lot more at stake than bringing the deficit under control. This should also be the time to help Canadians become productive and successful, and nothing would accomplish that goal more efficiently than a large-scale tax reform. The middle class in Canada has effectively been wiped out, with the average Canadian family spending more on taxes than the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing and shelter. The average middle-class family, or what used to be the middle class, now loses at least 45 per cent of its annual household income to the taxman, making taxes households’ number-one spending item.

What follows is a list of recommendations on how to improve the lives and prospects of average Canadians.

Is proroguing the same as going rogue?

Democracy is sometimes said to be its own worst enemy. By its own definition, power rests with and emanates from the people. But given any society’s myriad interests, it becomes a Sisyphean task trying to accommodate all that the populace demands. Put in more mundane terms, democracy is a little bit like that old saying of too many cooks spoiling the broth; unless there is a central authority that separates the wheat from the chaff, there is a very strong risk that a country may rupture along the multitude of fissures running through it.

China is a good case in point. The sheer size of its population and the large number of disparate regions and groups would leave the country ungovernable if it were not for a strong, centralized and even authoritarian hand at the top. Canada, by comparison, may not have the strength of numbers of China, but it is the second largest country in the world in terms of land mass. Its provinces and territories, which are so different from one another that they could easily be mistaken for independent and separate countries, render Canada a country that is extremely difficult to govern and manage. The situation has not been helped in recent years by a series of minority governments at the federal level, which has made it next to impossible for Canada to take decisive action or speak with a single voice.

Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, is often criticized for being a “control freak”, but he can hardly be faulted for wanting to exert some degree of control over such a polarized country. While some criticism attacking his partisan nature has certainly been valid and accurate, there can be no denying that Canada does require a firm hand at times. Whether it be infrastructure, environmental measures or educational standards, Canadians keep shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to see the bigger picture. The way the country is set up, as a confederation, it needs a central power that acts as the final arbiter. Lacking that, chaos would ensue and tear the country apart. If Canadians feel that this is not the country they want, they should take action and work towards a new constitution for Canada – or several Canadas.

Blind ideology versus common sense

In the game we call politics, it’s all about scoring points at the expense of your opponent. What counts as a point is defined by whether it serves to further your ideology or not. A socialist, for example, considers any policy a success if it adds to Big Government, higher taxes, less productive and less prosperous companies – and, thus, fewer jobs, which necessitates even more Big Government measures – and generally any situation that prevents people from being free-thinking, self-reliant individuals. Conservatives, by contrast, want the exact opposite, naturally.

But where both sides regularly fail is the inability to let common sense prevail on a case-by-case basis. Following an ideology – any ideology – blindly never maximizes the benefit for the largest number of people possible. By applying ideology to a problem, one limits the range of possible solutions. They may still contain the right solution, but finding it would be left up to happenstance, rather than thorough analysis and appropriate decision-making.

As regular readers well know, my web columns don’t always satisfy everyone. Conservatives tend to agree with many of my views, but sometimes they can also get quite angry when they see something that doesn’t fit the conservative (or libertarian) mould. Similarly, I have written things that pleased Liberals, or even Dippers, but most of the time they refuse to see reason in the arguments I present. That I variously manage to please and frustrate both the left and right should be seen for what it is: proof that I’m not beholden to any specific ideology or party, and that my conclusions are based on common sense and personal life experience more so than on anything else.

Checkmate!

Politics is often no more than a game, especially in parliamentary systems, such as Canada’s. A few weeks ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper played a round of “chess” with the opposition parties and won by employing a little-known move known as prorogation, or suspension of Parliament.

Prorogation is a legitimate measure under the constitution. It may not be popular with opposition parties, but that does not make it undemocratic or an example of foul play. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, demonstrating his poor understanding of how democracy works, accused the prime minister of not “understanding democracy”. This makes Mr. Ignatieff the sore loser who swipes all the chess pieces off the board in a fit of anger.

Chess is a very old game, and its rules are well-established and widely known. No one would seriously consider challenging the rules of the game, but if someone should come up with an idea on how to improve the game, why not?

When losing a game, there are three possible reactions. One can throw a tantrum and toss the game pieces right across the room – this is the strategy employed by the opposition parties and their supporters so far. Admitting defeat and congratulating the winner on a game well-played is another – don’t ever expect to see that in politics, though. Finally, if the loser feels that the rules of the game are less than ideal, he or she should propose reasonable changes.

This is what NDP leader Jack Layton has done. He wants to change the constitutional rule book and toolbox by requiring a vote on prorogation. Under his plan, Parliament would be suspended only if a majority of MPs voted in favour of it.

Mr. Layton should be commended for his exemplary approach. Instead of acting out like a spoilt brat, as so many politicians are wont to do these days, he has decided to take the high road and propose a change to the rules, and his idea actually makes sense. Why should MPs not vote on a crucial matter such as proroguing Parliament?

Once Parliament is back in session, Mr. Harper would do well to give Mr. Layton’s proposed bill serious consideration. It is a reasonable proposition, which would limit the prime minister’s powers only peripherally – in a majority government, any prorogation vote would be won by the government automatically anyway. In addition, it would restore some of Mr. Harper’s credibility with those (few) voters who actually felt offended by his suspension, and it would also put Mr. Layton in his debt with respect to future votes of confidence.

Canada’s system and the rules that govern it are fairly old and fusty. Most Canadians had not even heard of the word “prorogation” until Mr. Harper pulled it out of his constitutional tool belt. Changing or tweaking a few of those old rules probably would not hurt.

Liberals must earn the right to govern

Things must be rather desperate for Canada’s Liberals, when their leader, Michael Ignatieff, tells them to discard the notion of being Canada’s natural governing party: “We talk too easily within this party of being the natural party of government. If I can achieve one thing as a leader of this party, it’s to get that out of our vocabulary.” He then went on to say that the Liberal Party had to “earn” the right to govern Canada again.

Ignatieff’s comments have been met by conservative observers with derision. But I believe him. I really do. He may be a Liberal, but he’s no dummy. He knows what needs to be done for him and his party to survive. It doesn’t necessarily mean that any of his plans will achieve the desired goals, but he can’t be faulted for trying.

Being the “visitor” from the outside who is merely passing through Canada for a few years, to pick up the typical lines from Conservative attack ads, Ignatieff finds himself in a unique position within his party. While his academic aloofness is often cited as one of his primary drawbacks, it is this detachment that allows Ignatieff to take a step back, look at the Liberal Party and then share his honest assessment. He has stuck his head into the monster’s maw, and, obviously, he doesn’t much like what he’s seen.

Are we out of the woods yet?

Ask yourself: Did you feel fuzzy inside when the first headlines came out pronouncing the end of the recession? Did you take heart and send out your résumé to a bunch of companies? Did it make you feel more confident about the future and, more importantly, your future financial security? Enough, perhaps, to make you go on a shopping spree?

With news pouring in that the United States, at least, may face a double-dip recession and no visible sign of real recovery in the job market, are you still confident? I’ll be frank and say that I am not. Not at all, in fact.

As a translator I get to work with companies from all major industries and sectors. My ear is glued to the grapevines all over the world, and what I hear isn’t comforting. A major European electronics company is said to be closing its operations in at least two US states for good. Europeans are loath to spend money, because they have several albatrosses still hanging from their necks (Greece, Spain and Ireland) that may wreak havoc with their euro currency. France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy appears determined to break the deficit rules of the euro zone and will steep his country into a gigantic pile of debt. And the Americans are doing their utmost to ensure that future generations of Americans will remain indebted to their eyeballs well into the 23rd century – at the current rate, the debt heaped on Americans today and tomorrow will be paid off just around the time when Captain James T. Kirk takes the USS Enterprise for her maiden voyage to the stars. The only question that remains is whether there will be enough money to build the Enterprise at all in our “current timeline”.

Will Obama create more apathy?

Voters everywhere in the West are becoming more and more disillusioned with politics and politicians. Turnout for elections has been abysmal and embarrassing for anyone who believes in democracy. Canadians last went to the polls in a federal election in late 2008, and while the percentage of voters bothering with the exercise was yet again low, Canadians did find something to get excited about in the almost simultaneous election in the United States.

Back in 2008, Canadians, Americans and the rest of the world were glued to their TV and computer screens following every morsel of news about the new political icon and hero, Barack Obama. He was admired by some, worshipped by others, and generally held up as a historic-figure-to-be who would change America and, essentially, the entire world.

It was not only the left that supported him; even conservatives outside the US, such as in Canada or Britain, told pollsters that they would wholeheartedly vote for Obama. The way in which he delivered his speeches, which earned him the title of Great Orator, and his stated commitment to post-partisanship cast a spell on many people, many of whom saw in him a Messiah-like angel of hope.