I recently took a day-long trip to the CNE. There was a sign that listed all of this years Ex sponsors. I saw the symbol for Ontario there but I did not see a symbol for the government of Canada. Either I missed it or somehow the federal government is not sponsoring the CNE despite the fact that CNE stands for Canadian National Exhibition. The CNE grounds are in the Trinity—Spadina riding. I want to save time so I’ll call the riding TS. TS is home to some of the most exiting and famous attractions in Toronto. These include the CNE grounds, the CN Tower, the SkyDome (Rogers Centre) and the Air Canada Centre. All these things with the exception of the CNE grounds are in very short walking distance from the Union Subway station. To get the CNE grounds from the Union Subway station, you take a streetcar. The famous Eaton Centre is also in the federal TS riding, but not yet in the provincial version of TS. Federally TS is held by New Democrat Olivia Chow. Formerly it was held by Tony Ianno. Ianno is again the Liberal candidate for TS. His motto is “Send a strong voice back to Ottawa”. Ianno has run in every federal election since and including 1988. In 1988 Ianno came within 400 votes of winning, losing to New Democrat Dan Heap. In 1993 Heap retired and Ianno scored the largest electoral victory of his political career. In 1997 Ianno won in a tight race against Olivia Chow. In 2000, Ianno won by a 9 point margin over author Michael Valpy. In 2004, Ianno scored a 800 vote victory over Olivia Chow, surprising many. In this election Ianno made a very big deal about Chow’s refusal to resign her council seat (which she had recently been elected in) when running for federal office. In 2006, Chow responded to this by resigning her council seat and stating that win or lose the election she was going to move to Ottawa to be with her husband Jack Layton. As it happened the national Liberal loss allowed Chow to win the seat although still by a fairly narrow margin. It is for this reason that the Liberals have a shot to win this seat back. But as the 1988 election proved, this can only be done if the Liberals win government. So that is one of many reasons why the Liberals must get their act together and win government. One encouraging sign for the Liberals in TS is that municipally half the riding is no longer represented by a New Democrat. The western half of the riding is represented by 20+ year incumbent Joe Pantalone. Pantalone’s sister was an elementary school principal but last year precipitated a very embarrassing, bizarre, and illegal incident at her school that is too embarrassing even to discuss. This however did not affect Joe Pantalone because after this embarrassing incident Pantalone was easily re-elected. The encouraging part for the Liberals is in the eastern end of TS. Here independent/small-l liberal candidate Adam Vaughan won against semi-official NDP candidate Helen Kennedy by a large margin. So I wish Tony Ianno luck.
The provincial level is the level at which TS is the toughest for the Liberals. Not since the 1987-1990 period have the Liberals held the predecessor to TS (Fort York). In this 1987-1990 period the Liberals also held all the other ridings that make up the modern TS (Dovercourt, Parkdale, St. Andrew-St. Patrick). Since 1990 life has been tough here for the Liberals. Since 1990 the only component riding of TS the Liberals have ever been able to win is Parkdale (which only made up 5% of TS). The PCs were third in Fort York in 1987, 1990, 1995, and third in TS in 1999 and 2003. Even in 1987, life was not the best for the Liberals in Fort York considering that even then Liberal Bob Wong only won Fort York by about 100 votes over Joe Pantalone of the NDP. In 2003, some thought the Liberals could win the riding with then-Davenport trustee Nellie Pedro. But the Liberals did not come close. This time round again the Liberals hope that they can win the riding with Kate Holloway. Holloway was until recently an active member of the Green Party of Canada. She also ran for the Green Party in the 2004 Federal Election in Scarborough—Rouge River. When Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party, his environmental credentials caused Holloway to join the Liberals. The Liberals are hoping that an as an environmental candidate Holloway can pose a credible challenge to TS NDP incumbent Rosario Marchese. I certainly hope Holloway can win but I fear TS may be to strong an NDP riding at the provincial level for that to happen. A Holloway win would certainly bode well for Tony Ianno, however. I wish Kate luck.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Ontario Liberals
I am happy about today’s Strategic Counsel poll about Ontario politics. It shows that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals still have a chance at re-election. It was 40% for the Liberals, 35% for the PCs, 18% for the NDP, and 8% for the Greens. It is that Green support the Liberals need the most. If even one or two percent of that Green support moved to the Liberals and these numbers occurred on election day, the Liberals would have a majority government for sure. Although I can find no previous Strategic Counsel poll on Ontario politics, the Globe and Mail headline is this: “McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds”. I think the polls numbers have just as much a chance to produce a Liberal majority government. Remember that in 1999 Mike Harris won a majority government while only winning the popular vote by 5 points. I’ve applied the numbers to the UBC election forecaster for the upcoming Ontario election. (I made some accommodations to make the numbers fit into the projector). To make numbers add up perfectly I made it look like this: Liberal: 40.0% , PC: 34.7% , NDP : 17.7% , Other: 7.6%.
I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:
Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8
This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:
Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11
That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.
I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:
Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8
This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:
Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11
That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.
Gordon Brown and Paul Martin
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is speculated to be considering calling a snap election for October. I say don’t do it. Having an election this early is always risky because the public reacts badly to unnecessary early elections – just ask David Peterson. In this case it would be even worse – an election after only two years. The public could definitely react negatively to such an early and unnecessary election. The general rule is that the possible earliest that one can voluntarily dissolve Parliament and be re-elected with a majority is 3 years and a few months into the mandate, as judged by the Canadian Liberals majority wins in 1997 and 2000 which were both 3 years and a few months into the mandate. 3 years exactly is not enough as proven by David Peterson. Imagine, thus, the disaster that could occur for Labour with an election only 2 years into the mandate. By my theory, Brown needs to wait until the fall of 2008 at the earliest for an election. Yet despite my warning there is serious talk of there being an election in the spring of 2008. But as I said, exactly 3 years into a mandate is not enough time – new Prime Minister or not. I’ve even heard of there being an election on the 1 year anniversary of Brown taking power. I assume they meant an election at this time, not a dissolution at this time. A dissolution at this time would result in an election in July or August which I think would be considered unacceptable. Election Day being held at the first anniversary of Brown taking power would also be a bad idea for a reason other than it being only 3 years into the mandate. Having an election at such a time would mean holding the election in late June. There is strong evidence that holding the 2004 Canadian election in late June reduced voter turnout. There is reason to believe the same would happen in the United Kingdom with a late June election. Lower voter turnout is bad for democracy and will not necessarily favour the incumbent government. Strangely, the UK Conservatives say that Brown should have called an election immediately after becoming Prime Minister. This is impractical for several reasons. Firstly, it would have resulted in a summer election. Secondly, it would have left no time for Brown to establish himself and his policies. Thirdly, it would have left no time for Labour to refill it’s empty electoral coffers, giving the Tories an unfair advantage. Fourthly, it would not have left time for Labour even to have an election manifesto (a terse platform). Fifthly, it would have left no time for Labour to develop an election platform. Sixthly, it would have ended MPs term in office too early. I could go on. The fact is as much as the Tories don’t like it, Gordon Brown has the exact same authority to govern as did Tony Blair – it is the way the system works. An October election is also a bad idea because it would deny the two newly elected MPs in the recent by-elections a chance to settle into their jobs. It would barely give them time to receive their first paycheck. Besides, Labour’s 10 point lead might be smaller or nonexistent by October. That’s why Brown has to stay in character and be his usual cautious self.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.
Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.
On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Bob Rae, health, nominations, municipal politics
I am concerned for Bob Rae because he is going to have heart surgery. After that it is supposed to take 6 weeks for him to recover. I am hoping that after that he will be recovered enough to do campaigning in the Toronto Centre by-election. I also worry myself with the wellbeing of politicians’ children, regardless of the politician’s political stripe. For example, I am deeply concerned about the serious health problems more than one of new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s children have suffered. His first child, daughter Jennifer Jane, died at the age of 10 days old of a brain hemorrhage due to her premature birth. More recently, Brown’s youngest son, James Fraser, has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. This means that Gordon Brown will likely outlive James and see another one of his children die. This is terrible. I don’t understand why these illnesses keep befalling Gordon Brown’s children. My condolences for both children.
I’d now like to do a follow-up on something I talked about previously—Niagara Falls. According to recently defeated former Niagara Falls, Ontario city alderman Selina Volpatti, as stated on her web site, Niagara Falls used to have a ward system prior to the 2003 municipal election. Why they switched to an at-large system is beyond me. Selina was the Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls in the 1999 provincial election. Being on city council was not enough to get her elected, however, and she came short by 1400 votes. The winner was Tory Bart Maves. Selina would probably be an MPP today except that for the 2003 election she apparently lost the Liberal nomination to current Liberal MPP Kim Craitor. Instead she is out of politics because she came 9th place in an 8 member at large system in the 2006 municipal election. Based on what she said on her website, she was very popular in her ward. So she’d still be a councilor now without the change in systems. So the switch to an at-large system has ended her political career. However, if she had run for one of three Regional Council seats she may have been elected.
Speaking of party nominations, I know of a way that previously Liberal, now Tory MP Wajid Khan would never have crossed the floor- if he had never been given the Liberal nomination in the first place. In 2004, Khan was unopposed for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Streetsville. It was when he won the nomination that Khan was given his ticket to Parliament because Mississauga—Streetsville is relatively Liberal and twice voted for Khan mainly because he was the Liberal candidate. But Mississauga—Streetsville is in my opinion the old Mississauga West. By contrast, I consider Mississauga—Erindale to be the old Mississauga Centre. In 2004, Carolyn Parrish was the incumbent for Mississauga Centre. Steve Mahoney was the incumbent for Mississauga West. But for some reason Mahoney decided to go head-to-head against Parrish for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Erindale. Parrish won that contest. Rightfully so, in my opinion, in that Mississauga—Streetsville has more of Mississauga West in it than does Mississauga—Erindale. I think Mahoney should have gone head-to-head for the nomination against Khan. Mahoney’s prior experience and incumbency could likely have won the nomination against Khan. Mahoney had a lot of personal popularity, so he may have been able to win Mississauga—Streetsville by a wider margin than Khan both in 2004 and 2006. If Mahoney had taken the Mississauga—Streetsville nomination, he would still be a Liberal MP today. Best of all, unlike Khan, Mahoney was pro-gay marriage. My hypothesis about the old Mississauga Centre being the new Mississauga—Erindale and the old Mississauga West being the new Mississauga—Streetsville is proven at the provincial level. Mississauga Centre incumbent Harinder Takhar is running in Mississauga—Erindale. Missisauge West incumbent Bob Delaney is running in Mississauga—Streetsville. Both are Liberals. No need to challenge each other for a nomination. Problem solved. That problem could have been solved in 2004 and Mississauga—Streetsville, instead of having an anti-gay marriage Conservative MP, would have a pro-gay marriage Liberal MP.
I’d now like to do a follow-up on something I talked about previously—Niagara Falls. According to recently defeated former Niagara Falls, Ontario city alderman Selina Volpatti, as stated on her web site, Niagara Falls used to have a ward system prior to the 2003 municipal election. Why they switched to an at-large system is beyond me. Selina was the Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls in the 1999 provincial election. Being on city council was not enough to get her elected, however, and she came short by 1400 votes. The winner was Tory Bart Maves. Selina would probably be an MPP today except that for the 2003 election she apparently lost the Liberal nomination to current Liberal MPP Kim Craitor. Instead she is out of politics because she came 9th place in an 8 member at large system in the 2006 municipal election. Based on what she said on her website, she was very popular in her ward. So she’d still be a councilor now without the change in systems. So the switch to an at-large system has ended her political career. However, if she had run for one of three Regional Council seats she may have been elected.
Speaking of party nominations, I know of a way that previously Liberal, now Tory MP Wajid Khan would never have crossed the floor- if he had never been given the Liberal nomination in the first place. In 2004, Khan was unopposed for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Streetsville. It was when he won the nomination that Khan was given his ticket to Parliament because Mississauga—Streetsville is relatively Liberal and twice voted for Khan mainly because he was the Liberal candidate. But Mississauga—Streetsville is in my opinion the old Mississauga West. By contrast, I consider Mississauga—Erindale to be the old Mississauga Centre. In 2004, Carolyn Parrish was the incumbent for Mississauga Centre. Steve Mahoney was the incumbent for Mississauga West. But for some reason Mahoney decided to go head-to-head against Parrish for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Erindale. Parrish won that contest. Rightfully so, in my opinion, in that Mississauga—Streetsville has more of Mississauga West in it than does Mississauga—Erindale. I think Mahoney should have gone head-to-head for the nomination against Khan. Mahoney’s prior experience and incumbency could likely have won the nomination against Khan. Mahoney had a lot of personal popularity, so he may have been able to win Mississauga—Streetsville by a wider margin than Khan both in 2004 and 2006. If Mahoney had taken the Mississauga—Streetsville nomination, he would still be a Liberal MP today. Best of all, unlike Khan, Mahoney was pro-gay marriage. My hypothesis about the old Mississauga Centre being the new Mississauga—Erindale and the old Mississauga West being the new Mississauga—Streetsville is proven at the provincial level. Mississauga Centre incumbent Harinder Takhar is running in Mississauga—Erindale. Missisauge West incumbent Bob Delaney is running in Mississauga—Streetsville. Both are Liberals. No need to challenge each other for a nomination. Problem solved. That problem could have been solved in 2004 and Mississauga—Streetsville, instead of having an anti-gay marriage Conservative MP, would have a pro-gay marriage Liberal MP.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Cabinet shuffle
Stephen Harper’s cabinet shuffle was mostly about selling the mission in Afghanistan and nothing more. Harper also moved the moderate Jim Prentice from Indian Affairs to Industry and put the more conservative Chuck Strahl into Indian Affairs. This change in Indian Affairs minister has frustrated Caledonia First Nations protestors (http://www.940news.com/nouvelles.php?cat=23&id=81574). Yet I find it strange that by contrast it seems to have pleased Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay. Look at thus quote from the article I just cited:
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Ramsay suggested the portfolio change shows the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority.
Ramsay said he's currently writing the new minister a letter outlining some of Ontario's priorities. Working closely with the federal government to implement the recommendations of the Ipperwash inquiry and resolving land claims such as the one plaguing Caledonia are among them, he said.
"I think we have a federal government that is very concerned about the aboriginal issue and has really showed some tremendous progress in trying to move yardsticks on this file," Ramsay said.
Why does Mr. Ramsay think that causing disruption on the Caledonia file by replacing ministers mean that the federal government considers First Nations matters a priority? These are words coming from a Liberal cabinet minister. I suspect he is only saying this to try to create a smooth relationship with his new federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, and that if it were not for this he would not have said such nice things about the disruption being caused by the replacement of the Indian Affairs Minister. The Ontario government has often been critical of the Harper government, so I am still very surprised to see such positive words coming from a minister of the Ontario government. After all there is a lot Ontario Liberals could criticize the Harper government about regarding aboriginal affairs, starting with the scrapping of the Kelowna Accord. But again I don’t think Ramsay meant those praises and I think they were only for the purposes of good diplomatic relations.
My household has been recently receiving unwanted copies of the National Post due to a promotion that we do not want. On today’s National Post paper there was an editorial about Harper’s cabinet shuffle. I was shocked to see how blatantly pro-Conservative the editorial was, heaping much undeserved praise on the Harper government. I also find it interesting that some people are connecting this cabinet shuffle with a possible future election. While the shuffle IS all about the 3 ongoing by-elections in Quebec, it is important to remember that there is a fixed election date Bill in place that means in order to get a general election we’d need a non-confidence vote. The recent SES poll showed a significant drop for the NDP. So they aren’t ready to have an election. The Liberal numbers in the SES poll are stagnant. That is not enough to want an election. The Bloc has been the Conservatives’ coalition partner ever since the government came to power. The Bloc has no reason to withdraw their support now as polls show the Bloc would either lose seats (probably some to the Liberals, maybe a couple to the Conservatives), or keep all the ones they have. Polls do not show the Bloc gaining seats so the Bloc has no incentive to withdraw their support of the government. This means an election will not come until some time next year at the absolute earliest. By then any popularity boost by this cabinet shuffle would be all forgotten anyway. Even if sometime in 2008 the Bloc for some reason withdrew its support, the Liberals might try to keep the Tories in power themselves unless their poll numbers were going through the roof. But it’s more likely the Bloc’s support of the government will last throughout 2008.
There is also talk of proroguing Parliament and having a new Throne Speech in the fall. I’m not sure if this Throne Speech would occur on September 17 when the House of Commons is scheduled to reconvene or after that. I don’t want the Throne Speech occurring in the middle of the Ontario election because this would give an unfair advantage to the provincial Tories. The problem with proroguing Parliament is that it would kill at least temporarily Bills that have not received Royal Assent. This includes some of the government’s vaunted justice Bills that have yet to pass the Senate. There is some kind of procedure to bring back killed Bills that I do not understand. But proroguing Parliament potentially delays the passage of these Bills into law, and I thought the government wanted those justice Bills to become law as soon as possible. Proroguing Parliament would also kill the unpassable Bill to scrap the gun registry and the controversial political redistribution Bill that both Quebec and Ontario are against. Several other government-introduced Bills would die, not to mention countless private members’ Bills. If they want a Throne Speech, the least they can do is wait until their vaunted Bills are passed, unless the Bills’ purported importance was being overplayed for political gain. Nevertheless, proroguing Parliament is not a decision Harper should take lightly.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Pauline Marois
PQ leader Pauline Marois will run in a Quebec provincial by-election in Charlevoix. While the Liberals have already said they will not run a candidate against her, the ADQ is considering running a candidate against her. One reason she probably chose this seat is due to the Quebec political tradition of other major parties not opposing party leaders in by-elections. Otherwise it would not make sense because Charlevoix is not a safe PQ seat. The resigning PQ member won by only 6.88%. The ADQ had about 30% of the vote. A race with Marois against an ADQ candidate with no Liberal candidate would be strange. It could give the ADQ candidate a chance to win. This could in turn force Marois to resgin as leader and could bring Gilles Duceppe to Quebec City after all. I don’t know how a straight PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate would look like. If all the federalist vote were to unite behind the ADQ, the ADQ could easily beat Marois. If it is more of a left-right thing, then Marois would stand a good chance if the centre/left vote united behind her. I think if the ADQ insists on running a candidate, the Liberals would be doing Marois a favour to run a candidate as well. The Liberals want to let Marois into the legislature. A PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate has the significant danger of Marois being defeated and therefore in this circumstance running a Liberal candidate may be the right thing to do. Maybe ADQ leader Mario Dumont will in the end choose not run a candidate. If they do run a candidate they will receive a lot of criticism for such cruelty and it could cost them the by-election race. I say either both other parties run candidates or neither party runs candidates. The Liberals bowing out if the ADQ won’t does not exactly make sense.
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
Monday, August 13, 2007
A website on gay rights
Gay rights issues have been swirling in my head again. Personally I am glad that I am pro-gay marriage. I couldn’t live with myself if I were anti-gay marriage. I have come across a site created and maintained by Bill Myers from Ohio. It is called GAY RIGHTS INFO. Bill cares passionately about gay rights believes strongly in the expansion of gay rights. So he has compiled voting records of politicians in the US and around the world on gay rights issues. He also gives the status of gay rights in all US states and various other countries including Canada. Bill’s site includes a page that gives a table of voting records for all MPs in the current Canadian House of Commons, those from the 38th House of Commons, and most of those who were in the 37th House of Commons. The reason I say “most” is because the table does not include MPs like Brian Tobin who resigned mid-way through the 37th House of Commons and whose ridings were filled in a by-election. It DOES, however, include MPs such as Jean Chrétien who resigned near the end of the 37th House of Commons and whose seats were vacant at dissolution. Here is a link to the table: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canhoc.html
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
This table for the Canadian House of Commons has 16 Commons votes that Myers considers to be a “homosexual issue”. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “pro-gay” position on the issue, they get a + sign for that vote. If the member voted what Myers considers to be the “anti-gay” position on the issue, they get a – sign for that vote. If they did not vote, they get a question mark. If they were not MPs at the time of the vote, they get an “I”. The problem with this table is that it has many flaws to it. Another feature of the table is that MPs who are outspokenly pro-gay get a + sign next to their name. MPs who are outspokenly anti-gay get a – sign next to their name. Stephen Harper has, correctly in my opinion, a – sign next to his name put there by Myers. However, there is one error among the + signs and – signs next to peoples names. There is a glaringly incorrect anti-gay – sign next to the name of Conservative MP James Moore. James Moore supports same-sex marriage and has voted for it. What’s more, look at this quote from James Moore (http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/canada/canews018.htm):
“The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. And it is no business of any politician to even comment, let alone legislate, let alone preach, about the consenting behaviour of two adults behind closed doors,” Moore said.
“And Larry Spencer was way over the top and I think his comments were ridiculous.”
Clearly the anti-gay – sign did not belong next to James Moore’s name. Myers probably meant to put the – sign one line down next to Conservative MP Rob Moore’s name. Rob Moore is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. I think this is where that – sign belonged, and putting it next to James Moore’s name was a technical mistake.
But the flaws in the table go far deeper than that. Some of the issues voted on that Myers considers to be “homosexual issues” I do not consider to be homosexual issues at all. Votes on Canada’s age of consent could be argued to be a homosexual issue because none of the proposals being voted on equalized the homosexual age of consent. However, I consider the age of consent votes in question to be too specific to warrant being called a vote on “homosexual issues”. Therefore I don’t think the age of consent votes should have been included in the table. There are also two votes that have NOTHING to do with “homosexual issues”. They are a vote on a child pornography Bill and a vote on a Bill that proposed to “increase the maximum sentence for people convicted of using the internet to lure a child for sexual purposes from five years to 10.” I am appalled that these two votes are included in the table and that a vote for either Bill is considered an “anti-gay vote” and a vote against either Bill is considered a “pro-gay vote” In both cases homosexuality may be indirectly involved. However, homosexually-oriented child porn is equally as reprehensible as heterosexually-oriented child porn. So this vote should not have been included in any way in the table. The vote on the internet luring Bill should clearly also never have been included in the table.
It is also appalling how much of an emphasis Myers places on the internet luring Bill. He considers a vote for this Bill to be “anti-gay” and in some cases penalizes the most pro-gay MPs in the House very heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill. For example, MPs first elected in 2006 are only graded on voting on two issues – the internet luring Bill and Harper’s motion to restore the old definition of marriage. This gives several MPs (including newly elected pro-gay NDPers) a C grade when they in fact deserve an A+. For example, Michael Ignatieff’s vote in favour of the internet luring Bill causes Ignatieff to be given only a C grade despite his outspoken support for gay rights. What’s more, Myers gives other MPs like Jack Layton, who have a perfect voting record on gay rights, an A instead of an A+ simply because they voted for the internet luring Bill. None of this is in the remotest way right. As I have explained, several MPs who have a C deserve an A+, and several with an A also deserve an A+. It makes ZERO sense to include the internet luring Bill in the table. And WHY does Myers penalize MPs so heavily for voting in favour of the internet luring Bill? This is a Bill that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with gay rights. Just look at the age group mentioned. The Bill covers the luring of children from the ages of 5 to 10. This has nothing to do with gay rights because having gay sex with a 10 year old is EQUALLY as reprehensible as having heterosexual sex with a 10 year old. NO GAY RIGHTS ARE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER. Including this vote distorts the grades of several of the most gay-positive MPs in the House. Inquiring minds want to know why Bill Myers included the internet luring Bill in the table and why he included the age of consent votes and the child porn vote in the table.
Bill Myers says that the site will be shut down on January 1, 2008 because he no longer has time to update the site. He says all data will disappear so readers have to save the data beforehand. I plan to do just that because generally it is a very informative site. But I am baffled in particular by the child porn vote and the internet luring vote being included in the table and distorting the grades of some of the finest pro-gay MPs in the House.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Equality, Equality, Equality
I was watching A Channel news and they ran a story on the fact that it is Pride Week in Simcoe County. I was happy to see that the new Mayor of Barrie, Dave Aspden, gave a speech that “emphasized the importance of equality for all community members.” (http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=648542&catname=Local+News). It is my hope that equality for Mr. Aspden includes same-sex marriage. If the previous mayor of Barrie, Rob Hamilton, had been re-elected last November, I’m not sure whether he would have given such a gay-positive speech. I say this because in the 2000 federal election, Hamilton ran for the notoriously anti-gay Canadian Alliance in Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. Regardless, the news story featured a male same-sex couple living in Simcoe who next week will be legally married. Sadly for them and other gay people living in Simcoe County, the support of Simcoe County’s gay community by the county’s federal MPs is severely lacking. All Simcoe MPs are Conservative. All Simcoe MPs are against same-sex marriage. I say this based on their 2005 and 2006 parliamentary voting records. This is despite Simcoe’s gay community which as we can see is becoming more and more active. Thus it is shameful the lack of support local MPs are offering the gay community. It’s sad that former Simcoe North Liberal MP Paul DeVillers chose not to run again in the last election. In his absence, Simcoe North only went Conservative by 2% because of a vote split with the NDP. Had DeVillers run, his incumbency may have been enough to win again. DeVillers supported same-sex marriage way back in 1999 despite representing a conservative rural riding. If he’d run again, Simcoe County might still have one pro-gay MP. This whole thing is a shame. After all, prior to the 2004 election, two of the 3 Simcoe MPs (Paul Bonwick and Paul DeVillers) were solidly in favour of same-sex marriage, and a third (Aileen Carroll) would have come around to support it as she eventually did. It’s facts like this that make me think we never should have had the 2004 election – Paul Martin could have delayed until 2005.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Jocelyn Coulon
Outremont Liberal candidate Jocelyn Coulon has a website now. The Outremont by-election has been called but I can get very little coverage of it. However, I found an editorial in The Suburban “QUEBEC’S LARGEST ENGLISH WEEKLY NEWSPAPER”( http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=10264485391792019844135862989&ctid=1000002&cnid=1012344) that I found offensive. It was about the history of Liberal foreign policy and Jocelyn Coulon’s own foreign policies. These words from the article alone are offensive to Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping legacy that won him a Nobel prize:
“Lester Pearson’s vaunted role in developing “peacekeepers” following the Suez crisis was more a construct to protect the dignity of the British and offer them an elegant way out.”
The editorial was written from a very neo-conservative prospective on foreign policy. Its perspective appears similar in line to that of Conservative foreign policy, but is far more blatant than the federal government is in making said neo-conservative position stand out. I’m not going to go over the whole article because there are parts that I find too offensive to even repeat. But I will say that the article concludes with this:
“In this most dangerous of worlds, we hope voters in Outremont send a message to “les rouges” that the time for dilettantes and straw men is over. Outremont, on September 17 say “ca suffit” to the Liberals and M. Coulon. It’s time to end the charade.”
I can assume that they hope that Outremont voters vote something other than Liberal. However the NDP and Bloc have similar foreign policy positions to the Liberals on the issues that the article discusses. So what I think they’re really asking is that Outremont voters vote Conservative. However, a large majority of Outremont and Quebec voters do not share this editorial’s neo-conservative view on foreign policy and thus this is not a useful way of convincing Outremont voters to vote Conservative.
Amusingly, one of the article’s complaints was this:
“In continental issues, the Liberals opposed free trade and branded Brian Mulroney an American lackey.” As far as free trade is concerned, it was a contentious issue back then. The Liberals needed to take advantage of the issue as best they could and oppose Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement due to its many potential flaws. As far as the editorial’s complaints about branding Mulroney an American lackey, what is there to complain about? It was obvious to everyone, including the media and political cartoonists, that Mulroney often did seem like an American lackey. The Liberals were Mulroney’s political opponents. They had every right to exploit that image in the same way that the Liberals now have the right to pound the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee issue. As much as the Tories hate it when the Liberals find something like the detainee issue and pound them with it, this is the Liberals’ job. As much as the Tories still pretend the Liberals have no right to criticize the Harper government, they are wrong. It is the Liberals’ right and obligation to attack the Harper government with anything they see fit that will embarrass the government. So the editorial should not be complaining about how the Liberals portrayed Mulroney. That characteristic of Mulroney was obvious and it was the Liberals’ job to remind voters of one of Mulroney’s signature traits.
By the way, the Outremont race is probably between the Liberals and the NDP. But I still find it hard to believe that such a significant threat is coming from the NDP in a Quebec riding.
“Lester Pearson’s vaunted role in developing “peacekeepers” following the Suez crisis was more a construct to protect the dignity of the British and offer them an elegant way out.”
The editorial was written from a very neo-conservative prospective on foreign policy. Its perspective appears similar in line to that of Conservative foreign policy, but is far more blatant than the federal government is in making said neo-conservative position stand out. I’m not going to go over the whole article because there are parts that I find too offensive to even repeat. But I will say that the article concludes with this:
“In this most dangerous of worlds, we hope voters in Outremont send a message to “les rouges” that the time for dilettantes and straw men is over. Outremont, on September 17 say “ca suffit” to the Liberals and M. Coulon. It’s time to end the charade.”
I can assume that they hope that Outremont voters vote something other than Liberal. However the NDP and Bloc have similar foreign policy positions to the Liberals on the issues that the article discusses. So what I think they’re really asking is that Outremont voters vote Conservative. However, a large majority of Outremont and Quebec voters do not share this editorial’s neo-conservative view on foreign policy and thus this is not a useful way of convincing Outremont voters to vote Conservative.
Amusingly, one of the article’s complaints was this:
“In continental issues, the Liberals opposed free trade and branded Brian Mulroney an American lackey.” As far as free trade is concerned, it was a contentious issue back then. The Liberals needed to take advantage of the issue as best they could and oppose Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement due to its many potential flaws. As far as the editorial’s complaints about branding Mulroney an American lackey, what is there to complain about? It was obvious to everyone, including the media and political cartoonists, that Mulroney often did seem like an American lackey. The Liberals were Mulroney’s political opponents. They had every right to exploit that image in the same way that the Liberals now have the right to pound the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee issue. As much as the Tories hate it when the Liberals find something like the detainee issue and pound them with it, this is the Liberals’ job. As much as the Tories still pretend the Liberals have no right to criticize the Harper government, they are wrong. It is the Liberals’ right and obligation to attack the Harper government with anything they see fit that will embarrass the government. So the editorial should not be complaining about how the Liberals portrayed Mulroney. That characteristic of Mulroney was obvious and it was the Liberals’ job to remind voters of one of Mulroney’s signature traits.
By the way, the Outremont race is probably between the Liberals and the NDP. But I still find it hard to believe that such a significant threat is coming from the NDP in a Quebec riding.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Brantford
On Sunday, I went to church in the city of Brantford. Complex story. Guess what I’m going to do now? You guessed it. Talk about Brantford politics. Municipally Brantford uses a ward system but elects two councilors per ward. I personally prefer the single-member ward system for municipal politics. I personally find an electoral system whereby a district elects more than one member to be strange because it involves voting for more than one candidate at the same time, and this often makes it unclear just how popular any given elected candidate is. This muddiness increases the more candidates are to be elected. For example, the City of Niagara Falls (Ontario) elects 8 councilors at large. In 2006, 8 people were elected out of a total of 26. The top vote getter received only 9 percent of the vote. This really makes it unclear how popular each of the candidates is which is why I don’t like this method of electing councilors, especially when it gets to such ridiculous numbers as 8 candidates, 8 different people electors vote for at once. Interestingly, the adjacent City of Niagara Falls, New York also uses an at large multiple councilor system of elections except there they have party primaries. Another difference in Niagara Falls New York is that every 4 years 3 councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Two years later, two other councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Thus Niagara Falls, New York has a staggered election system similar to the federal U.S. Senate electoral system.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Rick Downes, NDP, minimum wage
Rick Downes is the provincial NDP candidate for Kingston and the Islands. On his website, www.rickdownes.ca, there is a video of his nomination speech. It is evident from this speech and his website that he supports his party’s policy of legislating an immediate increase of Ontario’s minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour. In his nomination speech, Downes heaps much praise about the successful policies and outcomes of the recently re-elected Manitoba NDP government. However, I have a very good question to ask. Can Mr. Downes explain why his beloved Manitoba NDP government has not increased Manitoba’s minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour? Why in fact is Manitoba’s minimum wage at 8 dollars an hour, the same as Ontario’s currently is? Does even Downes beloved Manitoba NDP government realize that an immediate increase in the minimum wage would be an economically disastrous thing to do? Is the Manitoba NDP, just like the Ontario Liberals, instead taking more moderate steps to help the working poor rather than facilitating a large and crippling minimum wage jump? If so, I think Mr. Downes may be in need of some lessons from his own NDP colleagues from Manitoba.
Had Ernie Eves been re-elected in 2003, Ontario’s minimum wage would remain frozen from 1995 levels. If John Tory is elected, the minimum wage MAY continue to increase, but I cannot say for certain. Tory has mostly been vague on minimum wage policy. By electing the Liberals, the working poor living on minimum wage have been able to see a steady increase in their living wage to make up for 8 years of neglect. If re-elected, the Liberals will continue on this path, and eventually moving the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour in a gradual manner that will not create economic shockwaves.
Had Ernie Eves been re-elected in 2003, Ontario’s minimum wage would remain frozen from 1995 levels. If John Tory is elected, the minimum wage MAY continue to increase, but I cannot say for certain. Tory has mostly been vague on minimum wage policy. By electing the Liberals, the working poor living on minimum wage have been able to see a steady increase in their living wage to make up for 8 years of neglect. If re-elected, the Liberals will continue on this path, and eventually moving the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour in a gradual manner that will not create economic shockwaves.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Help! The Interstate 35W in Minnesota has collapsed and killed numerous innocent bystanders. Help! I have gone across that bridge many times. Granted I do not remember it, because I was less than a year old. At that time my parents and I lived there for a few months. Tragic events happen in Minnesota just as anywhere else, but Minnesota is great. When my parents and I lived there, we loved it. We lived in Bloomington which is a suburb of Minneapolis. Up until this bridge collapsed, Minneapolis-St. Paul was a great place to live. They built the biggest mall in America, aptly called Mall of America, only AFTER we had moved away from Bloomington. But even back then when we lived there in 1984 there were excellent shopping opportunities. And that is what makes Minneapolis-St. Paul so great. It is actually quite odd. Minneapolis-St. Paul is a large, burgeoning metropolis, and yet it still only has enough of a population to be given 10 Presidential Electoral Votes. So in light of what has happened, I thought I’d discuss Minnesota politics.
Democrats have long had a slight edge in Minnesota politics. This is enough so that Minnesota has voted for the Democratic nominee for President continuously in every election since 1976. It even voted for Walter Mondale’s beleaguered campaign. For the record my four favourite states in the American union are Minnesota (lived there!), New York (lived there for a good 7 years!), Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. All of these states voted for losing Presidential Democratic nominees John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis. These 4 are also 4 of the 8 American states that have never voted either for George W. Bush or for his father in presidential elections (we are not counting the times George H.W. Bush was on the Vice-Presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan). The other 4 states in this category are Washington State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Hawaii. In Minnesota some people thought the state was shifting to a being a Republican state after conservative Republican Norm Coleman beat former Vice-President Walter Mondale in the 2002 federal Senate election. But this ignores the fact that Minnesota has had Republican Senators before, including during it’s glory days of being very liberal Democrat. It also ignores the fact that this election was under peculiar circumstances with the recent death of the incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone in a tragic plane crash in October 2002. But since the Coleman victory Democrats won the 2004 Presidential Election in Minnesota. In 2006, Democratic victories in Minnesota were even more resounding. The Democrats regained control of the State House. Democrat Amy Klobuchar resoundingly won the federal Senate election against incumbent federal Representative Mark Kennedy (who at one time was considered to have a chance at winning). Democrats sent a 5-3 majority House delegation to Washington, and gained control of all statewide positions except Governor and Lieutenant Governor (actually beating the incumbent Republican state Auditor by a solid 10 percentage points!). So at the moment Minnesota is a fairly Democratic state. Now Minnesota has one conservative Republican Senator, and one liberal Democrat Senator. Norm Coleman has the advantage to be re-elected in 2008, but only because he is the incumbent. If he were not running, it would be a surefire Democratic pickup.
But I don’t know what to do about the bridge collapse, the dead innocent bystanders, and the economic damage this bridge collapse is going to cause.
Democrats have long had a slight edge in Minnesota politics. This is enough so that Minnesota has voted for the Democratic nominee for President continuously in every election since 1976. It even voted for Walter Mondale’s beleaguered campaign. For the record my four favourite states in the American union are Minnesota (lived there!), New York (lived there for a good 7 years!), Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. All of these states voted for losing Presidential Democratic nominees John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis. These 4 are also 4 of the 8 American states that have never voted either for George W. Bush or for his father in presidential elections (we are not counting the times George H.W. Bush was on the Vice-Presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan). The other 4 states in this category are Washington State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Hawaii. In Minnesota some people thought the state was shifting to a being a Republican state after conservative Republican Norm Coleman beat former Vice-President Walter Mondale in the 2002 federal Senate election. But this ignores the fact that Minnesota has had Republican Senators before, including during it’s glory days of being very liberal Democrat. It also ignores the fact that this election was under peculiar circumstances with the recent death of the incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone in a tragic plane crash in October 2002. But since the Coleman victory Democrats won the 2004 Presidential Election in Minnesota. In 2006, Democratic victories in Minnesota were even more resounding. The Democrats regained control of the State House. Democrat Amy Klobuchar resoundingly won the federal Senate election against incumbent federal Representative Mark Kennedy (who at one time was considered to have a chance at winning). Democrats sent a 5-3 majority House delegation to Washington, and gained control of all statewide positions except Governor and Lieutenant Governor (actually beating the incumbent Republican state Auditor by a solid 10 percentage points!). So at the moment Minnesota is a fairly Democratic state. Now Minnesota has one conservative Republican Senator, and one liberal Democrat Senator. Norm Coleman has the advantage to be re-elected in 2008, but only because he is the incumbent. If he were not running, it would be a surefire Democratic pickup.
But I don’t know what to do about the bridge collapse, the dead innocent bystanders, and the economic damage this bridge collapse is going to cause.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Supplementary to my previous blog post
The by-elections have been called, but only the two in Quebec. The Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean should be able to be called for the same date of September 17 now that Michel Gauthier has resigned. Harper wants political conditions for him to improve before risking any of the by-elections in Ontario or British Columbia. Harper can't have thought Outremont to be that winnable for his party since he waited until the absolutely last day before calling the by-election. In my opinion political conditions for Harper in Quebec are not as good as he may have hoped, but still better for Harper than the Liberals would have hoped.
I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.
Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.
I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.
Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.
Outremont and Welland
Because for certain there is a by-election coming in the riding of Outremont, I thought I’d discuss the riding of Outremont. Outremont is a multi-ethnic district in central Montreal that consists of the former City of Outremont plus some surrounding areas. Its MPs are often cabinet ministers. But this has only been the case with Liberal governments. It had Marc Lalonde as an influential cabinet minister during the Trudeau years. When Lalonde retired in 1984, the riding elected an opposition member in the 1984 general election, Liberal Lucie Pépin, by a large margin. Pépin served the next four years as a member of the Official Opposition. In the 1988 election, Pépin lost Outremont by a narrow margin to Tory Jean-Pierre Hogue. This was due to a significant vote split between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. After this win for the Tories in Outremont, Hogue spent the next 5 years as a government backbencher. In 1993, Hogue was very badly defeated, receiving only 8.91% of the vote, losing to Martin Couchon. Couchon then spent several years in the Chrétien cabinet. As a Chrétien loyalist, Couchon did not seek re-election in 2004. He was succeeded in Outremont by Liberal Jean Lapierre, who then also became a cabinet minister (Transport) under Paul Martin. Lapierre was re-elected in the 2006 election. Although Lapierre had previously served as an opposition member from 1984 to 1992 (he left the Liberals in 1990 and joined the Bloc Quebecois, then resigned his seat in 1992 which Mulroney left vacant until the next general election), he didn’t want to serve in opposition again and quit his seat in January 2007 after serving in the opposition again for less than a year. The seat has been vacant since but Stephen Harper must call a by-election by Saturday.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)