Amalgamation aprehension

A letter writer from Port Colborne does not trust us Northies to govern responsibly with our population majority:

To formalize the institution as a single elected body, with a majority based in communities in the north of Niagara, whilst condemning those communities in the south to a perpetual minority and with no say as recognizable and different individual communities can only lead to those already seen to be without proper representation losing even that marginalized representation.

In all honesty, I can’t imagine what pressing issues face Port Colborne which aren’t faced by other stagnating, Southern-tier municipalities. It doesn’t seem to me like a very high-maintenance community to govern, but maybe that opinion is indictment enough in the eyes of people from Port Colborne.

The reality is that any marginally democratic arrangement of this new (and so far, hypothetical) City of Niagara would leave Port Colborne in the minority. There just aren’t enough people living in it – or Fort Erie, or Thorold, or any other smallish city – to throw much weight around at council.

To the writer’s claim that north Niagara would be able to use its dastardly majority to crush Port Colborne, it really depends where you draw the line between “north” and “south.” From my point of view in St Catharines, the escarpment is a natural place to divide Niagara, but if that is the case the north is actually slightly outnumbered, 45 to 55.

What should really worry the people of Port Colborne is if the big three – St Catharines, Niagara Falls, and Welland – are able to stop bickering over hospitals and police headquarters long enough to implement mutally beneficial big-city policies. They really do have a majority, and although cooperation seems far-fetched today, it is the only way Niagara is going to get ahead in the new economy.

The future of this region – the focus of growth, activity, and challenges – will not, for most people, be in Port Colborne or any other small centre. This should be reflected in the structure of a City of Niagara.

China: one great big subprime mortgage?

A metaphorical subprime mortgage, of course.

From The Economist:

India has a big advantage over China in coping with an economic slowdown. It has all-too extensive experience in it; and it has a political system that can cope with disgruntlement without suffering existential doubts. India pays an economic price for its democracy. Decision-making is cumbersome. And as in China, unrest and even insurgency are widespread. But the political system has a resilience and flexibility that China’s own leaders, it seems, believe they lack. They are worrying about how to cope with protests. India’s have their eyes on a looming election.

China has been outperforming India during the boom years, but perhaps India will weather this recession with less pain.

Democracy: muddling through good times and bad, since 500 BC.

Elections are not overpriced

I am not open to the argument that frequent elections are a waste of money or that even infrequent elections, as we operate them today, are too expensive.

This is a democracy, folks (albeit a slightly screwy democracy with a queen and a tendency toward unearned majorities).

Democracies are inefficient in all kinds of ways but the price is well worth it to keep our governments on a short leash.

You can be cynical and believe that all governments operate the same, but you can damn well be sure the government would be a different beast if it didn’t have to submit to the will of the people periodically.

Addendum: I didn’t set out to rant, but this has put me in a sour mood.