comparative politics

This news out of the UK this week seems familiar for Canadian observers: “Labour could be ruined by proposed cap on political donations.” Limits on political party donations are being looked at in Britain at the moment and Labour would suffer the most if a cap were to be brought in to the system:

Labour could face financial ruin under plans being developed to cap the biggest donations to political parties, a Guardian analysis shows.

The independent standards watchdog is said to have agreed to recommend a new limit on donations, introducing an annual cap with figures ranging from £50,000 to £10,000 being considered. Such a move, in an attempt to clean up political funding, would end the six- and seven-figure donations to the Labour party from its union sponsors, as well as the Tories’ reliance on the richest city financiers.

An analysis of five and a half years’ worth of donations to the parties reveals the move would most dramatically affect Labour’s funding base. If the £50,000 limit had been in place over the period, Labour’s donations would have been reduced by 72%, the Conservatives’ by 37% and the Liberal Democrats’ by 25%.

A source close to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has been reviewing the party funding system and is due to report in October, said it was trying to find a way to impose a cap without bankrupting any one party.

Now that’s good of them to try to avoid “bankrupting” any one party! The Brits are so civilized. No such considerations in play in Canada where our Conservatives have begun to dismantle our public subsidies of political parties and which could have grave financial consequences for the other parties.

There is a minority government situation in place in the UK though and the Lib Dems are saying no dice to such a change that would bring severe consequences for one party:

A Liberal Democrat spokesman insisted that the coalition would not impose a deal on the parties. “The history of party funding reform is littered with corpses. You have to do it in consultation with the other parties,” the spokesman said.

Yes, ideally. It detracts from the self-interested partisan taint of going it alone, particularly when certain parties’ interests are placed above others.

A publicly funded system is being considered as well although with Britain’s hyped up austerity mood, it’s not clear that a public system could be sold or that the Tories would want any part in selling it. The argument could well be made, however, that at such times it’s even more imperative to have a system free from moneyed influences.

Something to watch, to see what they come up with for comparison’s sake and for possible future reform in Canada in particular (the Harper Conservatives won’t be in government forever). Presumably it will not proceed with the result being forecast, with Labour taking the brunt of the reform’s fallout given the Lib Dem pledge. But we do know that irrespective of how integral many of us view viable political parties to our democratic health, that sentiment doesn’t necessarily prevail when matched up against partisan opportunism.

Notes from north of 49ºN

I remember how my parents said that RFK was accused of being a carpetbagger, coming to New York to become a US Senator in 1964.  Now that Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, finds his Conservative Party down in the polls by 5% {35-30%}, attack ads are being run tantamount to accusing the Liberal Party leader, Michael Ignatieff, of being a Canadian “outsider.”  The ads accuse Ignatieff of coming back to Canada after being gone for 34 years::

The Conservatives are really slipping in the polls in Québec, so you think they would come up with a more engaging attack ad than this one in French.

This one paints Ignatieff as a carpetbagging opportunist, living in the UK and referring to himself as American::

The Liberals may be further undermined by attacks from the Bloc Québécois in Québec, which has 24% of the population in Canada.  Support for the Bloc is upwards of 40% in Québec, while Liberal support in the province is around 35%.

I find the anglophone ads to be rather effective at conveying the frame of Ignatieff as a elitist outsider.  I agree with the pundits that Harper is fighting for his political life and managed to get into a feud with Brian Mulroney, a conservative blast from the past.  Conservatism seems to be lacking cohesiveness on both sides of 49ºN.

While another Federal election is unlikely in the near term, it’s likely to pressure uneasy alliances between the Conservatives, the Bloc, and even the left-leaning NDP {read:: concessions by Harper?}.

HatTip:: LinnyQat

Twitterversion:: Harper {Tories} attcks Ignatieff {Grits} on nationalism frame. H. fighting 4 political life, Grits gaining. Strange bedfellows in store?

Song:: Jay-Z “Takeover”

Takeover – Jay-Z

Notes from north of 49ºN

While the Vancouver Canucks advance in their bid for the Stanley Cup, the British Columbia provincial election is heating up, as the NDP has pulled within 2 points (39/41 +/- 3.4) of the not-so-liberal BC Liberal Party.  The Green Party is running a distant third at 13%.

One of the big election issues is the Carbon Tax, which is a tax on pollution.  It puts a price on the social costs of environmental degradation {negative externalities}.  The carbon tax was initiated last year in BC, which should give Obama insights into his plans to address carbon reduction.  {Obama’s already talking of a nationwide “cap and trade” policy.}

BC Carbon Tax & The Economic Sociology of the Environment

The BC carbon tax claims to be revenue neutral, meaning it returns the tax in the form of lower personal and corporate income tax.  The tax shuffles funds around in the following manner where one-third of the carbon tax revenues are paid by individuals and two-thirds by industry, while two-thirds of the tax reductions benefit individuals and one-third benefit business.  A fairness issue arises, as some businesses can pass the tax along to consumers, depending on the elasticity of demand.  The carbon tax is initially (effective 7/1/08) $10 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions (2.41¢ per litre on gasoline), but will increase each year after until 2012 to a final price of $30 per tonne (7.2¢ per litre).  For US readers, this is currently 7.68¢ US per gallon of gasoline and will go up to 22.9¢ in 2012 (4/30/2009 exchange rate).

One of the issues brought up is that while the BC Liberal Party is imposing a tax on pollution, it’s allowing the export of carbon-producing fuels to leave the province untaxed.  In addition, the government is allowing offshore drilling for oil as part of their energy policy.  This is opening up the BC Liberals to charges of hypocrisy.

So, in the past 10 months, what has been the effect?  I think it’s impossible to gauge the results, given that gasoline prices have gone down and the BC economy is in a recession, although with lower unemployment than Washington, Oregon, and California.  I have to admit I am skeptical that the BC Liberal’s  carbon tax policy will actually reduce carbon emissions.  Why?  This Canadian Dimension editorial introduces a paradox::

“By way of comparison, the average retail price of gas in Canada, adjusted for inflation, has risen forty percent in the past five years. The increase is the equivalent of $120 per tonne of emissions — four times as much as the maximum tax proposed in B.C.

But consumption did not decline. In fact, during the same period both gasoline sales and greenhouse-gas emissions rose to record levels…

In short, the B.C. carbon tax is regressive, shifting ever more of the province’s tax burden onto working people, while reducing taxes on corporations. It will do nothing to cut emissions or slow global warming.”–“B.C.’s Carbon Tax: A Regressive Hoax” from Canadian Dimension (4/30/2008)

How can this be?  Are the economists that off-base?

As an economic sociologist, with a BA in the dismal science, I know at least some of the answers.  Increasing prices through a Pigouvian tax without consumption/production alternatives offers no incentives to alter behaviour away from carbon emitting activities.

A Northwestern sociologist, Monica Prasad, offered this interesting observation::

“The one country in which carbon taxes have led to a large decrease in emissions is Denmark, whose per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15 percent lower in 2005 than in 1990. And Denmark accomplished this while posting a remarkably strong economic record and without relying on nuclear power.”

—“On Carbon, Tax and Don’t Spend,” NYT (3/25/08)

How did Denmark do it?  According to Prasad, Danish policymakers subsidized environmental innovation by businesses and investing heavily in alternatives.  The idea here is to give incentives to move consumers and businesses away from carbon emission generating technologies towards renewable ones.  As a sociologist, I’m wary of talk of “pricing” carbon, as it attempts to reduce natural capital (i.e., the environment) with financial capital and the assignment of property rights, politicizing economic activity along the lines of power and wealth.  I’d much rather see policy aimed at moving towards a different technological curve, away from carbon, along with an increase in investments in public infrastructure (e.g., mass transit in cities/suburbs) that offers alternatives to carbon-heavy practices.

The Politics of Carbon: “Axe the Tax”

Carole James, leader of the NDP, has been advocating dumping the carbon tax in favour of a “cap and trade” approach, the direction Obama is leaning towards.  The NDP “axe the tax” stance was costing them politically, despite the tax being unpopular, as environmental groups criticized the move.  In this election, there are 85 seats up for grabs.  While the Green Party may siphon off votes from the NDP, it is very unlikely that a single seat will go to the Greens.  Given the overall BC Liberal Party stance on the environment, environmentalists may have a tough choice on May 12.  The carbon tax may fade away as a key issue, as the economy and issues of ethics and integrity might come front and center, but perhaps the economy and the environment will become an intertwined issue.

I’d like to see policies in BC and elsewhere move towards weaning citizens away from carbon.  A recent Wired Magazine article  goes over many of the issues involved in green technologies, including who will pay for the costs of innovation.  I think the BC Liberal carbon tax isn’t the best policy, as I don’t see it reducing carbon emissions and is mute on carbon-emitting fuels being exported and untaxed.  Whichever party wins, I see the BC government as playing a key role in spurring behavior changes through investments and incentives, but who will foot the bill, particularly given a tight budget?

• What are your thoughts on a carbon tax?  (In BC or even in the US)
• What are your thoughts on policies that create incentives for businesses & residences to adopt new greener technologies or retrofit carbon-based ones?
• Should policy focus on investing in new green technologies?  How much should government foot the bill? Should green be linked to economic recovery plans?
• What would the candidates & the “Fake Tweeple” candidates say?

So, I never blogged a follow up to the Canadian election in October.  The Tories (Conservatives) won with Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.  The Liberals were licking their wounds and their leader, Stephane Dion (no relation to Celine), looked like he was on the way out.

Canadian politics is usually fairly bland (although, what do I know, eh?), ever since Pierre Trudeau left office.  Part of the political lore up there is Trudeau’s “fuddle duddle” incident, where he mouthed obscenities to the shock and horror of those on the business end of such conduct: 

Well, things are heating up and it all started with Stephen Harper riling the other parties by threatening to cut Federal public campaign funding, framed as a cost-cutting manœuvre.  Apparently, he didn’t learn from an earlier gaffe when his office went on record as supporting arts funding cuts in early autumn.  So, the perception has been building that Harper’s approach to solving financial woes is to cut funding to constituencies that don’t support him anyway.

When I was in Toronto last week, there was a huge buzz about the Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc Quebécois forming a coalition with the intent of ousting Harper.  He backed down on the campaign financing cuts, but it was too late.  Worries about the economy, which ironically helped the Conservatives win in October, fueled the opposition’s lack of confidence in Harper’s budget and economic plan in Parliament.

In just seven short weeks, Harper went from leading a minority government (plurality of seats, but not a majority), to being on the verge of getting ousted through a “no confidence vote,” which would effectively unseat him as Prime Minister.  What to do, oh what to do?  Would Harper be accused of crying to “mama and to television,” as Trudeau accused the Tories of in the early 70s?  What to do, indeed!

Lock the doors!

In a strange twist, he convinced the Governor General, Michaelle Jean, a role that is usually just ceremonial (tip of the hat to the UK monarchy), to suspend Parliament until the end of January, giving Harper time to stall a “no confidence” vote and to create an economic stimulus package.  This quote from an AP article notes:

“A governor general has never been asked to suspend Parliament to delay an ouster vote when it was clear the government didn’t have the confidence of a majority of legislators.

‘There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth,’ Constitutional scholar and Queen’s University political scientist Ned Franks said. ‘We are in uncharted territory.'”

With Parliament suspended, the coalition cannot form and how Harper and the Conservative MPs (ministers members of Parliament) are scrambling on a massive PR blitz to gain support of the people.  Some might argue that the suspension is anti-democratic, while others are saying that it was unlikely that a stable coalition government could be formed by the Liberals (centre left), New Democrats (socialist), and Bloc Quebécois (Quebéc nationalists).

Of course, as someone from the US, I find all of this Governor General (GG) stuff odd.  My thoughts for a while have been to wean off the monarchy thing, particularly in light of Quebéc separatism sentiments.

It’s one thing to have QEII, but does Canada really want Charles’ mug on the legal tender?  Although unlikely, what if it came to this character as UK head of state?

I’m rather curious about how this turns out…

Canada is set to vote in less than two weeks on October 14th.  It’s a parliamentary system, so voter choices at the representative level (MP=member of Parliament) in each district (riding) determine who the prime minister is.  The major parties are the Conservatives (far right & center-right), Liberals (center-left), New Democratic Party (left), Bloc Quebécois (regional), & the Greens.  The Bloc is a Quebéc-only party that has fallen out of favor this year.  The big issue this year is whether the Conservatives can get a majority government.  Currently, they have a minority government but with over 50% of the ridings (155 seats), they can get a majority, which means they would have much more power.

We’ve been talking about frames a lot, so let’s see how these play out in Canadian satire using kids to portray the party leaders.  Rick Mercer is in the same vein as Stewart/Colbert and a friend at Ipsos in Vancouver sent the following video around.  The players & some perceptions:

• Stephen Harper:  Conservative & leader of minority government (“W”-like, from the oil-rich west [Alberta], hoping for a majority, emphasizing the economy and “stay the course” mentality, leader of party doing well in the polls now, good at framing & evading)
• Stephane Dion: Liberal (embraced green issues & carbon taxes, nerdy/egghead reputation, has French accent and is linked to past separatist sentiments in Quebéc, leader of a party suffering from weakness now)
• Jack Layton: NDP (strength metaphor, charismatic, resurgence since Liberal party has faltered)
• Elizabeth May: Green (seen as splitting the vote on the left)

The latest polls show that the Conservatives will likely win, but fall short of a majority.  The NDP was hoping to be second, but they’re unlikely to overtake the Liberals.  The election will be decided by 45 “battleground ridings.”  I’ve been following this election since I spend summers in Toronto and figuring out Canadian politics.  I must admit that I find the US election cycle fatiguing… January 2007 – November 2008.  In contrast, this Canadian election season officially started on September 7, 2008 when Parliament was dissolved.