Proof Doug Ford Doesn't Believe in the Free Market

"There are some great tree removal companies for sure but I think some of these tree guys are gouging people," said Ford.  "After everything these people have already been through, it's just not right."

So there are some tree removal companies offering a square deal and some who aren't.  How is this "just not right?"  

Clearly, the people who offer the better deal are going to get business; the gougers won't, and therefore will either have to adjust their fees or go out of business (or spend more on misleading advertizing promoting themselves and demonizing their competition).

It's basic free market economics - if a service has value, then more people will want to pay for it, meaning more people will offer it, leading to competition.  As we all know, competition leads to better value-for-money.  

Which, naturally, is why Conservatives are all in favour of equitable competition, transparency of information, debate, so on and so forth.

Then there's this whole "after what people have been through, it's just not right" nonsense.  Look, we're talking about big boys and girls, right?  If they did what they should have, they planned ahead, got insurance, made sure not to have mature trees on their lawn that could drop branches on their roofs, so on and so forth.  Employers played smart and had work-from-home plans in place in case of storms.  

So what if the power went out?  Folks who were prepared had generators and knew better than to buy into the whole leftist, anti-independent functioning crowd and their carbon monoxide talk.  People need to learn to live within their means, spend their money wisely and in a forward-thinking manner; reliance on the State in times of hardship is childish.  Falling victim to gougers, con-artists and their ilk is just a sign of stupidity, and we've no need for this sort of person in the first place.

Because if you're against social housing, welfare, public healthcare, market regulation, organized labour and everything that Doug Ford proudly stands against, then it applies equally to city-wide emergencies as it does to individual ones.

This is the key thing that hard-right Conservatives constantly fail to recognize; there are always people in crisis out there, just as there will always be more broadly impacting crises down the road.  In fact, the more individuals are stuck scraping by day-to-day, the less able we all are to manage big challenges like floods and epidemics.
You can't help your neighbour when you're just getting by yourself.  It also doesn't matter how wealthy you are, if a bad flu bug hits, you're just as vulnerable as the poor person.  The more poverty there is, in fact, the more vulnerable everyone is.

All the public services they stand against exist to help everyone in crisis, whatever and whenever their crisis may come.  Without them, we lack flexibility to adapt and become easier pickings to the gougers and cons.

Yes, we need to do a better job of coordinating and evaluating these services, but the answer isn't cuts but integration.  That's what Open Government, in fits and spurts, is trying to do.

It's good that Doug Ford has recognized the fallacy of the Free Market in times a time of wide-spread crisis; the question is whether he'll internalize this lesson and carry it forward.  The next time social housing, youth programming or emergency funds hit the headlines, we'll have our answer.

E-Government: Progressively Winning Canada

 “We are very conservative about compliance with all privacy laws. But even if you’re following the law, you can do things where people get queasy.”

 

Consider:

 

Governments at all levels are taking a hard look at how services can be delivered more effectively.

 

Canadians see the private sector as innovators of service delivery.

 

People are expected to continue using traditional channels (telephone, in-person, mail) but frequency of use is expected to decline.

 

Like it or not, a growing chunk of our lives are lived remotely, through keyboards and touchscreens.  Progressive thinkers like Don Tapscott look at the failings of our current service delivery models and the usage trends of youth and see opportunity.  Conservative thinkers like Andrew Keen fear an erosion of self and society. 

 

Those who see opportunity march forward to seize it.  Those who fear change put up walls and cling fast to the fading reality of yesterday.  If you were to chart this trend out, it would look like this:

 

Now, look at this trend through the lens of politics. 

 

The people on the far left - the innovators - are ahead of the curve, literally. If it's new, they're not only on it - they're trying to do one better.  Their hypomanic edge gives them the drive, the fearlessness and the sheer creative potential to build things that have never existed before.  These are the Mark Zuckerbergs, the Steve Jobs' and yes, the Chris Mazzas of the world, roman candles burning in the void, lighting the way forward.  These people chafe under restraint, rules, red tape, the yoke of consequence.  They want the freedom to do and if they vote, it's likely to be for whoever gives them space to build their legacy.

 

These are also the folk that produce dotcom bubble bursts and ORNGE.  Left completely to their own devices, they will fail the marshmellow test time and again, then use charm, deceit or threats to avoid accountability.

 

The people on the far right - the conservatives - are at the tail end of the curve, trying to wag the dog with their pleas for stasis.  They decry change as an erosion of the good world that has been and view Progress as synonymous with the Fall of Man.  There is no system to these social laggards, no evolution - just individuals in competition.  They want freedom to be, as they are, and if they vote, it'll be for whoever validates their silo-based world view and leaves them alone.
 

These are the people who fear not just change, but also difference.  Right off the bat, they will view the unfamiliar as threatening; their instinctive reaction to these perceived threats will  be to flee or fight.  If it comes to a fight, it'll be one to the finish - when you see the world as silos, you see others as alien, justifying whatever action is required to get the job done.  The marshmallow test?  Fear will almost always keep them from temptation.

 

Everyone between these poles, the so-called political mushy middle, are social consumers.  Depending on their genetics and life history, they can vacillate between the two extremes, generally looking to strike a balance between the bold, new and risky and the safe, static status quo. They won't want to be left behind, but they won't want to be first out the gate, either. They simply want the chance to participate in a meaningful, rewarding way.

 

 As they get on in life, these political centrists will become increasingly comfortable with the system they have grown up with, or fearful that change might bring uncomfortable uncertainty.  Unless, of course, that system is one prone to improvements, upgrades and a continuous series of status gold-stars that come with being an early adopter.

 

So what does this have to do with e-Government?

 

The Harper Government is emblematic of Canadian democratic institutions - it rests in the Late Majority phase of the spectrum, increasingly shifting from anything resembling bold towards shoring up its holdings.  An exanding amount of public resources are being allocated for that purpose, in fact. 

 

The same holds true of the Private Sector in Canada - hiring is decent on front-line service and widget-building positions but innovation - and as a result, productivity - is lagging.  Our social infrastructure is outdated, underfunded and unaccommodating.  Canada is becoming more conservative, which is why we are starting to fall behind other jurisdictions in terms of new potential.  As the world changes, it's becoming clear that the all-eggs-in-one-basket approach is going to fail, yet again, as it always does.

 

On the other end of the spectrum are the social entrepreneurs, the engineers of tomorrow's online infrastructure - they are pushing envelopes, diversifying, expanding, churning out new code for consumption.  When these folk get the financial traction to turn ideas into products, the people, also known as the voters, are buying it up.

 

They like the Internet.  They like new technology.  Increasingly, they want to use new technology and the Internet to access public services, with two caveats - they want it to be efficient and they want ownership of their own content.

 

At the front-end of this wave are the traditional early adapters, youth - people who aren't voting so much these days in no small part because they don't see their world reflected in the white-wig reality of our outdated political institutions.

 

How do progressives earn, entice, woo these youth votes?  How to they inspire the early and late majorities to hop on the progressive bandwagon?  Not by appealing to the laggards with the tribal approach and go-for-the-gut tactics that have fueled the conservative movement federally and in jurisdictions like Toronto - you don't win races by running backwards to the starting gate.

 

You do it by leading from the front.

 

So yeah - e-Government. 

 

Progressives need to stop seeing themselves as competing tribes and instead recognize progress itself as a movement that, when they push forward at just the right pace (but not so hard as to burn themselves out), they can lead.  This means offering competing visions of what Canada's Digital Future will look like and developing/beta-testing that future with their own internal infrastructure.  Online, map-based social service platforms are a good way to go.  So too is the Hub World model frequently found in video games.

 

These sorts of innovative approaches are fun, bold and by their very nature, require the support of innovators - who are looking to create new things, anyway.  That's the first slice of the market covered.  Then, start discussing how these online models can actually support and enhance private-sector innovation; like a garden, the role of government is to create the right infrastructure to allow sustainable growth, not to impede it.  Smart business folk understand this concept already and will be supportive of initiatives that demonstrably allow them to flourish.  Now, you're into the magic zone where a trickle of an idea becomes the tidal wave of a movement - the mushy middle will want to be part of the change, too - they'll be afraid not to. 

 

Those that are afraid of change in the first place?  Well, they're not progressives in the first place, are they?  Done correctly, e-government will benefit the laggards despite making them uncomfortable.  That's certainly better than what we have now, where the laggards lead and the majority get left behind.

 

For anyone reading the tea leaves, the emerging trend lines are clear, as are the causes behind them.  If progressives are really looking for a win, they have to get passed the queasiness they're feeling about the massive changes required of them in how they operate - not by breaking laws and spreading themselves out flat, but by breaking their self-imposed glass ceilings and reaching higher.

 

It's risky.  It's unprecedented.  It's uncomfortable.  But progress always is.

 

The question for progressive players in Canada, then, is who's content to be a RIM - and who wants to be the Apple?

 

Republicans Need to Look to Canada to See How Conservatives Can Win (John Ibbitson)

Alas, the Globe & Mail is telling me my free online access is coming to an end, which means I won't be able to read and help promote their stories much longer.  Lessons abound for everyone, I guess...

 

 

Canadian political strategists of every stripe regularly travel to the United States in search of the latest tips, techniques and technology for winning elections. It’s time to reverse the flow.

 

Republicans need to come to Canada, to learn how a Conservative government has put together the very coalition that eludes the GOP, which has now lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential contests.

 

What do Conservatives get that Republicans don’t? In a word: immigrants. It’s fascinating to study how and why.

 

Dick Morris, the rabidly conservative pundit and pollster, confidently predicted that Mitt Romney would win a landslide for the Republicans right up until the polls closed, Tuesday. Wednesday, he ate crow.

 

“I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to ‘normal’ levels,” he wrote. “Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.”

 

As Mr. Morris accurately (for once) observed, African Americans accounted for 13 per cent of the vote on Nov. 6; 10 per cent of the vote was Latino; 19 per cent was cast by voters under 30. All three groups voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, “accounting fully for his victory,” he concluded.

 

Mr. Morris had based his projections on the assumption that the high voter turnout among these groups in 2008 was a temporary phenomenon, caused by excitement over electing America’s first black president. Voting levels among blacks, Hispanics and the young, he confidently predicted, would drift back to previous levels after four years of a presidency that had its share of difficulties.

“I was wrong,” he acknowledged. And then some.

 

Compare this with the Canadian election of 2011. The Conservative coalition in one respect mirrored its Republican counterpart: It was rooted in white male voters in the conservative heartland – in Canada’s case, the Prairies, plus the rural parts of British Columbia and Ontario.

 

But the Conservatives also did well among immigrant voters. In fact, middle-class immigrant voters who dominate the suburban ridings surrounding Toronto and, to a lesser extent, Vancouver were key to the Conservative victory.

 

Of course, the Tories only took 40 per cent of the vote in the last election, so one conclusion the Republicans might draw is that they should encourage a third party that would split progressive support.

 

But the more practical lesson the Republicans could take from the Canadian example is that it is possible for conservatives to win over minority voters by following these two simple steps: 1) Trumpet responsible fiscal conservatism; 2) Lay off everything else.

 

Conservatives, like Republicans, believe in low taxes, minimal regulations and balanced budgets. Many immigrants to Canada are attracted to that message. They came here to escape the corrupt or tyrannical governments of their native land; they are attracted to a party that promises to mind the store and avoid expensive commitments.

 

But Canadian Conservatives, unlike American Republicans, are pro-immigration. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made it his life’s work to win over immigrants to the Conservative cause. Immigration levels have remained robust on the Tory watch.

 

The Republican base, on the other hand, forced Mr. Romney to oppose any reasonable compromise in creating a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, or at least their children. The party at every level presents a hostile face to newcomers. Yes, part of that is because many of them arrive illegally. But the impact on the electoral result is nonetheless proving fatal.

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also avoided promoting socially conservative issues such as abortion or clawing back gay rights. While many immigrants are socially conservative, they also recognize that intolerance toward another minority could also mean intolerance toward them.

 

Bottom line: If Mr. Romney had put forward a Canadian Conservative platform of low taxes, balanced books, robust immigration and social tolerance, he might be on his way to the White House.

There was one result from Tuesday’s election that Canadian political strategists from all parties should consider. Across the Western world, the young represent a smaller share of votes cast than their numbers warrant.

 

But in the United States, that’s no longer the case. In 2008, voters under 30 made up 17 per cent of the American electorate, yet accounted for 18 per cent of votes cast. On Tuesday, they accounted for 19 per cent of the vote, with 60 per cent of them voting Democrat.

 

A new generation of young Americans has decided to become politically engaged, because they believe in Barack Obama and what he stands for.

 

Someday, a politician may emerge in this country who appeals to young Canadians, who embraces their beliefs and who speaks to them through their (social) media. If so, a new generation of Canadian voters could begin to shape the outcome of elections.

 

The question is simply: When and where will that politician appear?

Planning - Why the Fed Tories Success is Evidence of Conservatism's Long-Term Decline

"...voters care about competence, can spot its absence, and punish its lack. "

- Paul Wells

Stephen Harper has never been accused of being warm and fuzzy.   He HAS been called, repeatedly, "very smart."  The facts back this up; through careful planning, skipping short-term wins to focus on the long-term prize and by supporting and accepting support from social/ideological groups that aren't necessarily to his personal liking or interest, he has managed incredible political success.  In the process, he has expanded his tent; his planned firewalls surround increasingly larger and more diverse populations.

Ron Paul has found success by appealing to a certain group of socons. He isn't dumb; what he has difficulty with is taking his social discomforts out of his strategy.  He reacts first, then confabulates justification after.  He may have some rabid followers, but his appeal to fear withers under the light of scrutiny.  Anyone who stops to think about the “and THEN what” feels increasingly uneasy and ultimately, turns away.   This is why he will fail.

Rob Ford, like Sarah Palin before him, is a "maverick." He is governed by instinct and emotion.  Ford believes in himself completely; the lack of rationale behind this confidence is systematically manifesting itself for all and sundry to see both politically and in leaked disclosures from his personal life.  While a lot of folk still confabulate justifications for their support – a far more difficult but emotionally easier task than saying “maybe I was wrong” – Ford’s support is shrinking.  He was voted in on a wave of anger - anger that simply isn't long-term sustainable.

Harper: smart, less emotive/reactive, long-term successful.  Paul: smart, but primarily emotive/reactive - not gonna last long. Ford; all emotive/reactiveness; his win had nothing to do with what he brought to the table and everything to do with the social-pressure/stress-influenced mood of the day.  Beyond these examples, there are countless others of hard-right politicians or candidates who never gain enough traction to be known beyond their own communities.  These folk don’t succeed, period.

I am not a political strategist, but I hear tell strategists spend their hours considering constituency groups worth courting or pissing off for wedge politics, weighing the pros and cons of any given position and plan their strategy and tactics around what the tea leaves tell them.  This is an art, though, not an exact science; great emphasis is placed on what has been seen to work elsewhere, or in the past over increasingly long time frames.

So, look at the long-term trend.  Go back a hundred, a thousand, thousands of years.  What you’ll find is a global, incremental move towards the centre of what we identify as the “right/left” spectrum; increased social responsibility, increased acceptance and nurturance of diversity, diminished violence as a political tool, a gradual slide away from what is now called corruption, but when time was could simply be called “getting ahead.”  Behaviour is becoming more pro-social; the extremes of egocentric behaviour aren’t being considered and discarded, they’re falling off the table entirely.

The reason for this is a combination of cost/benefit analysis informed by inherited experience, facilitated by increased longevity. People want the most bang for their buck; they want to know with increased certainty what’s going to happen next, so that they can plan accordingly.  Planning, to be effective, involves consideration of internal and external dynamics.  This requires the suppression of reactionary instincts and, as Stephen Harper has done, looking for how to achieve the long term goal at occasionally the expense of short-term satisfying but fleeting victories.  We generally distinguish between “emotional” and “smart”; there is even a growing distinction between the accumulation of knowledge and the application of wisdom.  Planning involves cognitive intelligence and suppression of emotion; emotion unchecked leads to poorly considered and ultimately fallible positions.

Here is where it really matters for Conservatives.  The things the Right generally stands for – tough on crime, jobs as the best social program, keeping threats at bay (capital punishment, narrow foreign policy, survival-of-the-fittest competition through free markets and shrinking government) are all emotional issues.  It’s one thing to appeal to these issues, but to capitalize on them and whatever else is going on in the social zeitgeist entails planning and the management of emotions; in the language of the day, thinking smarter.  If you disagree, riddle me this – would Harper ever seriously consider putting capital punishment into his tough-on-crime agenda?  If not, why not?

We may go through boom and bust cycles, but the bottoms keep getting shallower and the highs, higher – or the reverse, depending on which part of your brain you consider the matter with.

There are sociological, biological, even genetic rationales that further explain the whyfors of this trend, but the trend itself is clear – the more people plan, particularly at the social leader class, the less reactive and more proactive (which is as good a definition for "smarter" as any) they become. 

Tories of today have every right to claim themselves as the Party of the Centre – because the extremes from which they started no longer exist.