For Europe, Against the EU

There is no doubt that the European Union had become a political hot potato.

In the last few decades, the powers that the European Union had taken are considerable as the EU had become another level of government.

I do not believe that everything in the EU is bad. No doubt that a real free trade bloc without borders as big as the EU is good. Instead of building walls like in many other places in the world, the Schengen Accord had erased borders. Of course, no doubt that building free trade and exchange between European countries had made peace something sustainable, at least in theory. War and protectionism are not foreign at all one at each other.

But the rest of the EU is far more negative in scope, the EU had become an industry, another gravy train which is continental in scope. It’s also had become a maelstrom of laws, of directives and of an economical policy which is suicidal which have nothing to do about free trade. In fact, it had become economical planning at it’s best.

Many (as myself) were naive about the Euro more than ten years ago, but there is no doubt that the Euro had been a failure because of a basic economic principle, which is that having different currencies bring a comparative advantage for two people trading between two countries with different currencies. The problem with the Euro is also that nobody know exactly what will happens if any country will opt-out of the system.

People in countries like Greece also become captive of a system where everybody in the European Union is paying the price. As Germany is the main superpower in the Eurozone, it has no choice to impose a trusteeship. There is no doubt that the political class in Greece was foolish and living beyond their means which is something that few politicians would ever admit, but the Euro had made a bad situation worse, even through that devaluating a national currency is not something which happens without consequences as a quick-fix policy.

A choice will have to be made about the EU sooner then later. There is the path of a closer union, which will leads to one-size-fits-all social policies from Athens to Stockholm in order to achieve a more sustainable currency union. The other path is sadly one which have sleazy actors who are involved, who consider collectivism and nationalism to be their main reason for opposing the EU, while others on the far-left who strangely believe that the EU is a free-market conspiracy when it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Of course, political actors on both sides love the EU when they are part of the gravy train to get perks for themselves.

I am personally a Euro-realist as I believe that Europe (at opposed with the European Union) as a concept is strong due to massive progress in the last decades in transportation, commerce and communications. I also think that free markets, less barriers, less protectionism and more trade will make all Europeans more prosperous, but I am scared that this gravy train fueled by the European Union will at the end, makes everyone in Europe poorer, more frustrated and less open to the world.

What the UK could learn about Quebec’s education system on »grammar » schools

The question of grammar schools had been an hot topic in British politics for many decades. Should they be reinstated (or not) like they were decades ago as a meritocratic tool to achieve social mobility?

Let me talk to you about a system that I know quite well, which is the education system in Quebec (a Canadian province). It’s far from a perfect education system and many things done in British education system (such as free schools for example) should  be put forward as ideas in the Quebec’s education system.

Like in the UK, many reforms in education in Quebec done in the last few years were atrocious both for students and teachers. High school dropout rates are also much too high in Quebec and this will bring big problems  in the future. However, one interesting thing is that they are a lot of quasi-grammar schools which are owned by organisations or religious orders.  They are in a way semi-private schools, they usually have fees but they are usually affordable even for people of modest means. These schools had also become a shield against a sometimes unpredictable public education system, while forcing public high schools to reform and try to attract students in new ways. 

But why these schools are existing as the exact opposite of the situation in  the rest of North America?  It was an accident of history. Before the 1960’s, education in Quebec was usually a responsibility of the Church and of religious orders as Quebec (and French Canada in general) was a very Catholic society akin to the Irish Republic. In the 1960’s, reforms were done both by the Liberal and Union Nationale governments during the Quiet Revolution, and a formal ministry of education was formed and comprehensive schools (known as polyvalentes in Canadian French) were created.  But the problem is that these comprehensive schools were not quite ready to accommodate all the students after the massive baby boom after the Second World War, so the Quebec government (education is a provincial responsibility in Canada) have decided to fund partly fee-paying schools if they accept to comply to a few standards as a temporary measure. Of course, parents who send their children in these schools will also have to pay the education tax (which is paid with Quebec’s version of the council tax called the municipal tax) to fund the public system of education on top of school fees (which remains quite modest).

You may think why these schools had never been removed their funding by the state? It’s very difficult to know exactly why, but one interesting theory is these schools were able to form a meritocracy. Decades passing by, this had made removing the subsidies to fee-paying school no less than a political suicide. Some people who come from modest backgrounds were able to achieve social mobility because that went to good high schools which choose their students with entrance exams on Year 6 (like British grammar schools) while keeping costs affordable. Even in the political arena, when you have a minister of (public) education who have sent her children to a fee-paying school, it’s difficult to argue against the quality of these schools. Some are no better than average public comprehensive schools, but other had forced comprehensive schools to find new ways to innovate, by offering for example, the International Baccalaureate or things which are similar to a fee-paying school. 

In conclusion, even in Quebec.  which have a state which is quite social democrat, corporatist and statist considering North American standards in many areas, the high school education system is somewhat less statist and top-down than in many other places in North America. Even more so than in many places in the United States which you go to your high school based on where do you live, which sometimes bring horrible results as a vicious circle based on a postcode lottery.

#UKIP is a protest party? Think again. The Canadian example.

It’s no doubt that one of the biggest story in the last six months in the British politics is the rise of UKIP.

However, let me just say one thing. I don’t believe that UKIP is a protest vote anymore. We are at a point here where there is brand recognition.  It’s not just the we’re against the EU party.

Why? Just look at Canadian politics in the early 1990’s. In this period, there was a sense of disillusion among many people with the three major Canadian parties (which were the PC, the Liberals and the social-democratic NDP), many people thought they all seemed too alike, too much Toronto-centric and too consensual on many things.

It’s still really difficult to pin down the Reform Party ideologically, but I see many similarities with UKIP especially with their position on state multiculturalism and fiscal policy. It was keen of being labelled an anti-mainstream party and yes, like any new party, there was a number of gaffes done by elected officials from the party.

The 1993 federal election in Canada was a bombshell as a SNP/Plaid Cymru-like party (the Bloc Québécois) was official opposition. The Tories were left with only TWO seats. The Reform Party did won a load of seats especially in Western Canada. What is interesting however is that the Reform Party did not only won former Conservative seats, but also many former NDP seats which were seen as NDP safe seats in the past especially in the western province of British Columbia. I don’t believe the argument that Reform was *only* a regional Western Canada based as the party did not badly in popular vote in Ontario in 1993 and 1997, but it was unable to win more than one seat.

The result of the 1993 federal election was probably why the Canadian right was 10 years in the wilderness with a Liberal hegemony even through it did well in popular vote. 

So, in conclusion, even if this whole comparison could be a fluke, it seems too similar to not take a closer look at it especially with the same electoral and parliamentary system.

The curious case of #UKIP youth wing

As everybody who is remotely following British politics could tell, the big news of 2012 was the rise of the UKIP which is currently the third party according to the latest polls.

But today, a dismissal have put a lot of ink in the table. It’s the dismissal of Oliver  »Olly » Neville who was elected the leader of the UKIP’s Youth Wing (which is the group for those under 35 in the party).

I have been following this saga since a few weeks and one thing that I have seen is the malaise between the politburo of the UKIP and the grassroots especially considering UKIP particular history.

Since a decade or so, UKIP had been known as somewhat of a single-issue party being a party which is against the European Union.

But years passing by and especially since the party had elected Nigel Farage as leader, there was a niche for libertarians with the vast majority of them of coming from the Conservative Party.

Even through very few conservative politicians had formally crossed the floor to the UKIP, there was floor crossing especially among the grassroots and people which were with the Conservative youth wing.

However, it’s not true that all younger people associated with the UKIP were formelly Conservatives, as some were apolitical and others were swing voters in the classical sense of the term.

In case of the people formerly with the Tories, what explains the floor-crossing is very complex, but I could see that many who want to UKIP want because they thought the Tories were not enough libertarian on certain issues.

They are generally economic issues, as the people who are in the UKIP young wing are far more liberal (in the classical sense) on social issues that the old guard of the party.

One big difference with the younger and older guard of the party is even through there are not keen to the European Union (as a statist entity), Europe (or immigration) was not really the main reason why they moved over to the UKIP.

The other thing is that you can be for Europe (and speaking 3-4 European languages) but being against the EU. I am not so sure that the UKIP old guard understand this important point nowadays.

So, a month after the election of the Young Independance chairman (with a somewhat skeatchy electoral process), many younger people in the grassroots of the party were deceived by how the chairman of the party had in a way dismissed Neville.

Note that as opposed to some others implicated with YI and UKIP, Neville was never a member of the Tories.

So why exactly he was dismissed?

It’s very difficult to know the exact reason. According to a e-mail that Neville posted on social media, it’s basically a mixture of Neville positions on some policies (gay marriage, drug reform policy) and the fact that Neville told in an interview that the European parliament election was a  »sideshow » to the 2015 general election.
One thing is sure, there is a big malaise among the old guard of the party which are interested in capitalising on the Con-Lib coalition gay marriage proposal in order to get conservative voters to their party.

And the hope of many in the young guard of the UKIP which goal was to put UKIP as the main libertarian political vehicule in the UK had drop on dead tonight.

The problem is that the UKIP needed this base for the future and especially because those people were far apart from the old stereotype of UKIP supporters (which is sort of a WASPY British nationalist county club crowd).

But the problem goes further then that, many in the UKIP had become members of the party become it had a grassroots appeal, that older top-down parties didn’t have and especially since younger wings of political parties are becoming less and less revelant.

I see nothing wrong as the UKIP as a populist  British nationalistic party, but difficult then as a libertarian to work to move the party forward especially for someone in my shoes who could well be a British voter and a candidate in a general election (because I am a citizen of the Commonwealth and I have the quality of elector if I go live in the UK for more then a few months), but not as a WASP nor someone who has English as his first language.
And yet, I am not sure anymore if many libertarians could be at ease with UKIP as a laboratory for libertarian ideas more so then some wings of the Tories or the Orange bookers at the Liberal Democrats.

Sadly in order to score easy political points, UKIP had perhaps missed the opportunity of scoring some decent points among people who are not inclined to politics but are highly motivated. All major parties nowdays have difficulty in their youth wings and UKIP had the possibility of having sound ideas and this while implicated people who are members of a given party not because they want a parachuted job when their party is in power.

The younger wing of UKIP was very far from being a waspy-county club as it was alike Britain in general.

And making UKIP the genuine home for classical liberals and libertarians would probably have moved the party to something much bigger then something you vote every five years in an European election as a good chien de garde.

A party which does not have the elitist side associated with the Tories, nor the nanny statism of Labour, nor the relativism of the Lib Dems which is social-democracy with a  »liberal » tag. A real libertarian party which is more interested in a Britain based on opportunity, merit and a patriotism based on freedom and respect and not on narrow-mindness.

A Lesson from the Past

Many people don’t realize that the current situation in UK politics is similar to the situation in Canadian politics in the late 80’s and early 90’s.

We have an unpopular party in power with a long and storied history, a not very popular official opposition and a new party which is going third in the polls.

But then, Canadian politics in the 90’s could be described as a civil war between the Progressive Conservative and the Reform lasted more then 12 years.

It’s not that those two parties were not popular (and they both had a sizeable portion of the popular vote together), it’s just that they were divided which made election of MP difficult especially in certain regions.

The Liberal Party of Canada was so powerful in the early 2000’s, they some pundits were beginning to talk about a friendly dictorship.

And yes, the rest is history, but events could well had taken a different way.

An important thing is that both the PC and Reform had the same strengths and weakeness that both the Tories and the UKIP have in the UK.

Like the Tories, the former Progressive Conservatives had a storied history. However, like the former Reform Party (and this is what Stephen Harper’s Conservatives had been trying to work on), I do believe that the UKIP have a base among people who are not inclined into any traditionnal political party.

I hate the term populist, with the Reform Party had stunning victories (especially in Western Canada) with people who were voting Reform because they were sicked and tired of  »old politics ».

Also, in Canada, a new term that have came along in the last few years is the  »Tim Hortons voter » (which is a massively popular Canadian coffeshop chain selling donuts and sandwiches which is a quasi-part of the Canadian folklore). This is like the Canadian version of the Essex Man, except that a  »Tim Hortons voter » could well be somebody living in Brampton with its parent born in Punjab, a plumber working in St. Catharines who had his small plumbing business, or a francophone living in Lévis, Roberval or Thetford Mines.

As a big difference with the steoreotype of the UK Conservatives, this  »Tim Hortons » man could sometimes be considered working class, but he is somebody who usually wants to the best bang for his buck.

Anyway, class is not as big of a factor in political party support in Canada then in the UK.

This is why I think that even through the UKIP have a lot of potential among it’s younger base (with people who had genuine intellectual appeal), I am not sure what this could bring for the future except of having Britain becoming Labourland all over again.

The electoral system (it’s the same system both in the UK and in Canada) help parties who can squeeze their way into first place whatever their popular vote. Remember Labour winning a majority with something like 35% of the popular vote in 2005?

With this argument, Labour could well win a 1997-level landslide with 38% of the popular vote especially if the «second party» have something like 28% of the vote.

And I do believe in principles, but for people welling to put time and effort into a political party, it’s really deceiving to put all this effort only to have a strong popular when this support is not translated into seats.

This is why IDEAS are the real heritage to any political society, while not being associated to a specific political party. If people are going to a given party only because of the name or the colour of the party, better say that deception will come very fast!