Forward thinking public policy

I somehow missed this from Tim Stanley in the Telegraph last week:

Britain was thrown into crisis yesterday after the Labour Party press team’s Twitter account was hacked. The now infamous message “Everybody should have his own owl” was ignored by Westminster until Stephen Fry retweeted it with a smiley face. Suddenly, chaos broke out as politicians fought to outbid each other over what animals they would most like the voters to have.


Nigel Farage – leader of Britain’s fasting growing party among the easily irritated – called both men “Westminster pansies” and vowed to unleashed wolves in Britain’s town centres to reduce crime caused by foreigners. “No one’s going to break into this country if they think there’s a chance that they’ll be torn apart by a pack of wolves in Winchester town centre,” said Mr Farage aboard a Titan Ride-on Lawn Mower.

Why is nobody here promising us free animals? Come on Dippers. Ditch your mouldy nostalgia for big social programs. So 20th century. Embrace the cuddly progressive policies of your British counterpart.

I want an owl.


In defence of the liberal arts

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (when he’s not using the Twitter to launch lazy taunts at protestants) has smart things to say about education:

Nobody stops to ask what education is for, because the answer is implicitly accepted by all: an education is for getting a job. It is, in other words, for being a cog in the giant machine of post-industrial capitalism. It is, in other words, for the opposite thing that our forefathers wanted for us. I do not use these words lightly, but it is against–in the sense that a headwind is against a ship–the very foundations of our liberty and our civilization.

Going full Coriolanus on the plebs

Today is one of those days I can’t recommend reading Andrew Coyne highly enough:

There isn’t any point in sugar-coating it. This election was very much a referendum on fiscal conservatism, and the fiscal conservatives lost.

He rightly dispenses with the notion that Hudak was “extreme”:

in fact, his platform wasn’t especially radical, if you looked at it. Essentially he ran on the Drummond report: a broad-ranging set of recommendations from a panel chaired by the economist Don Drummond, commissioned by the Liberals under Mr. McGuinty. The $4-billion the Conservatives would have cut, out of a budget of $120-billion, would simply have put spending back on the track Mr. Drummond recommended — tough medicine, but hardly far-right.

There exists no Conservative so mild that he would not be attacked by the left as “extreme”, “vicious”, “nasty”, and all the rest. No detailed case is ever made that the program on offer is particularly draconian; the shrill epithets are simply applied, angrily and relentlessly with all the logic of a child throwing a tantrum because mommy won’t buy him the thing he demands. “Tea party” they shriek, and “Republican”, as though it were self-evident that fiscal rectitude (despite being almost entirely absent from the latter) were a damnable offence.

This is frequently accompanied by pious appeals to the moderate, decent Tories of yesteryear whom they could have supported. Men like Bill Davis. Of course when Bill Davis left office, Ontario spent just over $5,000/person (adjusted for inflation). Today that number is close to $8,000. I’d be fine with a 35% rollback in public expenditures to Bill Davis levels. Those who stupidly intone they would have supported him, on the other hand, have gone and blown all their adjectives of hate on the 3.5% trim proposed by Hudak.

I’ve seen someone claim, apparently sincerely, that Hudak wanted to “burn Ontario to the ground.” This is manifestly insane. But at a deeper level they probably knew they were lying, to them-self most of all. But they needed to lie, they needed to believe in some underlying malevolence behind the Tories, because they knew, at a level they wouldn’t admit, even to themselves, that by voting Liberal they were colluding in the moral corruption and fiscal ruin of the state for their own selfish ends. That for their cynicism they deserve to be ruled by dishonest and cynical leaders, and they resent anyone who would tell them the truth, no matter how tepidly. It’s not as though they had no choice. If they wanted the fiscal and social program of the Liberals, they could have voted for the NDP. Andrew Coyne again:

And the NDP? It ran on the Liberal budget as well. Ms Horwath offered little in the way of meaningful policy departures, presenting herself as a Liberal, minus the corruption. What option did she have? The Liberals ran so far to the left she had no room to outflank them.

So what now? Coyne is undoubtedly right when he says: “That’s the larger problem facing fiscal conservatives. They do not have the public on their side.” It does no good to pretend otherwise. And he’s even more right when he says: “But just because a policy is unpopular doesn’t make it wrong.” Indeed. The people of Ontario are wrong. Eighteen percent of them (factoring in voter turnout), maliciously, repugnantly so.

His recommendation?

As for the Liberals, they should proceed with the feckless, big-spending policies they were elected on. Yes, they’re ruinous, but that’s democracy. They were given a mandate to avoid hard choices, and it’s sour grapes to pretend otherwise. To go back on that now, as others are advising them, to repeat the same old flim-flam so many governments have pulled in the past — campaigning against austerity, only to impose it once safely in power — would be a betrayal of the people who elected them. This is what Ontarians voted for, and this is what they should get.

And someday, Hudak, who seems like a decent person, but barely able to persuade even those who might be predisposed to agree with him, will be able to say (as Robert Conquest supposedly wanted to title the reprint of his book about Stalin and the indulgence accorded him by Western ‘intellectuals’), “I told you so, you f*****g fools.” No good could come of saying it aloud, but he would be justified.