National Post loses election bid

But Chretien Liberals offer consolation prize by stealing David Frum/Conrad Black policy wish-list

By: Linda McQuaig

"I believe we are on an irreversible trend towards freedom and democracy - but that could change." - Governor George W. Bush, May 22, 1998.

  First the good news: the election results reveal strong voter resistance to the platform of the National Post. The only problem is the bad news: the victorious Liberals have already stolen some of the worst parts of this platform.
 

The difference between the Post and the Alliance is that the Alliance actually had to face the voters

  Of course, the Post didn't actually field any candidates, leaving that to others. But the Post could probably be described as the Alliance's id, expressing the deep, instinctual urges and rages that any party running for office tries to muffle a little before meeting the public.
  It's useful then to have the Post for the sake of clarity. It's like happening to overhear a locker room conversation between, say, David Frum and Herb Grubel. One starts to get a clearer picture.
  So, while Stockwell Day often sounded like a volunteer at a public health clinic, the Post was brimming over with editorials and columns about the urgent need for more private medicine. Make no mistake about it: this is where the right is heading. I wouldn't be surprised if anti-medicare rage becomes the Post's new cause, now that success has largely been achieved on the tax rage front.
  The difference then between the Post and the Alliance can be explained by the fact that the Alliance actually had to face the voters. As a Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP report showed last week, there are high levels of satisfaction with the current public health care system across the country - with the lowest level of satisfaction found in Alberta, where private medicine has made the greatest inroads.
  Indeed, with only 9 per cent of Canadians reporting themselves dissatisfied with the current public system, it was clear that pushing private medicine wasn't likely to deliver that Ontario breakthrough the Alliance was looking for. Thus while many Alliance candidates undoubtedly experience bouts of anti-medicare rage, it's something best confined to the analyst's couch for now. The Post is going to have to carry the ball alone on this one a bit longer.
 

Canadians may not realize they just voted for a significant redistribution of resources - away from themselves

  On the fiscal front, the Post has been more effective, having sold virtually its entire tax-cut agenda to the governing Liberals. This wasn't exactly a hard sell; the Liberals have rarely met a Bay Street donor they didn't feel pleased to reward.
  My guess is that the rest of the country will only gradually come to understand what it's done in voting for a Liberal party that plans to dispense virtually the entire surplus in tax cuts, leaving little to go towards public programs which, for most Canadians, make up a huge part of their economic as well as social well-being.
  Here's one way to look at it. The market distributes income in a very unequal way; the top 20 per cent of income-earners receive about 27 times the income of the bottom 20 per cent.
  But when we add in taxes and social transfers, like pensions and unemployment insurance payments, the gap narrows. The top income group still has the lion's share of income, but less so. It now enjoys only 8.5 times the income of the bottom group.
  If we then add in the financial benefit of public services, like health care and education, the gap narrows further. The dollar value of public services is in the range of $16,000 per household. (Certainly, paying for health care and education privately would cost a lot more than this.) With this benefit added in, the top income group still comes out the winner, but it now enjoys only 3.9 times as much "income" as the bottom group.
  In fact, Canada's tax and social welfare systems have a huge impact on redistributing resources, and most Canadians end up as net winners in the deal.
  That's what we just voted against. We voted essentially to move back closer towards the market distribution of income - the one where the top group enjoys 27 times as much as the bottom.
  Now you can say all you like about the need to create market incentives. But my guess is that people wouldn't generally give a tinker's damn about market incentives if they thought it meant they'd have to give up actual financial benefits they now enjoy. I suspect that most Canadians simply don't realize that they've just voted for a significant redistribution of resources - away from themselves.
  Sadly, by the time they do realize it, it may be too late to reverse, after more than $100 billion has disappeared from the national treasury in the form of tax cuts. The only hope may be the one held out by George W. Bush - that this irreversible trend could change.

Linda McQuaig is an author and journalist. This column, reposted with permission, appeared in the National Post December 4, 2000.

[ Front Page ]