Britain Can't Afford Any More PFIs

Britain can't afford any more debt

Writing in an op/ed in The Guardian, Colin Cram demonstrates a very real gift for missing the point.

Writing on the topic of Private Finance Initiatives, Cram questions the critical attitude of the current Conservative Party government toward PFIs.

For the uninitiated, Private Finance Initiatives were largely used by Labour Party governments to hide billions of pounds in public spending effectively off the national books.

Cram writes:

"The criticism of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) being levelled by some government ministers is ironic in that it was introduced by the previous Conservative government.

Norman Lamont was chancellor of the exchequer at the time, closely followed by Ken Clarke, under whom the initiative prospered. As Professor Colin Talbot points out, PFIs were created to address a very big and real problem.

When in opposition in the 1990s, the Labour party was critical of the initiative, expressing some similar concerns to those of some of today's government ministers. However, when Labour came to power, it realised that if it wished for infrastructure improvements to schools, roads, prisons and hospitals, for example, it had little option but to adopt it. It therefore re-badged the scheme the Private Public Parternship (PPP) and accelerated its use."

Apparently Cram has failed to discern even the most basic distinction: the Labour Party opposed the use of PFIs while they were in opposition, then promptly set to using them while in government. The Tories opposed PFIs while in opposition, and maintained that opposition while in government.

And there's a very good reason for them to reject PFIs:

Britain simply can't afford any more debt. As of July 2011 the UK's public debt was 61.4% of its GDP. If the government were to expropriate everything produced on the Isles this year to pay down the public debt Britain would not be able to feed its population.

Cram goes on to suggest that PFIs had given Britain more up-to-date hospitals, schools, and other public assets than otherwise would have been possible. But this is actually flagrantly untrue. If anything, PFIs simply gave the British government a means to escape accountability for running up the public debt.

Any of the goals accomplished by PFIs -- such as attracting private investment in public assets -- can be done better under a system that doesn't serve to evade public accountability.

Colin Cram shouldn't be criticizing the David Cameron government for discarding PFIs as a means of funding public projects. They should be commended for it, and any philosophical contradictions are purely of Cram's own imagination.

Time For Greece To Put On Its Big Boy Pants

Britain determined to leave Greece to save itself

Even as Greek protesters continue to throw temper tantrums in the streets, objecting to the austerity program that could rescue the country from the fiscal abyss, British officials are treading very carefully in regards to any bail out to prevent Greece from defaulting on its debts and keep it within the Euro.

Britain, however, has no plans to be part of such a bail out.

Certainly, the British economy has some interest in Greece's public debt -- perhaps as much as $13 billion. But with the EU poised to extend a massive bail out package to the Greeks, the emerging consensus in Britain is to stay out of it.

It isn't merely the European economy that's under siege in Greece's fiscal troubles: it's also the Euro itself.

Frequently-outspoken London Mayor Boris Johnson has declared that its time for Greece to either learn to stand on its own fiscal feet, or be allowed to fall. The Euro be damned.

"For years, European governments have been saying that it would be insane and inconceivable for a country to leave the Euro," Johnson remarked. "But this second option is now all but inevitable, and the sooner it happens the better."

In a strange turn of events, the Labour Party's former Foreign Affairs Minister, Jack Straw has voiced criticisms of the Cameron government's response that call on the government to move even further away from the EU.

"What the Government should do, instead of sheltering behind the complacent language, weasel words 'it's not appropriate, we shouldn't speculate', recognise that this eurozone cannot last and it's the responsibility of this British Government to be open with the British people now about the alternative prospects," Straw declared. "If this euro in its current form is going to collapse, is it better not that it happens quickly rather than a slow death?"

Johnson clearly agrees with Straw. He blames the Euro for cultivating complacency among Europe's profilgate states.

"The Euro has exacerbated the financial crisis by encouraging some countries to behave as recklessly as the banks themselves," Johnson said. "As long as there is the fear of default, as long as the uncertainty continues, confidence will not return across the whole of Europe."

It would be ironic if economic confidence were revived by the fiscal collapse of the birthplace of democracy. The protesters raging in the streets of Athens don't yet seem to understand that, no matter what, their party is over.

It's time for Greece to put on its big boy pants before the European will to bail them out goes the way of the British will to bail them out.

Britain May Need Its Own Clarity Act

David Cameron getting set to face separatists in Scotland

In Britain, citizens are getting ready to face a problem Canadians are by now quite familiar with: a regional government that wants to lead that region out of its political union.

In Canada, of course, it's Quebec. In Britain, it's Scotland.

In Scottish elections last month, Alex Salmond and the Scottish National Party won and are now planning a sovereignty referendum.

In London, Prime Minister David Cameron is set to preempt Salmond. He may plan the referendum from London unless Salmond can allay fears that he may try to use a deceptive referendum question in order to secure a "yes" vote. Canadians are well-familiar with the deceptive tactics often used by separatists.

In 1995, the Parti Quebecois government used an ambiguous and confusing question on the referendum ballot. They also lied to Quebeckers by suggesting Quebec would not need to accept its share of the national debt.

Cameron has already rebuked suggestions that two referendums -- one organized by the Scottish Parliament and another organized by Westminster -- would be necessary for Scotland to separate from Britain. Only one referendum would be necessary.

But Cameron would be extremely wise in preempting any deceptive ballot questions by enacting a British version of the clarity act: one that ensure that any ballot question posed to the citizens of Scotland is clear, unambiguous, and not deceptive.

He shouldn't make the mistake Canadian leaders did, and wait until it's too late. If David Cameron is worried Alex Salmond may attempt to deceive Scottish voters, he should act to eliminate deception as an option.

Diane Abbott Bloviates on Abortion Policy

Labour MP outraged over inclusion of anti-abortion group in debate

Debate on the topic of abortion is heating up in Britain, as the British pro-abortion lobby is making demands quite familiar to those who follow abortion in the rest of the world.

That demand is rather simple: groups who hold a differing opinion on abortion are to be denied a voice in the discussion.

Labour Shadow Minister of Health Diane Abbott is apparently quite apoplectic about the inclusion of Life, a British anti-abortion group, on a government advisory panel on sexual health.

Abbott is apoplectic that groups such as life, or Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, would be allowed to have a voice on any kind of government panel.

"We cannot allow Nadine Dorries and some of the anti-abortion groups currently advising the government to turn the clock back for millions of women," Abbott declared. "Mainstream medical opinion is united in its agreement that, when carried out in a legal setting where sterile facilities are available, abortion is a safe procedure carrying a low risk of complications."

"And we must not underestimate the chilling news that the government has appointed anti-abortion group Life to their expert advisory group on sexual health," she continued. "This appointment, coupled with the retraction of an invite to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the UK's leading abortion providers, signals a dangerous move."

"Increasingly, people up and down the country are looking to take a stand against what they see as an attempt to chip away at abortion access for women in England, Scotland and Wales," she added. "There is a rising tide of opposition and concern about the agenda being pushed by figures in this Tory-led government, and David Cameron must come clean on where the Tories now stand on a woman's right to choose."

All of this over the inclusion of a few abortion-opposing groups on an advisory panel intended to represent a wide variety of views.

Perhaps it's time for Diane Abbott, Ed Miliband and the Labour Party to make something clear: do Britons have the right to have an opinion on abortion that differs from her own? And if they do, do they not have the right to be heard by the government?

Then again, perhaps Abbott has already made herself clear about that.

British Tories Gearing Up For Fresh Union Fight

British unions cautioned against facing off against the government

As British labour unions prepare to oppose vital austerity measures with a series of protest strikes, Business Minister Vince Cable is set to issue a warning to a union conference:

If they hold the delusions coalminers unions held in the 1980s, when they believed they could topple the Margaret Thatcher government, they need to think again. There are factions within the Conservative Party that are eager to crush them again, just as Thatcher crushed the coalminers' unions.

This leaves Cable in the position of the good cop to the Tories' bad cop.

In a leaked speech intended for an upcoming union conference, Cable is expected to state the following:

"The usual suspects will call for general strikes and widespread disruption. This will excite the usual media comments about 'a summer' or 'an autumn' of discontent. And another group of the usual suspects will exploit the situation to call for the tightening of strike law."

"We are undoubtedly entering a difficult period. Cool heads will be required all round. Despite occasional blips, I know that strike levels remain historically low, especially in the private sector. On that basis, and assuming this pattern continues, the case for changing strike law is not compelling."

"Should the position change, and should strikes impose serious damage to our economic and social fabric, the pressure on us to act would ratchet up. That is something which both you, and certainly I, would wish to avoid."

Among the Conservatives eager to strengthen strike law is London Mayor Boris Johnson, who wants legislation to declare that at least 50% of a union's members must participate in a strike vote. In other words, Johnson wants to ensure that a minority cannot decide for the majority.

It's a sound policy. And while Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that he prefers Thatcher's strike laws -- which limited the ability of unions to impose closed chops and increased the number of union members required for a quorum -- this would be a tremendous improvement.

The last time labour unions decided to take on a Conservative government they had backing from the Soviet Union, and they still lost.

They would be wise to listen to Vince Cable this time around, or Boris Johnson may succeed in making it harder for unions to intercede politically.

British Tories Burying Their Coalition Partner?

Lib Dems to suffer in district re-draw

When Liberal Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg secured the Alternative Vote referendum -- already disastrous for his party -- as a condition of joining the Conservative Party in a governing coalition, there was one thing he himself had to give up:

He had to agree to the withdrawing of electoral boundaries, one in which the size of Parliament would be reduced by 50 seats.

After suffering an embarrassing defeat in the AV referendum, it seems the LDP may suffer further.

According to modelling conducted by Liverpool University's Lewis Baston, the Liberal Democrats stand to lose nearly 25% of their seats (14 of 67 seats). The Labour Party would lose 17 of 256 seats while the Tories would lose 16 of their 306 seats.

"The Liberal Democrats are likely to lose out more than the other main parties because their seats are yellow islands in a sea of red or blue," Baston explained. "Changing the boundaries is more likely to bring in hostile territories, their majorities tend to be smaller than Labour or Conservative MPs and their Lib Dems trade a lot on incumbency and constituency service. That is disrupted by a boundary review."

Yet Baston notes that nearly no seat would be safe under this proposed re-distribution. Among the Tory MPs who could face stronger challenges for their seats are Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and 1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady. Both are of vital importance to the party politically.

Unless Prime Minister David Cameron is committed enough to this re-distrubtion to attach Parliamentary confidence to it -- although it's hard to see why he would do such a thing -- it's entirely possible that worried Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs may team up to defeat the proposal.

In other words, it could be the Tories suffering their own versin of the Alternative Vote defeat. If enough disconcert is stirred up, it's not unthinkable this could be the end of the coalition altogether.

For the Liberal Democrats, it proposes them with what may very well be a distinct non-choice: either bury the electoral re-distribution, and the coalition with it, or risk being buried themselves.

"The Best Person For the Job", Redux

Is Lagarde, not Brown: Cameron, Osborne

With campaigning to replace the outgoing Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund mounting, many Britons are expecting their government to back a fellow Briton to fill that job.

For now, they will be disappointed.

Speculation has held that former Prime Minister and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has been quietly campaigning for his shot at the job. Yet current Prime Minister David Cameron and current Chancellor George Osborne seem to have made themselves fairly clear: Brown is not "the best person for the job".

Apparently, according to Cameron and Osborne, the best person for the job may be French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde.

"I believe Christine is the outstanding candidate for the IMF – and that's why Britain will back her," Osborne declared. "I also personally think it would be a very good thing to see the first female managing director of the IMF in its 60-year history."

Lagarde's greatest strength, in Osborne's mind, is that she's in favour of developing countries bringing their budgets under control.

"She has been a strong advocate for countries tackling high budget deficits and living within their means," Osborne noted.

That applies to financial institutions just as much as it does to entire countries. While many western countries were rolling out fat bailout packages for banks, Lagarde was publicly taking them to task, particularly at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

"The best way for the banking sector to say thank you would be to actually have good financing of the economy, sensible compensation systems in place and reinforcement of their capital," Lagarde told Barclay's Bank chief executive Bob Diamond.

As if to offer some substance to Osborne's remarks about a having a woman in charge of the IMF, Lagarde has suggested that the global economy could use a woman's touch, particularly in terms of stock trading.

"In gender-dominated environments, men have a tendency to show how hairy chested they are, compared with the man who's sitting next to them. I honestly think that there should never be too much testosterone in one room."

Brown himself has also taken a sticter stance toward banks. He, like Lagarde, backed an international bank tax.

Unlike Brown, however, Lagarde seems to understand that the best fix for the global economy is for sensible reform and regulation to begin within the board rooms of the institutions themselves. It's time for banks to cut back on their unsecured loans, cut back on the unjustifiably-lavish and self-serving compensation for their execs, and put sustainable profit at the forefront of their agendas.

As the mortgage crisis in the United States clearly demonstrates -- as banks took advantage of lax regulatory schemes put in place by George W Bush as a means to manage the impact of toxic loans mandated by the Bill Clinton administration -- no government can force financial institutions to regulate themselves, nor can they really do so in their place; those set on abusing the system for short-term and unsustainable profit will find a way.

It's hard to say whether David Cameron and George Osborne are correct and Christine Lagarde really is the best person for the job. But one thing remains abundantly clear: she's much better for it than Gordon Brown.

What David Davis and Tommy Douglas Have in Common

Workfare

On its face, a comparison between British Haltemprice and Howden MP David Davis and former NDP leader (the late) Tommy Douglas would seem entirely unreasonable.

One is a Conservative Tory MP, defeated by David Cameron in his bid to be Conservative leader. The other was, as leader of the NDP, the father of Canadian healthcare.

One is a former Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. The other is an icon of the Canadian left.

But as it turns out, they each have one thing in common: they both believe in workfare. (Or rather, Davis believes in workfare, and Douglas believed in workfare.)

Recently, Davis suggested that British welfare recipients should be put to work building rural broadband networks.

"A workforce of the unemployed should build the superfast network we need so urgently," Davis remarked. "Building a superfast rural broadband network is largely low-skill – digging trenches, laying pipes, filling them in. Only a small fraction of the cost is in high-tech materials."

Naturally, advocates for welfare recipients -- in both Britain and Canada -- would accuse Davis of barbarism; they would likely compare his proposal to advocating slavery.

When Douglas was the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, his government implemented workfare. Able-bodied men who were beneficiaries of welfare were required to provide service to the state, often remarkably similar to what Davis has suggested.

It's something that the Canadian left will likely decline to mention when the British left rushes to condemn David Davis. Which makes it all the more worth mentioning.

"The Best Person For the Job"

Chancellor not a booster for Gordon Brown's IMF bid

With former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seeking to assume the role of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, there may be one key obstacle in his path:

The British government.

In April, Prime Minister David Cameron questioned Brown's suitability for the job.

“If you have someone who didn’t think we had a debt problem [running the IMF] they may not be the best person to decide whether other countries have that problem," Cameron declared.

The decision over whether or not the British government will attempt to block Brown from becoming IMF Managing Director has not been made. For his own part, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne hasn't expressed any great preference regarding Brown and the IMF.

He's calling for the "best person for the job".

"If it comes to a decision about a replacement for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, what I will be motivated by and what the British Government will be motivated by is who is the best person for the job," Osborne declared. "Instead of 'Is it Buggins's turn?' or 'Should it be someone from a particular country or not', let's focus on getting the right person for the right job."

Brown hasn't yet asked Osborne for any kind of endorsement for assuming the role.

"As it happens, Gordon Brown has not asked me directly or indirectly to be considered for the job," Osborne said. "I'm at the moment focused on making sure we get the best person for the job."

So is Gordon Brown the best person for the job?

The Brown government's use of Private Finance Initiatives to conceal billions of Pounds Sterling in public debt has previously been explored here.

What has not been is Brown's "tripartite" system of Financial regulation.

When he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Brown split regulatory powers between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, and the Treasury. This led to a breakdown of surveillance powers, leading to a state of affairs where two-thirds of bank lending in Britain was to other financial institutions.

In the opinion of Dr Sushil Wadhwani, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, this led to a situation in which interest rates lagged far behind the rate required to return credit markets to equilibrium.

This led to British credit markets in which the incentives to borrow were overloaded. Eventually, Britain fell into the same credit collapse as the rest of the world.

Given the kind of havoc Gordon Brown wrought with Britain's finances and Britain's economy, the idea of giving him a surplus of power over the global economy should be a sobering thought indeed.

David Cameron is right. Gordon Brown is not the right person for the job.

The (Not-So) Great Flag Debate

Coalition partners at odds over EU flag

In 1964, Canadian politicians struggled with what would turn out to be a pivotal question: should Canada adopt its own flag? And, if so, what should it be?

Then-Prime Minister Lester Pearson and the Liberal Party captured the imaginations of many Canadians -- particularly the country's youth -- by standing in favour of a uniquely Canadian flag. Then-Leader of the Opposition John Diefenbaker and the Conservative Party stood in favour of continuing to use the Red Ensign -- featuring the iconic Union Jack.

History does not look particularly fondly on Diefenbaker's position on the great flag debate. The Liberals would go on to govern uninterrupted for another 15 years. The brief Tory interegnum, led by Joe Clark, would last a mere nine months before the Liberals would govern for another four.

The debate being waged within Britain's governing coalition of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party may not seem nearly as definitive as Canada's 1964 debate. Yet it will have political consequences nonetheless.

In Europe, May 9 is known as Europe Day. It specifically celebrates the creation of the European Union.

The European Union may be one of the most divisive issues within Britain's coalition government. The Conservatives tend to favour a stand-offish approach to the EU, while the Lib Dems prefer to embrace it.

Within the government, this division can be seen in the differing approaches to whether or not the flag of the European Union is being flown on Europe Day. Department for Business Minister Vince Cable will be flying the EU flag over his ministerial offices.

Foreign Affairs Minister William Hague will not.

The Tories haven't always been stridently opposed to the European Union. Britain's membership in the European Union was the doing of Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath, who led Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973.

It was Heath's intention that Britain would enjoy economic benefits from its membership, but few Conservatives could have predicted that the EEC would steadily grow in scope, expand the political authority it intended to exercise over member states.

During its time in office, the Cameron government has made it clear that it would not allow any laws passed by the European Parliament to take effect in Britain without strict ratification by the British Parliament.

This eye on Britain's sovereignty has characterized British public opinion on the European Union. Britons have been tremendously skeptical about the EU. That the Tony Blair government declined to replace Pounds Sterling with the Euro as the currency of the UK was largely a function of public opinion on the issue.

As William Hague and the Tories refuse to fly the flag of the European Union on Europe Day, they're likely well in line with public opinion on the matter.

Vince Cable flying the EU flag is hardly on outrage, but it seems to demonstrate a disconnect from British public opinion on this issue; one that could further trouble his already-troubled party.

It was a similiar disconnect from public sentiment that likely finalized John Diefenbaker's departure from the Prime Minister's office, and that allowed the Liberal Party to eventually transition to Pierre Trudeau's leadership without initially breaking a sweat (although there would be some tense moments in 1972).

The Liberal Democrats could hardly be accused of repeating Diefenbaker's mistake in its fullest scope. But they may come to regret their repudiation of public sentiment on the European Union. Gordon Brown arguably did.

Different Pictures on Each Side of the Pond

Aleeza Kahn compares Canada and Britain

Writing in The Tyee, British grad student Aleeza Kahn compares how the Prime Minister is elected in Canada and Britain -- in the process causing some serious concern about the future of journalism.

Drawing from the usual shrill voices of the far-left, she manages to offer some cogent and intriguing comparisons between Canada and Britain. She also manages to pass the far-left Kool-Aid largely undiluted.

The first conclusion that Kahn reaches is that in Britain, a federal election is largely a popularity contest.

"In England, we feel the need to like our prime minister," Kahn begins. "You apparently don't."

Kahn presents British Prime Minister David Cameron as too much of a try-hard.

"'Dave,' well he wants to be your friend -- your posh, privileged ex-Etonian friend, but a friend nonetheless -- who shares your beliefs and understands the modern society you both live in," Kahn muses. "This Cameron, the man who cares about his family and is just like you, is a walking, talking PR machine, and a good one at that. But he's too concerned with being liked and is scared of making a fool of himself, known to choose sweeping principles over hard policy."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on the other hand, is very different; all business, no nonsense.

"This is something that Harper doesn't seem worried about. His policies are strong and his position is firm," Kahn writes. "Maybe this is why, while he may only have the minority rule, he is still proven to be the most successful candidate in recent years. People in Canada don't seem to be put off by his non-PR'ed persona. And to be fair to Harper he's done well to hold on during the global economic crisis, something that Britain's Labour government in power at the time of the crisis had no hope of doing, especially since [Gordon] Brown's persona, even by his own admission, was decidedly charisma deficient."

Of course, an election is not just a popularity contest. If it is merely a popularity contest -- like the one that unfolded in the United States in 2008 -- something has gone deeply wrong.

Many will consider Canada far better off with Harper's strong and sound policy; although if Kahn is writing off David Cameron's policy, she will yet be surprised at how well Cameron continues to do.

Kahn goes on to offer her next conclusion: "In Canada, the prime minister says coalitions are evil," she writes. "In the UK, the prime minister owes his job to one."

This is, of course, pure rubbish. Even in the height of their historical-revisionist furor, individuals like Terry Milewski have only succeeded in demonstrating that Harper does not object to the idea of a coalition itself.

Even if they're being trotted out as "new discoveries" by the national press, Harper has been on the record several times in the past presenting a coalition government as a constitutional option.

What Harper has been on record opposing since 2008 is a little different: an irresponsible coalition government mortgaging the government of Canada to the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party. Harper has never been on record opposing coalitions. He's on record opposing a very specific coalition.

Even with this in mind, the broadness of the political views presented in Kahn's article is underwhelming. She relies on UBC professor Michael Byers to present an image of Harper as single-mindedly focused on but a sliver of the Canadian population.

"Remember, he's never been the choice of more than 38 per cent of the electorate," Byers declares. "What has enabled him is that the centre left has been divided among four other parties. If this is the case that means the centre-right wing party who can secure 38 per cent will govern. Their campaign policies are directed at a fairly narrow segment of Canadian society."

Of course Byers didn't seem to consider a very basic fundamental fact: 38% of Canadians is not, by any means, a narrow segment of Canadian society. It's in fact a rather broad segment of Canadian society.

The only way Byers can even justify that argument is with Kahn's third conclusion, but unfortunately they won't do any better a job here.

"In Great Britain, candidates want as many people as possible to vote," Kahn concludes. "Not in Canada."

This is where they resort to claims that Harper and the Tories have attempted to discourage people from voting. The evidence they offer? Their word. And their word alone.

"It has been a tactic to focus on turning people off politics," Byers insists. "If you can keep voter turn out down, which is clearly a strategy of Harper's, then you simply need a small but committed base that ensures you can become prime minister."

Byers' evidence? He offers none. Nothing but his own word.

"Right wing parties actually benefit from a depressed voter turnout," Insists University of Victoria professor Dennis Pilon. "The Conservatives are taking a leaf from the Republican playbook, driving people away from the political process by placing barriers in the way of people participating."

What obstacles does Pilon pretend the Conservatives have placed in the way of voters? He declines to name even a single one.

No need for Byers and Pilon to worry, though. Kahn seems to require no evidence from either professor in order to reach the same conclusion. Bias generally works that way.

Kahn sees fit -- quite fittingly -- to conclude her essay on a suitable note: the issue of youth involvement.

"Back in England, younger people are a lot more politically engaged than here in Canada," she concludes.

Kahn presents an image of David Cameron as appealing to young voters. He's in touch with the newest technology, chilling at home in his blue jeans. Meanwhile, the most informal Stephen Harper seems to get is a Christmas card with him holding a kitten.

Fair enough.

The youth vote has certainly been a hotly-debated issue in the federal election, but Kahn's argument doesn't seem to develop past the point that young people should vote -- and they should. A disinterest in the issues seems just as pertinent to why youths aren't voting as a disinterest in the leaders.

Although if blue jeans and whether or not a leader uses Twitter -- and how well -- is what it takes to attract the youth vote, it's fair to question how serious those voters are. For every youth voter creating a thoughtful "to get my vote" video, there are many more who seem more interested in the most recent Charlie Sheen meltdown.

Some may be tempted to give Aleeza Kahn an A for her effort, but while presenting a refreshing comparison between Canada and Britain, Kahn gets very little done in this essay.

This being said, Kahn's work at least presents a key question at all times for Canadians: would we like Canada to be more like Britain? Perhaps so.

(Information) Revolutionizing Politics

Presenting his very own TED talk a year ago, now-British Prime Minister David Cameron talks about a rapidly-changing world; one in which the role of government will never again be the same.

The driving force behind this change? Simply put, information.

Never before have citizens had as much information at their disposal -- at their bare fingertips -- as they do today. In Cameron's estimation, this is because of the continuous evolution of human society.

Cameron begins with the pre-bureaucratic age, a time when communication and travel was so costly and time-consuming that it was impossible for governments to organize and centralize across vast territories. This was followed by the industrial revolution and the bureaucratic era, in which emerging transportation and communication technology made that organization and centralization possible. Cameron's explanation ends with the rise of the information revolution, and the post-bureaucratic era.

Previously, Cameron explains, only government had access to the kind of information necessary to truly manage society. But with the continuous advent of public information technology, that power is coming more and more to rest in the hands of ordinary people.

Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams coined a phrase for this, and they made it the title of a best-selling book: wikinomics.

In short, the book argues that the electronic commons has enabled people to share more information and ideas than ever before, and that institutions that fail to adapt are bound to suffer and eventually fail.

In examining the record of the Tony Blair government it becomes clear that the greatest failure of that government was to take advantage of the emerging information commons, and to delegate the requisite power back to where it can be used best: in the hands of the citizenry.

For some within government, it's a harrowing prospect: a necessary step is that government data-keepers will need, to a certain extent, to let go. In other words, they'll need to stop trying to decide themselves which information is important, and instead let the people decide.

For those who live and die by the fantasy that the government will solve every problem they can imagine, and that they could play the role of the civic hero if only they had the resources and power of the government at their disposal, will need to find new delusions with which to comfort their egos.

Wherein Heather Mallick Makes a Stark Choice (For Britain)

Austerity or oblivion? Mallick chooses oblivion

As many of the world's advanced states trudge forward, economic reality is presenting them with a choice:

Austerity or oblivion.

Britain, who owes 64.6% of its Gross Domestic Product to foreign creditors is one of those countries that is facing some tough choices in terms of its budget.

Prime Minister David Cameron and his coalition government partner, Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg, have responded to Britain's looming fiscal crisis in kind. They plan to cut as much as 40% of Britain's national budget in order to get things back under control there.

For her own part, Mallick objects entirely. She wishes to join her voices to those of thousands of Greek and French protesters who have made their decision between austerity or oblivion, and chosen oblivion.

Rather than pare back their demands on the public purse -- at least in the short term -- Mallick and her compatriots have decided to demand that the states in question stay the course toward economic disaster.

After this, there will be no more: an economic collapse that could raze the British economy to the ground. They don't care.

Not that they have no solutions of their own. It just so happens that their medicine would be far more harmful than the disease.

They imagine undercutting core functions of government that they don't care for in favour of maintaining spending to extraneous functions of government that they do. They imagine taxing the living hell out of banks and corporations, not seeming to care where the kind of economic growth necessary to ensure Britain's long-term prosperity will come from.

Canadians already know well the kind of pressure David Cameron and his government are under. When Canada was on the brink of fiscal insolvency in the 1990s, the Canadian government was forced to make some hard decisions as well.

The Jean Chretien government chose to cut things such as education, health care, and provincial transfers. It may have never happened if not for the pressures applied by the Reform Party and individuals such as Andrew Coyne, but the important detail is that it did happen.

15 years later Canada has the fiscal strength to weather what some have described as a perfect economic storm.

In time, Britain may be able to boast the same strength. But not if Heather Mallick has her way. In her own mind, she's chosen for Britain. Fortunately for her, she doesn't have to live there.

Cracks in the Coalition?

Tory backbenchers beginning to grumble

As the British Conservative Party's convention continues, Prime Minister David Cameron must be looking forward to (hopefully), a peaceful conference.

Unfortunately for Cameron, it's a little too much to ask right now.

With the party readying itself to face acrimonious protests to planned cuts to the public budget, Cameron also has to face discontent within his own party, over how many concessions the Tories have made to their coalition partners.

"It seems as if the Coalition is proceeding on a basis of continuous appeasement without consulting the backbenches," complained long-time Tory MP Christopher Chope.

"Ministers are effectively being held to ransom by a small group of Liberal Democrats, who are in a sense the tail wagging the dog on too many occasions," he continued. "I have spoken to Conservative ministers and I know a number of them share those frustrations."

But if Ministers are feeling the pressure, Chope said that backbenchers are feeling it even more intensely.

"The whips are being heavy handed beyond anything I can recall in threatening the termination of political careers before they have even started," he fumed.

1922 Committee chairman Graham Brady, who is responsible for representing the views of backbench MPs to the party leadership, suggested (more diplomatically) that being so ham-fisted with backbench MPs is not a wise move, and that party leadership needs to be constructively engaged with backbenchers.

"We will be more effective in holding the party together and making sure that we function as a team if we have that very good process of communication in both directions," Brady said.

This will certainly be a challenge for Cameron with more and more of his MPs seemingly beginning to feel that they're holding the short end of the coalition stick.

Oddly enough, they aren't.

Many observers have expressed marvel at the amount of the cuts outlined by their election platform that they'll be able to implement. Considering that the Conservatives are very much relying on the Lib Dems for their survival, it's remarkable that they haven't had to offer more concessions than they already have.

It would be difficult for Cameron to elicit any more concessions out of the Liberal Democrats. Even with their suffering polling numbers giving them a clear incentive to ensure the coalition's survival, they have to draw the line somewhere if they're going to survive at all.

Christopher Chope and Graham Brady have every right -- and responsibility -- to voice their concerns. They'd just better be careful about demanding that David Cameron bite off more than he can chew.

The Softer, Gentler... David Cameron?

David Davis questions scale of cutting agenda

If the 2005 Conservative Party leadership campaign had gone differently, it could have been David Davis, not David Cameron, who ultimately wound up ascending to the role of Prime Minister.

In the wake of any election -- particularly one as indecisive as the 2010 campaign -- there's great risk in assuming that the result was inevitable. History will never know if David Davis could have been the one to defeat Gordon Brown.

But if he had, Davis seems to want Britons to believe he would have led the Tories in administering a more nuanced economic program than simply cutting Britain's hefty deficit.

"We cannot be defined by a purely cuts agenda," Davis declared. "If the only message the public takes away from the events of the next few months is one of retrenchment and loss of services, politically at least, we will have failed."

"We need to rediscover the case for growth — and make it loud and clear across the land," he continued.

In Davis' mind, publicizing a growth agenda was where Margaret Thatcher's government largely failed -- and where Cameron's government needs to do better, lest he fall into the same pitfalls as the Iron Lady.

"The Thatcher Government of the Eighties was demonised for simply restraining the growth in spending," Davis explained. "This one will face even more ­hysterical opposition."

Not that Cameron can afford to allow mass political panic to deter him from his party's course. Gordon Brown and the Labour Party left Britain on the brink of fiscal disaster. But David is right in noting that programming cuts alone won't navigate the UK out of trouble. Rather, these cuts have to be accompanied by strong economic growth.

"We have to get the structural ­deficit down and eradicate it or the country will be crippled," Davis admitted. "But we have to allow the private sector to take off as well. There has to be a growth agenda."

This isn't the first time Davis has offered criticism -- constructive or otherwise -- of his own government. Earlier this year he fought hard against an increase in capital gains taxes. Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats wanted a hefty increase in the tax. After Davis' intervention, Osbourne reduced the hike.

"This was about our ­people -- about people who have retired; people who have saved money all their lives, who have invested in a second home or bought their ­children a flat when they were at university," Davis explained. "These were our people who had been robbed of their future by the last government which destroyed their pension. We could not let them be hit again by a big increase in ­Capital Gains Tax."

While Davis has frequently been critical of the concessions made by Cameron to Clegg and the LDP, he also recognizes a key benefit in having them on board: the ability to take on the public sector.

"We could not take some of the more unpalatable decisions that will involve cutting the public sector and reforming welfare ­without the support of the Lib Dems," he admitted.

Admittedly, it's a little late for David Davis to be giving Britons a sense of what a Davis-led government would look like. The time for that was in 2005. But if David Cameron possesses the kind of acumen necessary to be successful as Prime Minister, he'll take Davis' advice, take it quickly, and figure out some way to lure Davis into his cabinet.

David Cameron vs The Vested Interests

Cameron prepares to fight rhetorical war with labour unions

As British Prime Minister David Cameron prepares to roll out his government's austerity program, Cameron has declared his intent to take on Britain's "vested interests".

Roughly translated: unions.

"They got us into this mess and they haven't got any idea how to clear it up," Cameron insisted.

Across Britain, labour unions are lining up against the coming austerity program. Brendan Barber of the Trades Union Congress has warned of "social unrest" over government cuts.

"We have a duty to reflect the real worries and fears, and real anger that will grow as people see the impact of government policy," Barber insisted. "The Government has invested a lot of effort in trying to persuade people there is no option. That's not the case. The risks of going down this track are enormous and will make the situation worse."

"There is an alternative," he continued. "Don't be fooled by the barrage of propaganda by the Government, that all of this is simply unavoidable and there are no choices. There are real choices. These are not decisions made out of necessity. They are made out of political principle and choice."

Of course, the history of the actions of labour unions during times of fiscal crisis in Britain shouldn't fill anyone with a wealth of confidence in them.

As in almost all western countries, labour unions have proven to be especially ham-fisted when negotiating with governments. In Britain, labour unions have deliberately attempted to destroy governments that don't cave into their demands, no matter how arduous they may be.

For Barber, the "other option" is for government to stay the course, and continue spending itself into a Greek fiscal quagmire.

If anything reminds ordinary Britons that labour unions simply don't have Britain's best interests at heart, it should be this. Rather, British labour unions have their own interests at heart, and no one else's.

David Cameron needs to do more than simply battle these vested interests. He needs to reach into the Margaret Thatcher playbook, and find a way to defeat them.

Labour Party Needs Its Civil Society Fix

Labour Party addicted to big government

As British Prime Minsiter David Cameron continues to slowly roll out his Big Society policy package, the Labour Party has evidently found itself at odds with the new government's views on civil society.

Following a party audit of the to-date relesed or promised Big Society policies, the Labour party claims the policy is undermining civil society in Britain.

Labour has identified what they believe are core policy areas for the Big Society, and have pointed out that the Tories have cut 6% of the funding to these areas. Among these cuts are:

-370 million Pounds for the Future Jobs program, which had pledged to create 200,000 jobs, including 120,000 job grants for civil society organizations.
-95 million Pounds from affordable housing.
-14 million Pounds from the Youth Commnity Action programme.
-7 million Pounds from the Prevent programme -- designed to combat violent political extremism.
-4 million Pounds from the Cohesion programme -- a program to do pretty much the same thing as Prevent.

"What people want is not the vacuous promise of a big society but a good society where everybody does their bit and is helped to do so to improve their community and create benefits for everyone," said Tessa Jowell, Labour's shadow Cabinet Office minister insisted. "But a big society that cuts people loose, leaving them to stand on their own, will never work."

The detail that Labour lost the 2010 election, and so can hardly claim to know what Britons want, is one thing.

Labour's clear big government vision of civil society is entirely another.

Each of Labour's criticisms can easily be answered in kind:

-First off, a civil society organization that is funded by the government is not really a civil society organization: it's a QUANGO.
-Many communities, such as Crosby Ravensowrth, are funding their own affordable housing projects.
-The Prevent Programme was a particularly troubled one that had been caught spying within the communities in which it was active.
-The Cohesion Programme seems to have been a duplication in efforts from the Prevent Programme.

The Labour party has made its view on civil society quite clear: it prefers a big government approach so thorough that arms of its so-called civil society policy can even justify espionage against the communities in which they operate.

If Prime Minister Cameron were to embrace that particular vision, it would ultimately be self-defeating toward the goals of the Big Society programme.

Fortunately, David Cameron doesn't seem to share Labour's addiction to big government.

Smaller Governments = Bigger Societies

David Cameron prepares to deal a staggering blow to statism

David Cameron has made more than his share of mistakes since assuming the office of Prime Minister of Britain.

There is, however, one thing Cameron is unquestionably doing right: he is pushing back against Britain's encroaching statism, and confronting it with a challenge that will prove enduring if successful.

Cameron calls it the "big society", and Britain is responding.

As the government prepares to referse the over-bureaucratization of British society that was fostered by the scientific over-governmenment techniques adopted by Tony Blair -- wherein "indexes" were used to apply a government mandate to nearly everything under the sun -- Britons are embracing the empowerment of the Big Society, doing everything from starting and funding their own affordable housing developments to starting their own schools.

Even the London School of Economics seems excited.

"For those in the United States who would like to see smaller government, you've got to believe that David Cameron is their kind of politician," gushes LSE economist Tony Travers.

And Cameron is prepared to deliver on a very fundamental level.

"The Big Society is about a huge culture change, where people, in their everyday lives, in their homes, in their neighborhoods, in their workplace, don't always turn to officials, local authorities or central government for answers to the problems they face," Cameron has publicly explained.

Not all of Cameron's proposals are perfect at face value. Allowing "free schools" to set their own curriculum could be fraught with difficult issues -- some limits will remain necessary on what such schools can add to or remove from the curriculum.

But provided that these details are addressed, the Big Society promises to strike a staggering blow against statism -- and many Britons seem perfectly content to help him do it.

Not all Britons are prepared to abandon statism. Many opponents of the Big Society denounce it as a Margaret Thatcher-esque attack on government.

Supporters respond: why, yes it is.

What opponents of the Big Society have forgotten is that governments don't build societies -- communities do. Communities that are formed when individuals come to together, whether by birth or choice, and stay together by choice.

Governments can't make people work together by choice. The only way to accomplish this is to put power in the hands of citizens.

Smaller governments make bigger societies, espeically when citizens buy in.

And Now a Social Mobility Tsar?

Tory/Lib-Dem coaliton looking more and more like Labour

British Prime Minister David Cameron is a man with a problem.

A recent poll has the majority of Britons rating his government's performance as disappointing. In all, 57% of respondants are disappointed in Cameron's government.

Only 23% of Britons seem to think that Britain is better off with a coalition government.

The fair question may be: how could Britain be better off under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition when it seems so much like Labour?

Case in point: Cameron's government has added to its stable of policy-advisory Tsars with the addition of former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn, who will serve as Cameron's social mobility Tsar.

It's important to remember that Cameron's government was expected to be different from its predecessor. While Britain still waits to find out how deep cuts to public services will be, Cameron continually subjects the populace to the parading of these Tsars.

No one would argue that the coalition shouldn't be concerned with social mobility. But the introduction of a policy Tsar is a clear indication of the means they are leading towards: less toward free markets and more toward state action.

This certainly isn't what British conservatives expected when they cast their ballot in favour of the Tories.

The problem seems to be even worse for Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, who have seen their share of popular support cut from 23% on election day to only 16% now.

In the same poll, the Tories' own share of public support has dropped from 29% from 36% on May 5.

For the Lib-Dems, the matter is simple: their supporters are set to revolt against them for their role in the coming cuts. For the Tories, this drop in support comes from having disappointed their supportrs and -- to date -- governing too much like Labour.

Their fortunes may change as budget cuts are implimented -- but won't expand beyond their own base if they target such programs as milk for pre-schoolers.

In other words, Cameron's government is suffering because they have not yet governed like conservatives -- except on issues on which they cannot prevail.

Who Will Pay for Britain's Nuclear Deterrent?

British Tories in accounting quarrel over nuclear subs

With the Cold War now over for more than twenty years, some would expect that the debate over nuclear submaries would be question whether such weapons are needed at all.

In Britain, however, under their Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government, this is not the question. Rather, the question regarding the Trident II submarine -- the model of nuclear sub being developed to replace Britain's fleet of Trident Submaries -- is how they will be budgeted.

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has declared that they will be budgeted for out of the Ministry of Defence's existing budget. Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for Defence, wants a budget exemption for the Trident II, and wants the project to be funded from another part of the budget.

In a move that has created friction with Osborne, Fox has made discussion of the matter quite public.

"Ultimately, all our defence capabilities have to be paid for," Fox announced. "Which bits are paid, over what timescale, is part of the discussions we are having and I'm not going to entertain them in public. I have enough time entertaining them in private."

"The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defence budget," Osborne later responded. "All budgets have pressure. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about the Ministry of Defence."

The Ministry of Defence is alreay responding to their budgetary pressures in a manner that may leave some Britons feeling uncomfortable. The British armed services will sed up to 16,000 personell. The air force is expected to be particularly hard hit by reductions.

Britain's fleet of helicopters -- crucial at a time when Britain remains engaged in the war in Afghanistan -- may be cut by up to 20%.

Fox likely would not have to make as many hard decisions if he receives his sought-after budget exemption for the Trident II.

Despite the push to negotiate a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, some may argue that the Trident II is not necessary at all. In a perfect world, they would not be mistaken.

But the world is not perfect, and they are mistaken. With Iran seemingly continuing its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and with North Korea threatening nuclear responses to joint US/South Korean naval exercises, the end of the Cold War has not yet resulted in an alleviation of nuclear tensions.

Then there is the matter of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal.

Right now, the global situation regarding nuclear weapons is as tense as it has been in 20 years. There seems to be little reason to expect that the situation will reverse itself anytime soon.

Accordingly, the British Conservatives need to stop fighting over how the Trident II will be paid for, and need to get on with securing Britain's nuclear deterrent for a coming time when it may be desperately needed once again.