Revenue biased

Recall when they said that the carbon taxes would be "revenue neutral". Until you verify that and have it practically guaranteed in a constitutional amendment, believing that was tantamount to believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or an honest politician. None of these taxes have stayed neutral. Indeed, we were told that these taxes would have to be revenue neutral or it would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Instead, both Peter and Paul were robbed at the same time!

Ever notice...?

Did you ever notice that when politicians talk about "austerity", they are almost always talking about less or restricted spending. E.G.: Johnson recently telling the Spectator that austerity "wasn't the way to go which meant his manifesto was crammed full of more spending of all types (except Defence, as usual) but precious little for tax relief. A promise in Boris' leadership to increase the threshold for the inheritance tax was junked at the Conference. Another promise from his Leadership race to increase the threshold for the top bracket seems to have slipped beneath the waves of the "Play it safe", "Anti-austerity" Manifesto. A promise to reduce the Corporate tax by a whopping two percentage points DOA at the Manifesto. Finally, an "accidentally" leaked promise to increase the threshold for National Insurance contributions to save 500 pounds evaporated to only an "ambition" to do so beyond 100. What was left over were a few targeted business rate cuts (sound familiar?).

The PM talks a good game about how post-Brexit, the UK will be unleashed like a "Lion from a cage". If these paltry piecemeals are any indication, that Lion will be declawed before he gets out of his cage. The UK needed desperately to become more competitive and productive (at least as much as say Ireland) before Brexit was a dream. It will need to do so all the more as an independent trading player again. 

What is infuriating is that no politician, media member or academic close at hand seems to understand that the real "austerity" is when taxpayers are paying a 20% VAT, a 45% top rate and 25% basic rate of income tax and countless other taxes and compliance costs so that the average UK business or individual is paying almost half of their pay packet or profits to government. Worse, this austerity poses a far greater harm to the UK economy and its capacity to survive and thrive in a post-Brexit globalized World. It is a precious littleconsolation for the benighted UK taxpayer that every other major industrialized nation (with the conspicuous exception of the US) is as bad or worse off and has elites who (hardly themselves in pain) also view "austerity" as when they cannot take more of your money to pay for their pet projects.

The Irish Question

...is: If Ireland is more prosperous than the UK, than how come Canada is less prosperous than the US?

Jesus wept

Remember when we evinced outrage that our Leaders cynically threw religious tolerance under the bus by not even pledging to do anything about Bill 21 except maybe intervene in the court case (meaning do nothing)? H double hockey sticks, they wouldn't even condemn it except for our Martyr of the Blackface and Apoligizer in Chief whose commitment to such issues we have seen is skin deep. Well Angus Reid reports that 51% say that Scheer's faith hurt him in the campaign and 24% say Singh's did. 

It seems like religious bigotry is an influenza that's catching. But, we all know deep down that those "racist reactionaries", Kenney and Ford would never get caught dead introducing a Bill 21 in their provinces. If that makes them religious fanatics, amen to that!

The whole situation should make every Canadian deeply ashamed as I am. Will Trudeau be apologizing to the devout of Quebec for the persecution he could stop now (until June) and did not? Who will set up a time clock for how many days there are left for the Disallowance of Bill 21? I think I will. Assuming June 15 as the deadline - the clock starts at exactly 200 and it's ticking. Over to you, Prime Minister...

Scheer and Pearson

If Rex Murphy is right, Andrew Scheer is doomed. That is, if he cannot change as a man and as a leader, he cannot win. But, even though I always agree with Rex on nearly everything, I disagree with the implicit premise of his recent analysis of Scheer - that he must change as a person in his ability to do politics and its black arts to survive. I believe that he can be rescued by ideas with only a slight change in his mien. My precedent for believing this is Mike Pearson.

In 1958, Pearson easily won the leadership of the Liberal Party after the St Laurent government was defeated in an upset by Diefenbaker's PC Party in 1957. Pearson then arrogantly and foolishly demanded that Dief call an election. The PM obliged and went on to destroy Pearson's Liberals in a massive landslide. Pearson was widely seen as a poor campaigner especially compared to that arch wizard of campaigns, John George Diefenbaker of the cobalt eyed Vision of the North. 

Many no doubt called for his instant ouster, but Pearson stuck it out. The first thing he did was to call a policy "Thinkers" conference at Queens University in Kingston in 1960. There with some of the most sparkling best and the brightest wonks of all time like Tom Kent and Mitchell Sharp, Pearson rebuilt not the machinery of the Liberal Party (although that would come) but its ideas. There was born the strong Canadian national and social agenda that became the backbone of the landmark policies Mike successfully introduced as PM - CPP, the Canada Health Act, the Auto Pact, biculturalism, the new flag, Armed Forces unification and many others that dominated national political debate in the next three decades.

There was still a long road to walk. Pearson lost another election in 1962 and only won two more minority governments before retiring in 1968. But, he overcame his natural personal awkwardness with election campaigning and debate in the Commons and his "wimpy" persona to deliver results in barely 5 years of minority government such as no one had seen before nor will likely see again. He even managed to attract a bevy of star candidates who were to fill the front bench of Liberal governments for over 30 years - Hellyer, Martin, Sharp, Trudeau, Marchand, Pelletier, Chretien, Turner, Lamarsh and many others.

But the real thing that attracted voters, star ministers and bipartisan support in the House to his side was ideas - bold, fresh, compelling and popular ideas. Scheer is if anything better off than Pearson was a this point. Like Pearson, he has an impressive background. Pearson won a Nobel Prize for Peace while Scheer was Speaker of the House. But, unlike Pearson, he has a larger caucus in the House, actually won the popular vote last time and does not face a PM with anything like the magnetic power of a Dief. 

If Scheer makes a clarion call to thinkers from all walks of life on our side and the Members of the Party to hold a similar deepthink conference (and by the way why not in Kingston again?), he will attract the team he needs to win victory in the next election (and still be one up on Pearson). This conference can be the foundation upon which his comeback is built. The last thing he or the Party should do is hope that by some makeover or some further inane retreat from conservative values it can win the People's confidence. Success starts with good ideas which will make Scheer not just a successful Leader but a successful Prime Minister. It might even result in a more successful Canada.

Fwd: Trump U.

Is it time, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the amazing success of Trumponomics, for our brilliant leadership here to think about aping it? Really, can we not do as well as the Americans in the income department? Instead of earning 25% less than the Americans, could we try for only 10% less. Or is it fantasy to ask us to do better? The first of the one thousand steps is to read Trump's book. 

No, not The Art of the Deal:  his unbelievably shining economic record from January 20, 2017 to date. And finally, why is it that not a single candidate for MP, let alone the donkey herd known as the Party Leaders, or their interrogators from the Press, thought to discuss how crappy our economics are compared to the US. our number one trading partner and economic mate? Every Canadian politician should be talking and thinking about this gap 24/7 and they don't even know it exists. Shame!

Four Fingers of Fate

In the aftermath of the election, thoughts turn to something that should have been discussed during that execrable campaign - policy! In a land where the Prophet of Politics is Kim "Election Campaigns are no time to talk about policy" Campbell , this is sadly no shock. Yet, I persist in hoping that in some election campaign perhaps sooner than some think some Leader will actually propose coherent policies relevant to improving the life of Canada and her People. I now offer some ideas for any one willing to read:

1. Tax Reform - Cut half of the Nation's Tax Expenditures. These are deductions, credits, allowances and exemptions and other tax breaks that go to individuals and business. The value of them is estimated by some to be worth about 7% of GNP or half again of official government spending! Take the saved costs of lost revenue and eliminate all individual tax brackets save two - 15% for up to $100000.00 (after a tax free personal allowance retained of $20000) and 25% for above. RRSP's, TSA's, RRIF's and RESP's would be retained only if the Capital Gains Tax was not eliminated. Most Canadians would experience a tax cut and some would be removed from the rolls. Best, the small start up entrepreneurs and business that employ us, provide us with new goods that improve our standard of living and make our economy tic will be supercharged in their incentives to work and build (especially if we eliminate the CGT and reduce the corporate rate);

2. Balance the Budget - Freeze spending after COLA for 4 years. The resultant savings would eliminate the deficit as soon as in two years or no later than four assuming a 1.5%-3% effective reduction in spending from this action, any surplus should go to reducing the debt or taxes. It's exactly how Paul Martin balanced the federal budget in the 90's when we were all told it would never be balanced and it was worse proportionally than it is now;

3. Government for All not the Few - Eliminate all Corporate Welfare. This would typically save enough money to eliminate the Capital Gains Tax and useless Tariffs that collect no excise tax but discourage importers from providing their goods to our consumers (see tax reform above) while protecting narrow commercial interests that, in some cases don't even make the goods thus debarred. The new revenues from #1. and 3. might also be sufficient to halve the corporate tax to about 8%; and,

4. Free Markets - Deregulate Airlines, Banks, Agriculture and Telecomms. A family stands to save thousands, annually, from these reforms or an increase in spending power of about 8% depending on the examples you give for cheaper cellphones, airline tickets, dairy and poultry and bank fees. Better, it will provide consumers (along with the tariff reform) more choice,  service, competition and lower prices in a wide range of goods and services. Finally, it should not cost the Taxpayer a single cent except to publish the repealing laws;

The result of these reforms would be an economic boom not witnessed since the 90's but really only last seen in the fifties and sixties. Overnight, We would be more competitive and 

productive than the United States. As mentioned earlier, all would see their take home pay increased either by tax cuts or deregulation or a combination of both. The standard of living would also soar. By this objective reform, our resources as a nation would be dedicated to the things that we are best at and directed away from the things we are bad at. Our youth would see the creation of new value-added jobs that would ensure a bright future repeated generation after generation. Further, our social programs and defences could be enhanced not cut back as the turbocharged boom from the economic and fiscal reforms produces great new sources of revenue and desperately needed capital from here and abroad to pay for our critical shortage of infrastructure. Finally, if done right, these reforms would not have to cost a dollar and again spin more revenue than we had before.

Fwd: Theory of Everything

In thinking of Grand Bargains and other 4 Point Plans (5 year plans?) for making Canada better, I think I may have stumbled on a way to look at Political Economics that may be the way to look at everything. I was inspired by three concepts: first, by the fact that the richer the country, the cleaner it is. Second, by my belief that, if I were a left wing politician, I would propose that the best way to build the "New Jerusalem"  of a socially just society with the benefit laden generous programs it would demand is liberal economics. Third, by the Equalization Formula. It calls for the "equalization" of levels of public services amongst provinces by fiscal transfers by Canada. 

All these concepts point to my syllogism or formula: if you have economic growth and prosperity, you will get good public services. To get economic growth and prosperity, you need liberal economics. That is, low and simple taxes which fall on consumption rather than income, free and deregulated markets and free trade both inside and out. Notice that liberal economics and social justice are not mutually exclusive. You can have a balanced budget and have better and more comprehensive public services without high tax and high spending. 

The boom created by the liberal economic program will create the huge new revenues needed to build your Jerusalem. Indeed, as the economy grows, better jobs become available, standards and quality of life go up and people become wealthier, there is less need of social programs in more people. This means that the existing social programs can be made more generous and effective for the diminishing minority of us that will still need them. A virtuous circle would be created where the better off all are, the better public services would be.

To use a turn on the phrase in the Constitution Act on Equalization: not comparable public services, but better public services through liberal economics!

Humiliated

Back in the day, we were all told that Quebec felt "humiliated" by its exclusion from the Constitutional talks and their results the Act of 1982. However, comes in to view my favourite metaphor for making a point, the Martian observing something from 20000 feet. The Constitution Act includes section 33, the Notwithstanding clause, that leaves all of our rights except Voting to be subjected to striking down by any Federal or Provincial parliament even if ruled violated by their laws (e.g. 101) and Equalization which commits the Federal govt to doling out provincial welfare to the so called have not provinces (far and away the biggest beneficiary - Quebec). Further, no province is required to provide bilingualism (perfectly in line with Quebec's monolingual agenda) and Natural Resources are sacrosanct provincial treasures. If you read this document and did not know that Quebec was "excluded" and refused to sign it, you'd think Rene Levesque had written it himself.

Have-What?

Not the least of the problems with the Equalization Program is the fact that Have-Not does not necessarily mean have not. Does anyone really think that any amount of data will tell us that Quebec is poor? Is oil rich Newfoundland poor anymore? Is Ontario? The reality is that this program is proof positive on a macro economic scale that welfare does not work. With the possible exception of at least initially NFLD and maybe Manitoba, it does not make any province improve or stop being poor. It has not done any better job of this than the Regional Development programs that at first were just for the benighted Maritimes and now are for every region.

 The best equalization program would be if all regions were equally liberal economically. Then we would have no use for this federal taxpayer's dialysis. A Confederation would exist (preferably without trade barriers) then made up of self sufficient provinces that only needed Federal help occasionally and only in an emergency. And all would contribute far more to the cost of Federal programs and projects and their improvement. Perhaps a start would be if the Maritime Provinces dispensed with top rates that effectively tax the wealthiest at almost 70%. Then, I predict (along the lines of when you tax less of it you get more) there would be far more wealthy people in the Maritimes who would buck up public services with revenues.

Unfortunately, even in this Mecca, there is a snake. No matter how better off the poorest get, the richer get richer and therefore the poorest would stay have not. In other words it's not have not it's have less.

The real solution is to just get rid of it (which I believe would not require any constitutional amendment thank God). But that would take a Federal Government with real cahones as it would deny "poor" Quebec some 11 billion dollars a year. In the meantime, I would like to say it's all a poverty trap but that's hard when most of the beneficiaries of it are not really poor.

Scotland the Tentative

Nicola Sturgeon was recently asked by an ITV reporter whether, in light of Scotland's deficit, the UK might be better off without Scotland. Well posed. However, The real question is: would Scots be better off without "Scotland" as we know it - an economic backwater of Socialist pretensions on Westminster's dialysis? If I were a Scot, I would want to declare my independence asap from Sturgeon, her SNP idiots and the Kremlin in Edinburgh they've erected. The first thing I'd do, once getting the Make Scotland Great Again govt elected would be to abolish devolution unilaterally, declare Scotland a Free Enterprise Tax Free Zone and offer the Isle of Skye for Sturgeon and her fellow megalomaniacs to boss around as their own Sheep's Republic (which, no doubt, would then instantly apply for Membership in the EU).

No threat to see here

In a World where we are constantly informed that the main threat to us is (by one of the Impeachment witness's own statement) the declining state of Russia, we are occasionally reminded of the real threat in, I might add, a region far more important to American interests than Europe ever was - China (not mentioned once in the Canadian Military Journal while Russia is everywhere in it). A telling story is of the Chinese Ambassador to the US, who speaks whip good English and went to Johns Hopkins, Yankeesplaining to Bret Baier how those prison camps they've set up for Chinese Muslims are really "training camps" and that people can go home for the Weekends.

This is a reminder not only of the fact that, if the Four want to investigate pure bore Islamaphobia, they should demand to see these camps where a million Chinese Muslims have their heads shaved and are in chains. It is also a reminder of another of the many ways that China's influence is exerted around the World. The Ambassador  has an army of staff, aides, advisors, consultants and lobbyists in the US to help him deliver his insidious message of "soft dictatorship with a capitalist face". But, too obviously, the US does not have such a network in China. Much like commercial trade with China is not truly reciprocal, neither is the trade of ideas.

China has many more non-Yellow Hordes to enable and amplify its message amongst the Media, Academia, the Beltway and above all the Elites. Witness Albright's millions slaving for China, the money the Feinstein's have made while there was a Chinese Bond driving them around, the feckless almost chillingly naive and dangerous apologizing by the Biden's, the Bloomberg's and the Obama's of the World, the NBA sellout and the bizarre musings of such as Tom "Wouldn't it be great if we were China for a day" Friedman. Even our own PM, while waging a battle with the Chinese over the Rule of Law once praised the Chinese kind of oppression. An early maddeningly corrupt example of their influence was the Watergate That Never Was, the Buddhist Shrine scandal, in which a POTUS and his wife almost certainly traded military secrets for campaign donations from China.

The results are clear of the past 20 years of coddling, advocating for, embracing and generally turning a blind eye to China's aggression. They've just gotten bigger, more insidious, more dangerous. More sophisticated and larger armed forces that literally build island bases to menace key Pacific shipping lanes and US allies. Industrial espionage backed up by a systematic policy of trading intellectual property for trade access to China. Enjoying all of the benefits of membership in the WTO without abiding by its rules if inconvenient to them. Oppression of Muslims, Christians, Tibetans, Dissidents and Hong Kong. Bullying and threatening Chinese abroad who dissent and foreigners who produce films or tv shows they do not like and of course basketball executives who say things they do not like. The Belt and Road Initiative that spreads their poisonous "No questions asked" policy of building infrastructure in Africa and Asia in return for their loyalty in the UN and so that they can loot resources for their insatiable economy. These are just a few of the many indicators that alcoholic, clownish, oil-addicted Russia is the Bambi to China's Godzilla when it comes to any foreign threat assessment.

Meanwhile, "Experts" like Vindman and Yovanovich are convinced that the Ukraine is on the "front line" in a terrible fight with the "newly aggressive" but actually declining Russia. Indeed, to hear them US interests and that of the Ukraine are practically one. I was one of the first to bemoan and decry the negligence and immorality of the West's betrayal of the Ukraine in its extremis. My question is, is there a NATO in China? Hasn't there been a NATO in Europe these 70 years and why can't it do more to hold the line in Eastern Europe (like not buying Russian pipelines for a start) so that the US can do more in the Far East, the Pacific which MacArthur rightly dubbed "America's Future"? Isn't it just as if not more likely that, to borrow one of the "Geopolitical Expert's" favourite sayings that, if we don't have someone fighting for us in and around China, we will have to fight them here? (maybe, intellectually, commercially, politically and socially, we already are. Does anyone except a blind shill for "free trade" or China think the "Trade War" with China only just started when Trump took office?)

Right now on the "Front Line" with China is a defanged, economically parlous Japan, a still poor vulnerable Southeast Asia, some students in Hong Kong and a diminishing band of dissidents. Time for the US to turn its vigilant eyes East before it's too late. This will take a systematic effort to overcome the PR blitz and influence peddling operation of the Chinese perhaps with new anti-corruption laws against helping oppression. It will take, to use a favourite Chinese word, the re-education of the American People on the threat. Sadly, that process may have to start first with the re-Orient-ation of bureaucrats, politicians, soldiers and other "experts" on China's dire threat to human rights, security and fair trade.

Chain of command

What is telling and chilling about this, is that all the way through these shenaningans, the instinct of these people is not to warn him, report to him or advise him directly on their concerns. It is to run to either their friends in the Deep State or the Democrat Party and plot and conspire and work to undermine him. It started with the lack of a routine defensive brief for Trump about avoiding Russian contacts, then  it continues with the "partial briefing" by Comey of Trump on the Steele Dossier, and his authority is to this day and ongoing is ignored and shown contempt by them in this tempest in a teapot over the call. Not one of them bothered to talk to him or advise him on any of these matters at any time. Instead, they lie in wait for the time they can say "gotcha" about this POTUS that they, almost as much as the Dems if not more, want out. 

Think Captain Queeg. Even if the commander in chief is really inappropriate or incompetent, you are the more negligent for  not trying to help him stop or be better. And, indeed, a Republican just tried to ask Colonel Vindman who he ultimately reports to in the chain of command and his lawyer refused to let him answer. Christ! He got his commission from the POTUS. He should not have waited for the lawyer to talk. He should have grabbed the mike and said, "Why, the POTUS, of course, our C-in-C!" That he did not is the sort of scary thing that makes 7 Days in May look like a quaint and implausible fable. In the words of the Liberal Democrat Peacenik Detente President that was the target of the Generals' coup in that book/movie, "If you don't like my policy, don't try a coup, run for election!" (and yet this POTUS is actually carrying out the policy of support for the Ukraine they wanted!)

Impeachomania

My question for the Republicans:

How come you didn't question the AMbassador on Friday about how her embassy was immersed in partisan activity against Trump in 2016 and for Clinton and the DNC as documented by the statements of prosecutors (warning off pursuing certain individuals and orgs involved with the Dems and refusing visas to them when they wanted to go to the US to tell the govt about it) and from court (two Ukraine MPs convicted of helping Clinton against Trump)? Surely this would have shone light on why Trump was "crazed" about going after the people who did this in the Ukraine and the real story of foreign collusion in meddling with US elections. Don't tell me you were worried about bullying Mrs. Action Ambassador who had served in so many of the "Badlands" of the World.

My questions for Colonel Vindman (notice by the way that when military officers represent Republican presidential interests, they are demonized but when they attack them, they're heroes who we dare not question. Remember Ollie North?):

Why didn't you go to the President to complain about his "inappropriate" phone call and advise him (isn't that your job, to advise the POTUS?) to cease and desist? As your sense of duty is what brings you here today, Why didn't you fight to make sure, in the name of the nation's interest, it, the call, was not leaked? If you won't resign when a POTUS doesn't do what you like, then do you think the POTUS should resign? Is it true that the Ukrainians waited 55 days for Military aid to be delivered under Trump but they had to wait for three years under Obama for it not to come? How come you didn't complain about Obama's neglect of the Ukraine? How did you, an expert on Ukraine, not know about Biden Burisma (although you did admit that it was a "potential"conflict of interest when asked about it) OR that the President of the Ukraine did not need to be warned to watch out for the Russians!?! If Trump can be impeached for this, why shouldn't Obama and Bush join him in the dock?

United NHS

Politicians in the UK (except the SNP who are determined to break up the UK and then declare an SNHS no doubt) are so obsessed with the National Health Service, you'd think, even in this supposedly watershed election that's supposed to be about BREXIT, that there was little else for them to care about on behalf of their people. Just now, the PM showed he is so intimidated by the wretch Corbyn's warning that Brexit will see the NHS taken over by Donald Trump, Inc. (who would surely "fire" the candystripers, make the ambulances run on time and plate the bedpans in gold if he ever did got a hold of this monopolistic Stalinesque monstrosity), that he sacrificed one of his few Thatcheresque policies to reduce the Corporate tax rate from 19 to 17% to give more more money to an agency that already takes in 300B pounds or 16% of the economy annually.

Does everyone in the UK use the NHS daily? Do they take the NHS to work? Do they go to the NHS to work? Do they shop at the NHS for their food, clothing and shelter? There was a UK once that did not have it and still managed to be the greatest, most powerful nation on earth. Every other nation except maybe Canada gets along without one.  Yet, it would appear having a decent defence system, schools and northern infrastructure are all less important than it let alone having an economy as competitive and productive as, say, Ireland. Maybe, the Heraldists and Protocol experts should get together and confirm a new Head of State and name for the country:

The NHS of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United NHS Kingdom! 

I recall in 1995, when going to a symposium of NHS supremos, an attendee wondered at who won the Cold War. If we finally win Brexit, I hope that we will not be saying as true conservatives,"Is that all there is". Is it too much to hope that, once Brexit is done and he's got a safe majority, that the PM will junk all of this Wet One Nation stuff and bring in a raft of Thatcheresque policies that usher in an economic renaissance for the UK that will make everyone forget about worshipping a social program?

Flesh and Blood

The beginning of the rehabilitation of Andrew Scheer has to start with putting flesh and blood on the bones of that Conservative Declaration he quoted on election night. It was Diefenbaker's Pledge of Allegiance and it goes: 

"I am a Canadian; a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind."

What we saw in the late campaign was the complete failure to uphold that heritage by Scheer, the other Leaders, their candidates, worst of all the PM, the Press and, it must be said, all of us. I believe that the sacred mission of Andrew Scheer is not, contrary to the impression we get from the usual suspects in our secular Liberal Press, to bring back theocratic rule to Canada but to give life again to the words of that Diefencreed articulated so simply and perfectly to us 60 years ago next year when our Bill of Rights was made law.

Scheer must make our Credo an every day reality again for all Canadians and, in so doing, can save himself, his Party and conservatism in this country.

Grand Bargain

It is time for a Grand Bargain in this country.

The Leader of the Opposition should propose that he will accept carbon pricing if the Government agrees to replace income tax with consumption tax. The latter may take the form of a super HST like a VAT, A Personal Expenditure Tax, a BBQ tax or a Fun Tax, it does not matter. As long as the array of new, better or higher consumption taxes was enough to make up for most of the loss of revenue from leaving income taxes, it does not matter what form they would take.

It would mean the end of Capital Gains Taxes, Corporate Taxes and Personal Income Taxes. In other words, the end of the taxes that are best suited to impoverish and hobble our economy, innovation and success in any society. It would mean the beginning of relying on consumption taxes that are simpler, fairer, more efficient and easier to enforce and administer. It could be achieved by a gradual, incremental process that should not take longer than the life of one parliamentary term.

The benefits of such an approach backed up by guarantees of certainty and fairness in energy projects and a new super fund to clean up real pollution in Canada would  be manifest. First, the nation would become a magnet for investment and capital such as is not seen except in places like Singapore and Hong Kong. We would be overnight more competitive than the US. Any restriction on consumer activity would likely be lessened by the return of almost a third of most people's money into their pockets.In a word: BOOM!

On the other side of the social ledger, a consumption society would tax the things that hurt the environment the most - pollution, waste, unrecyclable goods, etc. This would make us greener. The wealth from the tax reform would make it easier for us to clean our environment. Not only do we get less of something - pollution - when we tax it more, but as we get more revenue from taxing our economic growers in business less, we will be better able to eliminate our remaining environmental atrocities in our rivers, our harbours and reserves with the Super Fund.

Politically, it would be an opportunity for all of the federalist parties to unite in a great reform. Everyone wins! However, if the other parties do not cooperate, the Conservative Party can build around this Grand Bargain concept as the pillar for a new national agenda oven-ready for the next election which could come sooner than later. It certainly would see Scheer begin to build a much needed image as a bold and imaginative leader of wisdom.

In turn, we will defeat the forces of Separatism by smothering the grievances of Quebec and the West with prosperity and fairness. Above all, we can comply with the draconian requirements of the Paris Accord while not only maintaining our competitive position in the World but greatly enhancing it. We can be a model for environmental custodianship and economic dynamism for the World at the same time. Together with other changes to our economy chiefly via deregulation and free trade inside and out, we can unify Canada in peace and prosperity.

Fwd: Scheer Nonsense

As I write this, the Conservative Parliamentary Party is deciding whether or not under the "Rules" to remove Scheer. Now, I'm not a Scheer Fan (who is?) but the matter seems premature. First, he won the popular vote and  gained 27% in seats while the Liberals lost seats and got only 33% while the NDP were halved and no one is talking about Leader Disposal there. Second, the precedents for waiting until he gets another kick at the can are ample although results of such patience mixed.

Bad examples, TUrner and Stanfield (who got two kicks and almost won on the second try. Turner doubled his caucus). Good: Harris and Harper. There seems ample precedent for being forgiving (and most of the past examples had much worse first tries).

Third, who to replace him with? Really, who is that, especially with mulroney and MacKay apparently counting themselves out?

Fourth and most important, I don't care what the Chong Law or the Caucus rules say, it's profoundly undemocratic (especially when you have an automatic review in April anyway. It took a year and a half to replace Harper. Even if one has to wait until April for the Membership to decide, you'll have a new leader likely no later than a year from now.). In any case, the People, your people, should decide not 120 MP's to remove a duly elected Party Leader barely two weeks after an election. If nothing else will convince a reptile thinking about this, it will be bad political optics. Also, what's stopping Scheer running again for the Leadership if he's removed by them? If people are so sure that he is crap, then it will not be hard to force his review vote (especially as Quebec and Ontario get at least 60% of the votes on this and seem the most disenchanted) down below the 67% Clark got when he decided to step down (and then ran again anyway and damn near got back in).

But the real example for a thinking MP should be Harris. I would explicitly make as a condition of my voting against the immediate removal that he change. Meaning, like Harris, he needs to see that politics is a team sport. He needs to work with his caucus and the membership, as Harris did, to rebuild the platform so that it is coherent, recognizably conservative, simple and deals with the real problems of the country honestly and in a way that is relevant to ordinary people. Harris did it with the COmmon Sense Revolution and won.

Now to be sure as an MP I would not make any ideological demands at this point. The policy direction of the Party should be in the hands of the Leader, his new Team (yes, the present negligent, craven and unimaginative bunch that advised him should go), the Caucus and the Membership.. But Mr. Scheer can and must change starting with a pledge to include the Caucus in all aspects of strategy and policy and ultimately the membership, too, or he should step down for someone else who will and save us all the pain of a long drawn out and ugly leadership war.

If he undertakes this openly, he will easily win the Review but also start the process of giving Canadians a strong, compelling Conservative voice built on those conservative values of freedom and tolerance that he so eloquently extolled on Election Night. Let the New and Improved Scheer begin today!

They don't get it

How do we know that the people in the Ford Government still don't get the need for fiscal restraint (although, to watch or listen to the thinly veiled third party ads for the Liberals that the "Teachers" Unions ran, you would think that they thought of little else) - Caroline Mulroney posted an editorial in the NP calling for more Federal dollars for Ontario's commuters. No doubt this Fed lolly is to be provided by those Federal taxpayers who don't live in Ontario and take the GO train on Mars. Where is this evil genius, Doug, we keep hearing about from Justin who takes candy from Babies, throws heart patients into the streets and burns schools down? Scheer and company are so scared of the Queens Park Bogeyman that it would be easier to frighten them than a 5 year old listening to fireside tales.

Cheap Insults to Our intelligence or Our betters

General Dominic Grieve-ous called the PM's call for an election "blackmail". Now how rotten and cheap can you be to characterize ANY call for democracy as a criminal act? And this from a former Solicitor General!

Insults to the INtelligence - and joining Mr. Grieve in that department is MS. Abbott who vaguely referred to as how having a December election hasn't been held since over a hundred years ago (actually 1923) and that "tells you something". No it doesn't. It tells you that through a string of coincidences, we haven't had one then since then. But, were Decembers less cold back then? Oh my god, another proof of Global Warming!

She went on to suggest that there may have to be legislation to force Johnson not to have No Deal before there's an election. But, wait a sec, couldn't he just get rid of that law if he won? People who listen to [people like this are just insulting themselves and their intelligence wilfully and recklessly.