As always, eternal verities, except for dog walks and pots of tea, rather disappear the closer you get to them.
Campbell didn't so much win the BC election (the Liberals lost the previous BC election largely because of fear and loathing for Campbell personally) rather, the NDP (mild Social Democrats) imploded after 8 years, with a completely discredited Premier (under charges for corruption), an exhausted and demoralized set of MLA's, and a party which had completely run out of ideas and energy. Keith's dog running for AB-NDP (Anything But the NDP) would have won in a similar landslide. What's interesting of course, is that a similar implosion destroyed the previous right wing Government (complete with Premier under charges for corruption) 8 years hence. The lurches from right to left to right are a (sad) characteristic of BC politics and are a source of appalled amazement to many (most) BC taxpayers, and in the current instance are causing very serious concern in all political camps in the Province. (Campbell's approval rating is currently roughly half what it was six months ago at the time of the election.) Certainly BC isn't doing all that well economically at the moment, but what is happening there has a lot more to do with ideology (and some are arguing, Campbell's personal socio-pathologies) than with a reasoned response to specific circumstances--which I take it was Ed's earlier point. MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: February 6, 2002 3:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: British Columbia (was Re: Economics) Hi Ed, I read the item in The Economist that you refer to below and the decisions of Gordon Campbell and the Liberals in British Columbia do indeed seem drastic. However, in this fast-changing world, impelled as it is with accelerating innovations and their economic consequences, remedial actions by governments in trouble need to be swift also. This is particularly necessary when a new government is elected with (in your words) "a huge majority", (in The Economist's words) "a landslide victory". "Medium-term solutions", much beloved and publicised by our own dear ex-Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, will no longer do -- as Greenspan has acknowledged in his decisions in the last 15 months or so. Lack of quick decisions (that is, with quick results), as evidenced in Japan and Argentina, carry the danger of not only accelerating the problem but also of bringing about deep demoralisation of the electorate. Middle-class Argentinians are already taking to the streets and I don't think it won't be long before the Japanese will, too. What puzzles me is why your comments should have been triggered by the quote of Keynes to Hayek (below). When Keynes was saying that some politicians want planning in order to serve the devil, he was agreeing with Hayek's apprehensions that the Labour Party in England might bring in a sufficient level of planning which would then bring about the sort of totalitarian society that was taking place in Stalin's Soviet Russia. I don't understand why this should have triggered your characterisation of Gordon Campbell's "cut, slash and burn" policies as not planning. They sound like de-planning to me, or perhaps de-over-planning. Keith (Keynes writing to Hayek) <<<< "I should...conclude rather differently. I should say that what we want is not no planning, or even less planning, indeed I should say we almost certainly want more. But the planning should take place in a community in which as many people as possible, both leaders and followers, wholly share your own moral position. Moderate planning will be safe enough if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their own minds and hearts to the moral issue. This is in fact already true of some of them. But the curse is that there is also an important section who could be said to want planning not in order to enjoy its fruits, but because morally they hold ideas exactly the opposite of yours and wish to serve not God but the devil." >>>> (EW) <<<< To that I would say Amen! We have a situation in one of our provinces, British Columbia, in which a new government, imbued with neo-liberal righteousness, took power with a huge majority last year. With nothing one could identify as planning, they have proceeded to cut, slash and burn. Naturally, they want to balance the budget immediately, despite initiating a huge tax cut. To accomplish this, they have cut services to the poor and elderly, proceeded to lay off 11,000 public servants, torn up contracts with teachers and health administrators, decimated their courts, jails and highway maintenance systems, and generally behaved like madmen with axes in their hands and blindfolds over their eyes. Their mantra: "Gumint is bad; free enterpise is good". (See page 33 of the Feb 2 Economist for more on this.) >>>> __________________________________________________________ Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say. John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
