Conservative minority government

[Slim]

This was in the Toronto Sun this morning...


A new, honest face at the table

Mr. Bush, meet Mr. Harper

By BOB MACDONALD, TORONTO SUN

It's fascinating to watch all the pro-Liberal and anti-Conservative commentators scratch around for new ways to attack prime minister-elect Stephen Harper. Such as the CBC and the Toronto Star.

No matter what stance this brilliant young leader takes, his critics try to punch holes in it.

For instance, this past week Harper -- who doesn't take office until Feb. 6 -- told U.S. ambassador David Wilkins to keep his hands off Canada's Arctic sovereignty. Canadians -- duly elected by our people -- will run the Arctic. Yes, we will do it while co-operating with other sovereign nations such as the U.S., but we will not take orders from any other countries.

After decades of Liberal regimes squabbling with the Yanks over Arctic sovereignty, defence and natural resources development, Harper has made it simple: He and his elected government will decide on Canadian policy and negotiate any deals that are necessary. There will be no bullying from either side -- just honest bargaining and mutual respect.

Canada's defence forces will be designed and built to do that job. And, where possible, those forces will work closely with our American neighbours.

Now that sounds straightforward and workable -- as long as good North American common sense is allowed to come into play.

But if we allow all those back-room dealings of European-type politics to take over, we can look to a sneakier, mistrusting future -- the kind of deals that French President Jacques Chirac liked to make with Liberal PM Jean Chretien and former German chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder.

Or the kind of money-grubbing deals that Chirac, Schroeder and even Russian President Vladimir Putin made with genocidal dictator Saddam Hussein. You remember the deals over exchanging Iraqi oil for food?

No, what President W. George Bush is going to find out is that he can do honest business with Harper. For instance, it wouldn't take long for those two straight-talking leaders to complete the necessary negotiations to settle the long-standing softwood lumber and mad cow disease disputes.

The same will go for any other trade and military differences.

The only time nasty disputes became nastier was when Chretien or Paul Martin started publicly sniping at Bush and his people part way through negotiations. Bush is not much for public sniping, but that doesn't mean he's soft. Martin and his ministers have had to learn that the hard way.

However, if you prove a loyal ally of the Americans, you will soon learn that there are dividends. Such as those Australian PM John Howard earned for his backing of the U.S.-British-led coalition that put the boots to Saddam and his sadistic forces.

Chretien, Martin and Canada sat that one out, but Canada has been given full backing by the Americans as allies in Afghanistan. And no matter how you slice it, democracy and freedom are slowly and surely taking over in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So when Harper actually takes over in Canada I expect some very welcome changes. Especially in rebuilding our armed forces and border security, plus recognizing Americans as trusted friends with whom we can negotiate honest deals.

Now that will be a breath of fresh air between democracy's two closest trading partners, allies and, yes, friends.

 

[clasper]

Social costs make it much more expensive to employ people in continental Europe than the UK - something approaching 60 percent more. And that means that continental businesses simply have to be more productive, just to overcome that barrier. So they make sure they employ only the most productive workers, experienced workers. They try to avoid employing anyone young, inexperienced, disabled, old, with family commitments, less-well educated... all the people we want workplace regulation to help, in fact. Look at youth unemployment on the continent, for example, and it's far higher than ours. Continental businesses also employ more part-time workers so they don't get locked into contracts.

Some of this is true, and some of this is pretty exaggerated.  I work in France, and the company has similar operations in Houston.  Engineers here cost about 25% more to employ than their American counterparts (total compensation), and this is mainly because of the reverse in Euro/Dollar exchange rates over the last 5 years.  Social costs are more expensive here, but I can't believe that total compensation here is 60% higher than the UK.

In comparing the French and American workforces, they look about the same to me in terms of age, education, family commitments, etc.  European businesses do have more contract workers than the US.  For kids fresh out of school, it is common to work for the first year or two under contract, instead of hired on permanently.  The reason for this is because of labour laws, it's more difficult to fire someone over here.  In the US, if a new hire just isn't working out, even if he's done nothing seriously wrong, he still gets shown the door.  That's much harder to do here, so they use contracts as a probationary period.

In terms of productivity, French labour has amazing bursts of productivity.  Nothing happens in August because everyone's on vacation.  Little happens in July because everyone's getting ready to go on vacation.  In September, people are catching up on all the crap that piled up while they were gone.  Oct, Nov, and the first part of Dec see huge amounts of productivity.  There are breaks during the winter for Christmas, spring break in Feb (two weeks), another couple of weeks off in April/May.  But if the French have a couple of months at a stretch to work, they are very focused and get a lot done.

By contrast, Americans spread their productivity throughout the year.  Generally speaking, you're more likely to see an American take an extra long coffee break, or surfing the net at 4 o'clock.  The French will do this (and more) during July, but never in October.  The final result?  Americans tend to have a steady production throughout the year, the French have bursts here and there, but in the end, they come out about the same.

Now obviously this is a generalization, taken from my experience with one company, so it's not gospel.  It does however, dispute some of the rampant Euro-bashing that goes on around here.

 

[TCBF]

Very interesting.  What do you think of their health care? Less dogmatic than ours? Better?  Worse?  Can we learn (both good and bad) from it?

Tom

 

[clasper]

Very interesting.  What do you think of their health care? Less dogmatic than ours? Better?  Worse?  Can we learn (both good and bad) from it?

Tom

There are absolutely things to learn from French health care.  People definitely aren't as dogmatic about it here as they are back home, but here it isn't "in crisis".  They recently changed the way you access specialist care (you have to get a referral from a GP first now), and there was no giant uproar.  People realize the government is just trying to make things run more efficiently.

From a personal standpoint, my per month costs for health care are slightly higher here than they were in the US (and much higher than they were in Canada).  Per use costs are much lower here than the US (the deductable on my insurance in the US was $2000).  Here it costs 20 Euros to see a GP, 100 Euros for x-rays, and part of that is reimbursed.  Dental is covered in universal health care, and drug costs are practically nothing here.  A couple of times I've had to make an appointment with a GP or a dentist for the same day.  I had to call two or three different offices in my neighbourhood to get a same-day appointment (I live in Paris, so there's a reasonable density here).  In contrast, my sister has lived in small town New Brunswick for over 4 years, and finally got to see a GP about 6 months ago.

I would say my experience boils down to this:
In France, you pay more monthly, a small fee per use, and have very good service (and more services covered).  In the US, you pay slightly less monthly, much more per use, and service is hit and miss- great in some areas, apalling in others.  In Canada, you pay less monthly and per use, and service is good if you can get it.  Overall, I think the French system has served me best over the years.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

a small fee per use,.....says it all.....the answer!!

 

[a_majoor]

Some interesting observations about Prime Minister Harper. I stand firm in my prediction: a three year term in office to start.

Mark Steyn: A Howardesque leader
Have your say, email The Forum theforum@theaustralian.com.au
25jan06

A SAD day for Michael Moore. In the event of a terrible tragedy, the corpulent anti-corporate crusader is wont, like the Queen and Kofi Annan, to issue a formal statement to the world. And his "Michael Moore Statement On Canadian Election" made distressing reading: "Oh, Canada - you're not really going to elect a Conservative majority on Monday, are you? That's a joke, right?"

Well, no. In a very Canadian kind of revolution, we rose up yesterday and threw the bums out but gave them a soft, fluffy landing, nevertheless installing in office a minority government that somehow managed to get itself elected despite having the word "Conservative" in its name.

For Tories, it was a good night, if not a great night. But, given that the party was reduced to two seats in the 1993 debacle, after 12 years in the wilderness most Canadian conservatives will take a strong minority government as a spectacular landslide. We'd be dipping our voting fingers in maple syrup and triumphantly waving them at the UN observers if they hadn't all fallen asleep 20 minutes into the thrilling election-night coverage.

For the past century, Canada's ruling Liberals have been the democratic world's most consistently successful political party. This time round, mired in a series of scandals that were turning Canada into the G7's first Third World kleptocracy, the flailing Trudeaupians adopted an even more ferocious version of their usual strategy: scare the voters back to Nanny. As the Liberals warned Canadians - or, rather, shrieked at them - Stephen Harper will take away "a woman's right to choose"! The unwanted boys you'll be forced to have will grow up to be Bush cannon fodder in Iraq, and the unwanted girls will be sold as white slaves for Halliburton corporate cocktail parties round the pool at Dick Cheney's ranch.

Well, that's certainly why I voted Conservative, but it's hard to believe many of my fellow Canadians (and even my fellow Quebecers) felt the same way. South of the border, Michael Moore wasn't the only one shocked by Liberal attack ads painting Scary Stephen as a Bush-loving neocon warmonger who'll slash and gut Canada's lavish social programs. For the past two weeks, American radio hosts have been asking me, with drooling anticipation: "Wow! Tell us about this great guy, Stephen Harper!"

And then I'd take a deep breath and try to explain that, no, he's not Canada's Thatcher or Reagan. But, with a bit of luck, he might be Canada's John Howard. Not in the sense that he's a blunt, no-nonsense, plain speaker: that seems to have been bred out of our political DNA, alas. Howard is an ordinary bloke, but he's not bland. By comparison, Harper is not just unexciting, he's unexciting even by Canadian standards! As he told a meeting in Ontario the other day, "Bland sells."

Apparently it does. Even "the politics of personal destruction" (in Bill Clinton's phrase) depends on a certain basic plausibility. Canada's Liberal Party produced at one point an unintentionally hilarious attack ad intended to suggest that Scary Stephen's unexceptional proposal for some modest reorganisation of the military was a covert plan to introduce martial law.

It began with an ominous drumbeat and then, in urgent staccato typewriter script over a close-up of the Tory leader: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. [Drumbeat] Soldiers with guns. In our cities. [Drumbeat] In Canada. We did not make this up. [Drumbeat] Choose your Canada." Rimshot! You might conceivably make this pitch work super-imposed over a close-up of certain hatchet-faced politicians. But it's hard to get away with "Aaaaieee! Here comes the right-wing death-beast!" and then show a picture of a fellow who looks like one of the more avuncular back-up singers on The Andy Williams Christmas Show. By the end of the campaign the Liberals were sounding more than a little unhinged - but, to an extent, it worked, at least in the sense that it terrified enough of the base back into the polling booths to prevent a meltdown.

Obviously I wish he really were as scary a right-wing death-beast as the Liberals say he is, but there's no point pretending that's what the Canadian electorate wants. John O'Sullivan, a former editor of National Review and Thatcher's long-time adviser, observed that post-war Canadian history is summed up by the old Monty Python song, "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK", which begins as a robust paean to the manly virtues of a rugged life in the north woods but ends with the lumberjack having gradually morphed into some transvestite pick-up singing that he likes to "wear high heels, suspenders and a bra" and "dress in women's clothing and hang around in bars".

I'm not saying Canadian men are literally cross-dressers - certainly no more than 35, 40 per cent of us are - but nonetheless a nation that in 1945 had the fourth-largest armed forces in the world has undergone such a total makeover that it's now a country that prioritises the secondary impulses of society - government health care, government day care, rights and entitlements from cradle to grave - over all the primary ones.

As I said, Scary Stephen's no Ron or Maggie. But as a young man in the '80s he was spurred into politics by his clear understanding - unlike most so-called Canadian "conservatives" - that his country had missed out on Thatcher-Reagan economic liberalisation. Essentially, he's a political economist with a libertarian streak: he thinks that if you leave taxpayers with more of their money they're more likely to spend it in ways that do more social good than letting the government disburse it.

And here's where I think Harper could prove Howardesque. He shares two of the Australian Prime Minister's great qualities: he's very secure in his sense of himself, and he has a very shrewd sense of what's politically possible. If he plays those cards right - and I'd bet he will - he could be, as Howard has been, one of those unflamboyantly transformative leaders who leaves the political landscape significantly altered.

I can't claim to know Stephen Harper well. But a couple of years ago, at some international confab, I introduced him to a British cabinet minister as "leader of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition", neglecting to specify the realm. From the momentarily startled look on his face, the Blairite bigwig seemed to think I was introducing him to that week's UK Tory leader. British Conservatives should be so lucky. A month before all those American radio hosts started badgering me about Stephen Harper, they were badgering me about this new guy in Britain - I forget his name, but he's very cool and glamorous, full of charisma. Ginger Spice, I think. No, hang on, Austin Powers.

Well, anyway, whatever the Brit guy's name is, the UK Tories have done what a lot of parties do: pick a great personality and then see if they can order him up a political philosophy from room service. John Howard in Australia proves that's the wrong way round to do it, and so I think will Stephen Harper.

And, if over the next few years Canada upgrades its presence on the international scene from "All But Invisible" to a functioning member of the Anglosphere, that will be all to the good, too.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian, is a columnist for Canada's Western Standard, Maclean's magazine and a regular contributor to The Australian's opinion page.