On Thursday I got to shake the hands of Ed Broadbent, Hugh Segal, and Kate Holloway. York University hosted a two-hour forum on electoral reform. I only got to see the last 3 minutes. I had class for almost all of it, and then I needed to look up its location and that is how much time was left. As a result I only got to hear Broadbent speak. Interestingly, York didn’t invite a representative of the Green Party to the debate. Broadbent represented the NDP, Segal is a Conservative Senator and so he represented the federal/provincial Tories. Kate Holloway represented the Liberals. In some way, you CAN say the Greens had representation – in Kate Holloway. Holloway was formerly a prominent member of the federal Green Party. Kate was, however, the only representation the Greens got. All 3 of the speakers are in favour of MMP. I enjoyed the part of Broadbent’s speech I heard, but I strongly disagreed with one part of it in particular. Broadbent referred to the 2006 federal election and said that in the City of Toronto the Conservatives received “thousands” of votes but got no seats in the City of Toronto. Broadbent said the votes the Conservatives received in Toronto should have gotten them seats. I disagree with this. The Conservatives only got about 20% of the vote in the City of Toronto. I don’t think this warrants any seats when it is quite clear that Torontonians overwhelmingly rejected the Conservatives. Broadbent argues that under proportional representation the Conservatives would get seats in Toronto. But frankly I don’t see why we should give the Conservatives an opportunity to win seats in Toronto. I just don’t think 20% of the vote should warrant representation when it was quite obvious the vast majority of Torontonians did not agree with Conservative policies. Broadbent said the same thing about Montreal and Vancouver. He said that there too the Conservatives received votes but got no seats and that this was unfair. Well, we all know what happened in Vancouver. But in Montreal it stands – there are no Conservative seats on the Island of Montreal. And why should there be? The Conservatives got only around 15% or so of the vote in Montreal. I don’t believe that should entitle the Conservatives to seats. This whole thing is another reason I don’t like proportional representation (PR). It looks as though under PR, even when you overwhelmingly reject the Tories, Tory MPs still get elected. For me that is just plain unappealing.
I wonder if people like Ed Broadbent would make the same argument about Markham. Would they argue that the federal Tories deserve representation in the Town of Markham because of the 30-35% of the voters voted Tory in Markham? Markham spans 3 different federal ridings: Markham—Unionville (my riding and where the majority of Markham residents live), Thornhill (this has the far Western part of Markham and the rest of the riding consists of part of the City of Vaughan), and Oak Ridges—Markham (this has the Eastern and Northern parts of Markham). The Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham is the strongest Liberal part of the riding where the Liberals rack up large majorities. Markham—Unionville voted strongly Liberal in the last federal election, as I am certain did the Markham portion of Thornhill. In Markham—Unionville, the Conservatives got just under 27%. In Thornhill, the Conservatives got 33% (this number incorporates the Vaughan portion of Thornhill). In Oak Ridges—Markham, the Conservatives got 38.5%. That 38.5% is the result riding-wide. The Tories received far less than this in the Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham. When you do the estimation math in your head, you come to the conclusion that if the whole Town of Markham were its own riding (as it once was provincially), the Tories would have 30-35% and the Liberals would have somewhere above 50%. I am 90% certain that the whole Town of Markham voted over 50% Liberal in the last federal election. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t buy any MMP argument about Conservatives deserving representation in the Town of Markham. For the record, to contrast those Conservative numbers, here are the riding-wide Liberal numbers for each of the 3 ridings I just discussed. Markham—Unionville: 61.9%. Thornhill: 53%. Oak Ridges—Markham: 47%.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Leader's Debate
The other night there was a leader’s debate for the Ontario election. Unfortunately for Howard Hampton, he had a bad cold. This may have impeded his debate performance. The result of Hampton’s cold may have been that Hampton was less forceful than in two previous leader’s debates he was in. Nevertheless, Hampton still seemed to do ok. In my humble opinion, Tory could have done better. Also, in my humble opinion McGuinty did well.
That being said, I am VERY apprehensive about whatever Ontario post-debate polls may come out. I am VERY fearful they will show Conservative momentum because of how commentators spun the Ontario leaders debate. Almost all commentators spun the debate as a loser for McGuinty. This despite the fact that when I watched the debate, I saw that McGuinty did just fine. McGuinty was the only leader who was positive. The other two leaders were just continuously attacking McGuinty. Constantly being on the attack does not make you look like a Premier. Only McGuinty offered positive messages. Offering positive messages is how you look like a Premier, not by attacking constantly and not by playing footsie with the other Opposition leader. Interestingly, Dalton McGuinty’s quip that Howard Hampton and John Tory are HoJo is becoming something of a catchphrase. Unlike what Howard Hampton said, McGuinty was not in desperation to use the term HoJo. It was a joke, plain and simple. My deep concern is that people who originally thought that McGuinty won the debate when they watched it will change their minds and decide that Tory won the debate because of what the media said. This could have a devastating effect on the Liberal campaign. I have read a number of user comments on more than one website which said that McGuinty won the debate. I’ve also seen and/or heard occasional comments from Ontarians that their opinion of John Tory worsened because of the debate. I am just dreadfully scared of the pro-Tory media spin on the debate and the negative effect it will have on the Liberal campaign.
I also do not support John Tory’s idea of allowing booze to be sold at convenience stores. For one thing, it breaks with a VERY long tradition in Ontario. Secondly, it means less government regulation and therefore an increase in the likelihood of booze falling into the wrong hands. No I am not questioning the integrity of shopkeepers. No offence to shopkeepers, but I fear that this new lack of government regulation would increase the number of alcohol-caused accidents and deaths.
Tory MPP Bill Murdoch has announced that he would almost certainly vote against any legislation implementing John Tory’s faith-based funding plan. Tory simply dismissed Murdoch as a maverick when asked about this. But this is actually significant for a member of the Conservative caucus to so openly rebel against the party leader on this controversial issue. I don’t know whether Murdoch voting against Tory’s faith-based funding plan would get him kicked out of caucus. However, considering the position that the Liberals and NDP have taken on this issue, Tory’s faith-based funding plan could not be pushed through unless there were a Conservative majority government.
I am quite unhappy that Howard Hampton has said that for him to offer support to any minority government, the minority government in power would have to implement the entire NDP platform. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives could ever agree to implement the entire NDP platform. This would mean an incredibly unstable minority government. With this being Hampton’s position, the minority government could easily fall on the Throne Speech – just like at the federal level the government is threatened by a loss of confidence on the Throne Speech. Hampton making the demands he has made, I see no point in an Ontario minority government even trying to pass a budget. And how exactly is this minority government extreme instability supposed to get better under MMP if opposition parties continue to make such un-agreeable demands? For example, if the Greens get seats under MMP they could demand the abolishment of the Catholic school system in exchange for support of the government . That would be a complete no-go and could lead to MMP minority governments to be as unstable as ever. By the way, everybody these days seems to think that for this Ontario election, a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Despite the spin, there is just not enough evidence that a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Take the poll that showed the Liberals with a 9-pont lead. I think the last time a 9 point spread produced a minority government may have been never. I know that that particular poll is now out of date, but still it is something to keep in mind
I want to re-iterate one point – Dalton did far better in the debate than commentators gave him credit for.
That being said, I am VERY apprehensive about whatever Ontario post-debate polls may come out. I am VERY fearful they will show Conservative momentum because of how commentators spun the Ontario leaders debate. Almost all commentators spun the debate as a loser for McGuinty. This despite the fact that when I watched the debate, I saw that McGuinty did just fine. McGuinty was the only leader who was positive. The other two leaders were just continuously attacking McGuinty. Constantly being on the attack does not make you look like a Premier. Only McGuinty offered positive messages. Offering positive messages is how you look like a Premier, not by attacking constantly and not by playing footsie with the other Opposition leader. Interestingly, Dalton McGuinty’s quip that Howard Hampton and John Tory are HoJo is becoming something of a catchphrase. Unlike what Howard Hampton said, McGuinty was not in desperation to use the term HoJo. It was a joke, plain and simple. My deep concern is that people who originally thought that McGuinty won the debate when they watched it will change their minds and decide that Tory won the debate because of what the media said. This could have a devastating effect on the Liberal campaign. I have read a number of user comments on more than one website which said that McGuinty won the debate. I’ve also seen and/or heard occasional comments from Ontarians that their opinion of John Tory worsened because of the debate. I am just dreadfully scared of the pro-Tory media spin on the debate and the negative effect it will have on the Liberal campaign.
I also do not support John Tory’s idea of allowing booze to be sold at convenience stores. For one thing, it breaks with a VERY long tradition in Ontario. Secondly, it means less government regulation and therefore an increase in the likelihood of booze falling into the wrong hands. No I am not questioning the integrity of shopkeepers. No offence to shopkeepers, but I fear that this new lack of government regulation would increase the number of alcohol-caused accidents and deaths.
Tory MPP Bill Murdoch has announced that he would almost certainly vote against any legislation implementing John Tory’s faith-based funding plan. Tory simply dismissed Murdoch as a maverick when asked about this. But this is actually significant for a member of the Conservative caucus to so openly rebel against the party leader on this controversial issue. I don’t know whether Murdoch voting against Tory’s faith-based funding plan would get him kicked out of caucus. However, considering the position that the Liberals and NDP have taken on this issue, Tory’s faith-based funding plan could not be pushed through unless there were a Conservative majority government.
I am quite unhappy that Howard Hampton has said that for him to offer support to any minority government, the minority government in power would have to implement the entire NDP platform. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives could ever agree to implement the entire NDP platform. This would mean an incredibly unstable minority government. With this being Hampton’s position, the minority government could easily fall on the Throne Speech – just like at the federal level the government is threatened by a loss of confidence on the Throne Speech. Hampton making the demands he has made, I see no point in an Ontario minority government even trying to pass a budget. And how exactly is this minority government extreme instability supposed to get better under MMP if opposition parties continue to make such un-agreeable demands? For example, if the Greens get seats under MMP they could demand the abolishment of the Catholic school system in exchange for support of the government . That would be a complete no-go and could lead to MMP minority governments to be as unstable as ever. By the way, everybody these days seems to think that for this Ontario election, a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Despite the spin, there is just not enough evidence that a minority government is a foregone conclusion. Take the poll that showed the Liberals with a 9-pont lead. I think the last time a 9 point spread produced a minority government may have been never. I know that that particular poll is now out of date, but still it is something to keep in mind
I want to re-iterate one point – Dalton did far better in the debate than commentators gave him credit for.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Willowdale, Oshawa, Ajax--Pickering
Yesterday I drove through a neighbourhood in the northeastern part of the Willowdale. The lawn signs there were about 10 to 1 for the Liberals. This is despite the fact that the neighbourhood is in Tory candidate David Shiner’s municipal ward that he represents on city council. I’ve seen Liberal lawn sings in other parts of Willowdale as well. I really hope that Willowdale Liberal incumbent David Zimmer is able to win re-election over David Shiner.
The Election Projection Project has called Ajax—Pickering for the Conservatives and Oshawa for the NDP. I wonder whether the prediction for Ajax—Pickering is a little premature. The seat is Liberal federally. If provincially there is a Liberal majority government, shouldn’t Ajax—Pickering go Liberal? As for Oshawa, I think the prediction is based on lawn signs and reports on what is happening on the ground. I want the Liberals to win Oshawa. However, I’ve heard tell the provincial Liberals haven’t won Oshawa ever since Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn tried to break up a strike in Oshawa in the 1930s. Between the NDP and the Conservatives, I’m not sure which I’d like better to win. The NDP candidate in Oshawa is Sid Ryan. He has already run several times previously for the NDP federally and provincially. He’s come close all but one of those times. In the 2006 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 5 points of beating incumbent Conservative Colin Carrie. In the 2004 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 400 votes of beating Carrie in an open seat contest. In the 2003 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 1000 votes of beating Conservative incumbent Jerry Ouellette. In the 1999 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Scarborough Centre and placed an above average but still distant third. He split the vote and allowed Conservative incumbent Marilyn Muchinski to be re-elected by a wide margin despite several other Tory candidates being defeated in the same election with higher shares of the vote than Muchinski received. Ryan is president of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) Ontario. Ryan was born in Dublin, Ireland. He is considered something of a socialist. He may win in Oshawa. We shall see. But the Liberals need to focus not on Oshawa, but on Ajax—Pickering.
The Election Projection Project has called Ajax—Pickering for the Conservatives and Oshawa for the NDP. I wonder whether the prediction for Ajax—Pickering is a little premature. The seat is Liberal federally. If provincially there is a Liberal majority government, shouldn’t Ajax—Pickering go Liberal? As for Oshawa, I think the prediction is based on lawn signs and reports on what is happening on the ground. I want the Liberals to win Oshawa. However, I’ve heard tell the provincial Liberals haven’t won Oshawa ever since Liberal Premier Mitch Hepburn tried to break up a strike in Oshawa in the 1930s. Between the NDP and the Conservatives, I’m not sure which I’d like better to win. The NDP candidate in Oshawa is Sid Ryan. He has already run several times previously for the NDP federally and provincially. He’s come close all but one of those times. In the 2006 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 5 points of beating incumbent Conservative Colin Carrie. In the 2004 Federal Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 400 votes of beating Carrie in an open seat contest. In the 2003 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Oshawa and came within 1000 votes of beating Conservative incumbent Jerry Ouellette. In the 1999 Ontario Election, Ryan ran in Scarborough Centre and placed an above average but still distant third. He split the vote and allowed Conservative incumbent Marilyn Muchinski to be re-elected by a wide margin despite several other Tory candidates being defeated in the same election with higher shares of the vote than Muchinski received. Ryan is president of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees) Ontario. Ryan was born in Dublin, Ireland. He is considered something of a socialist. He may win in Oshawa. We shall see. But the Liberals need to focus not on Oshawa, but on Ajax—Pickering.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Outremont and Ontario Election
I’m as worried as ever that on Monday the NDP will win over the Liberals in Outremont. This would be a serious blow to my leader Stephane Dion and would make the appearance of the Liberals not having momentum. My understanding is that for the last couple weeks the Liberals have been running a spirited campaign, but I don’t know if it was enough to catch up to Mulcair. I can’t conjecture what the election results would look like. One conjecture seems as doubtful as the next.
I’ve now joined Michael Chan’s re-election campaign. I’ve also joined his re-election campaign group on Facebook. I’m afraid that there there are a few “wall” comments but not too much else content. Nobody is doing in depth discussion about how the campaign is going. I am, however, getting daily email campaign updates from the central Liberal campaign. Needless to say they highlight Liberal policy announcements and criticize the Tories and the NDP. Speaking of policy, the Green Party has announced that a Green government would put into place SIX new statutory holidays. These include Earth Day, “Ontario’s birthday”, Remembrance Day and provincial and municipal election days. What about times like this year when Earth Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday? I especially do not agree with statutory holidays on election days. That is too much of a disruption and does not necessarily encourage people to vote. The reason according to Green Party leader Frank De Jong is that workers in other countries who have more days off are more productive. I wonder if De Jong has the statistical evidence to back this up. This statutory holiday policy has a European feel to it. It is in many continental European countries that have an increased number of holidays and also often have election day as a holiday. Another thing about election day on a holiday is that there is one group of workers who don’t get the day off – election workers! Another problem is that on election day schools are a common source of location for polls to be placed. On a statutory holiday schools will be closed and unable to be used for polling locations, causing a serious administrative headache. That’s why I prefer Dalton’s single new holiday in February.
I’ve now joined Michael Chan’s re-election campaign. I’ve also joined his re-election campaign group on Facebook. I’m afraid that there there are a few “wall” comments but not too much else content. Nobody is doing in depth discussion about how the campaign is going. I am, however, getting daily email campaign updates from the central Liberal campaign. Needless to say they highlight Liberal policy announcements and criticize the Tories and the NDP. Speaking of policy, the Green Party has announced that a Green government would put into place SIX new statutory holidays. These include Earth Day, “Ontario’s birthday”, Remembrance Day and provincial and municipal election days. What about times like this year when Earth Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday? I especially do not agree with statutory holidays on election days. That is too much of a disruption and does not necessarily encourage people to vote. The reason according to Green Party leader Frank De Jong is that workers in other countries who have more days off are more productive. I wonder if De Jong has the statistical evidence to back this up. This statutory holiday policy has a European feel to it. It is in many continental European countries that have an increased number of holidays and also often have election day as a holiday. Another thing about election day on a holiday is that there is one group of workers who don’t get the day off – election workers! Another problem is that on election day schools are a common source of location for polls to be placed. On a statutory holiday schools will be closed and unable to be used for polling locations, causing a serious administrative headache. That’s why I prefer Dalton’s single new holiday in February.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Coming Throne Speech
I can’t deal with whether the federal government will fall on the coming Throne Speech. That seems too far away right now. I want to focus on the provincial campaign. There will be a lot of Throne Speech optics later. If we’re lucky, someone will find away to keep this government in power for now – Liberals in Ontario cannot have two elections so close together. I want this Conservative government out of office just as much as the next Liberal, but a 2007 election is not the way to do it. Bringing down the government only creates an election that the Conservatives could easily win with a minority or majority. Not for decades upon decades has the Governor General asked an opposition party to form government without an election victory for said opposition party. That just doesn’t happen anymore. If we could bring down the government in hopes of Dion simply being appointed Prime Minister on the spot, I’d go for it. But Governors General just don’t appoint new Prime Ministers on the spot following the loss of confidence of a government anymore. So it just is not a doable option. That is why we need to keep this Conservative government in power in the year 2007 and explore our options next year. That’s all the dealing I’m going to do on this topic for now.
But as a closely related aside I want to mention that Harper has been bold enough to say he won’t hold a vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan unless he thinks the government can win that vote. The implication is he may hold it eventually, as the current deadline of February 2009 comes close. But he will not hold such an early vote because he thinks he can’t win it. I seem to read signals from the government that the government was hoping certain Liberals would again break ranks and support the extension past 2009 in the same way that certain Liberals voted for the extension to 2009. I expect the government to be disappointed if they are hoping for this. Dion has more or less united the Liberals on this issue. In the spring there was a Liberal motion to end the mission in 2009. Individual Liberals did not break ranks and I wouldn’t expect them to in a future vote. We are now quite united on this issue. When it comes down to it, there cannot be an extension of the Afghanistan mission within the context of this current parliament. Harper would still need a majority government to push through such an extension of the mission. And even then, it would go against the type of “all-party consensus” that Harper has been promising.
But as a closely related aside I want to mention that Harper has been bold enough to say he won’t hold a vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan unless he thinks the government can win that vote. The implication is he may hold it eventually, as the current deadline of February 2009 comes close. But he will not hold such an early vote because he thinks he can’t win it. I seem to read signals from the government that the government was hoping certain Liberals would again break ranks and support the extension past 2009 in the same way that certain Liberals voted for the extension to 2009. I expect the government to be disappointed if they are hoping for this. Dion has more or less united the Liberals on this issue. In the spring there was a Liberal motion to end the mission in 2009. Individual Liberals did not break ranks and I wouldn’t expect them to in a future vote. We are now quite united on this issue. When it comes down to it, there cannot be an extension of the Afghanistan mission within the context of this current parliament. Harper would still need a majority government to push through such an extension of the mission. And even then, it would go against the type of “all-party consensus” that Harper has been promising.
Monday, September 10, 2007
I need some help
Somebody has made the claim on the electionprediction.com page that there were polls in and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot showing a tight two way race in both ridings in the by-elections. The claim was that the poll was in the Toronto Star. I can find the poll absolutely nowhere on the internet and I have searched thoroughly. If anyone can point out to me where this poll is and what the numbers say I would be most appreciative.
Larry Zolf
Larry Zolf wrote an opinion piece in August about the 2007 Ontario Election (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20070806.html). There are some things he said that I would like to dispute. A general problem is that Zolf makes far too many generalizations. Here is one such generalization:
“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”
That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.
This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:
“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.
The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”
What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.
As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.
The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.
I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.
There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:
“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”
I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.
Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:
“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”
That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.
Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.
“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”
That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.
This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:
“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.
The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”
What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.
As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.
The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.
I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.
There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:
“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”
I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.
Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:
“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”
That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.
Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
No Proportional Representation
I will vote for the status quo on the electoral reform referendum. Firstly, I, as do many, dislike the idea of having list MPPs that parties can select in an elite manner. MPPs in danger of defeat who are high-profile could simply be added to the top of the list to prevent their defeat. We could also experience the phenomenon whereby MPPs can run both locally and on a list, so that when defeated locally they are still elected on a list. This happens all the time in New Zealand and I don’t agree with it. The second problem is that proportional representation would result in perpetual minority governments. Proponents of proportional representation counter that these minority governments would be stable coalition governments. But I don’t like the idea of the Liberals having to make a semi-permanent coalition with the NDP. As it is, the Ontario NDP is fiercely anti-Liberal in nature. How we could ever make any kind of alliance with them I’m not sure. The NDP never has anything good to say about the Liberals. I don’t see how that could change in the context of minority governments.
As far as the coming election is concerned, based on my experience at the federal level, I fear that a minority Liberal win would be almost as bad as losing outright. Once again, people say the Liberals would need the NDP to stay in power in this situation. But the NDP dislike the Liberals so much I don’t see how any kind of alliance could be formed. I expect that the minority government would be unstable. I can just see now both opposition parties announcing they cannot support the 2008 budget, causing the government to fall in 2008. I foresee a Liberal minority as a disaster. But sometimes I wonder whether the talk of minority government is only being used to sell more newspapers. A 5, 6, or 7 point lead could just as easily translate into a majority government.
The Ontario Liberal Party has nominated all its candidates and exceeded its goal of nominating females in half of ridings not held by the Liberal Party. And overall the party has one third of its candidates women. This is excellent. This includes Helena Jaczek in Oak Ridges—Markham, the riding neighbouring mine.
I am impressed by the candidate running for the Liberals in Hamilton Centre. His name is Steve Ruddick. He is a CH (Hamilton’s local television station) weatherman and is a media personality who is also a news reporter and journalist. The Liberals pulled out of their hat a candidate much stronger than I expected (I feared the Liberal candidate would be much lesser known after Judy Marsales announced she wasn’t going to run again). I wish Steve Ruddick the absolute best of luck.
As far as the coming election is concerned, based on my experience at the federal level, I fear that a minority Liberal win would be almost as bad as losing outright. Once again, people say the Liberals would need the NDP to stay in power in this situation. But the NDP dislike the Liberals so much I don’t see how any kind of alliance could be formed. I expect that the minority government would be unstable. I can just see now both opposition parties announcing they cannot support the 2008 budget, causing the government to fall in 2008. I foresee a Liberal minority as a disaster. But sometimes I wonder whether the talk of minority government is only being used to sell more newspapers. A 5, 6, or 7 point lead could just as easily translate into a majority government.
The Ontario Liberal Party has nominated all its candidates and exceeded its goal of nominating females in half of ridings not held by the Liberal Party. And overall the party has one third of its candidates women. This is excellent. This includes Helena Jaczek in Oak Ridges—Markham, the riding neighbouring mine.
I am impressed by the candidate running for the Liberals in Hamilton Centre. His name is Steve Ruddick. He is a CH (Hamilton’s local television station) weatherman and is a media personality who is also a news reporter and journalist. The Liberals pulled out of their hat a candidate much stronger than I expected (I feared the Liberal candidate would be much lesser known after Judy Marsales announced she wasn’t going to run again). I wish Steve Ruddick the absolute best of luck.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Prorogue????
Harper prorogued parliament. When I think about it I'm not surprised. He wants to start his government fresh and is willing to risk an election that he thinks he'd win anyway by having a new Throne Speech. I'm not sure how much emphasis on the environment this throne speech will have. The government says its Clean Air Act won’t be one of the killed pieces of legislation to be resurrected. However, the numerous justice bills that reached the Senate shortly before summer and thus could not be passed will be resurrected at the stage at which they were previously. I don’t know how this works. I can only assume that they have to renumber the bills the match the new parliamentary session. Apparently private members bills don’t die when parliament is prorogued. I was under the impression that ALL bills died, including private members bills. It must be different somehow at the federal level. Recently, I saw some articles referring to a private member’s bill to implement the Kyoto Protocol. These articles said that this was a private member’s bill and thus it would not die when parliament is prorogued. But that bill has already received Royal Assent, so not only does the bill not die, it is already law! I’m not sure where the misconception that this bill had not yet received Royal Assent came from. One of the articles I read said that there is a group (I forget what it was called) that is thrilled parliament was prorogued because doing so temporarily kills the age of consent bill. This group opposes this bill. One argument they make is that teenagers under the age of consent are less likely to speak out and seek health information regarding sexual relationships. Maybe that is true in many U.S. States, with their mishmash of age of consent laws. However, I’m hoping it would be different in Canada because 14 year olds under the new law are not prohibited from having sex. Having sex with someone as much as four years older than them is still legal. So as long as their sexual partner is of the right age there should be no disincentive to seek health information. If however, the partner is more than 4 years older than the 14 year old, then there may be a case of not seeking information in hopes of not being caught. This leads to the group’s other argument against the bill, it limits sexual freedom for young teenagers. Now this is true to a certain extent. The maximum limit of 4 years may have been too few. Any attempts by the Senate to change this, however, will be swiftly rejected by the government as the government is want to do. At least if this Bill is resurrected, it can also receive a fair examination in the Senate before being passed.
I have a bit of political humour. The NDP candidate in my riding of Markham—Unionville for the upcoming provincial election is Andy Arifin. But currently on the NDP website, I can get information on him only in French! Clearly that part of their site is a work in progress. Here is the humourous translation of Arifin’s blurb into English using the Google translator:
Andy Arifin is enthusiastic with the idea to insufflate a new energy with the Ontarian policy. Inspired by the optimistic vision of Howard Hampton of the future of Ontario, it is happy to represent the district of Markham-Unionville in the name of the team of the New democratic Party.Andy always lived in Markham. While it finishes a baccalaureat specialized in political sciences at the York University, it finds time to militate actively.As a student, Andy saw closely how the badly advised policies of Dalton McGuinty as regards education postsecondaire push a number growing of students to be involved in debt always more. Following the deregulation of the expenses of the professional training schemes, a measurement of the McGuinty government, certain students cannot consider higher education any more or to continue their program of studies.Andy impatiently waits the moment to represent the families of workers as new deputy of the district of Markham Unionville in Queen' S Park.
“New deputy” means new MPP. If Arifin wants to be the new MPP for Markham—Unionville, he has his work cut out for him. After all, I think that if the NDP were to win 106/107 seats in the province, Markham—Unionville would be the one seat that didn’t go NDP.
I have a bit of political humour. The NDP candidate in my riding of Markham—Unionville for the upcoming provincial election is Andy Arifin. But currently on the NDP website, I can get information on him only in French! Clearly that part of their site is a work in progress. Here is the humourous translation of Arifin’s blurb into English using the Google translator:
Andy Arifin is enthusiastic with the idea to insufflate a new energy with the Ontarian policy. Inspired by the optimistic vision of Howard Hampton of the future of Ontario, it is happy to represent the district of Markham-Unionville in the name of the team of the New democratic Party.Andy always lived in Markham. While it finishes a baccalaureat specialized in political sciences at the York University, it finds time to militate actively.As a student, Andy saw closely how the badly advised policies of Dalton McGuinty as regards education postsecondaire push a number growing of students to be involved in debt always more. Following the deregulation of the expenses of the professional training schemes, a measurement of the McGuinty government, certain students cannot consider higher education any more or to continue their program of studies.Andy impatiently waits the moment to represent the families of workers as new deputy of the district of Markham Unionville in Queen' S Park.
“New deputy” means new MPP. If Arifin wants to be the new MPP for Markham—Unionville, he has his work cut out for him. After all, I think that if the NDP were to win 106/107 seats in the province, Markham—Unionville would be the one seat that didn’t go NDP.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Provinical poll form Ipsos Reid
There is a provincial poll released August 28 from Ipsos Reid showing the Liberals at 42%, the Conservatives at 35%, the NDP at 16%, and the Greens at 6%. This is a drop for the Greens and a significant drop for the NDP. It is also an increase for the Liberals and a drop for the Tories. This poll also provides strong evidence to me that regional breakdowns for polls within the province, especially for Northern Ontario, are unreliable. This poll shows for Northern Ontario the Liberals at 51%, the Tories at 20%, and the NDP at 18%. The previous Ipsos Reid poll (released August 21) showed the Tories at 41% in Northern Ontario, and the Liberals at 34%. The current poll has the Tories dropping 21 points in Northern Ontario. Such a large fluctuation is not realistic in my opinion. I’d also expect the NDP to be higher than 20% in Northern Ontario. I thus suspect that the Northern Ontario results are not accurate possibly due to small sample size within that region. I’m also wondering if it is the same thing in the 416 and 905. Even though the Liberal lead expanded in this poll overall, it somehow shrunk substantially in the 905. The Liberal lead in the 416 also shrank to just 3 points. Is it possible that the results for both the 416 and 905 may be inaccurate due to small sample size within those regions? I’m inclined to believe that regional results within Ontario tend to be inaccurate due to sample size and thus to get the real picture it is best to look at the province-wide poll results. In my opinion, a 7 point lead would be hard pressed not to produce a majority government.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Cheri Di Novo, Alan Tonks, John McKay, Mike Wallace
In a previous blog, I mentioned NDP MPP Cheri Di Novo’s liberal views on homosexuality. The riding’s federal MP Peggy Nash is also in favour of same-sex marriage. For the record, the only MP to oppose same-sex marriage in the City of Toronto excluding Etobicoke and Scarborough was York South—Weston Liberal MP Alan Tonks. Tonks says he supports civil unions but not same-sex marriage. The first problem with civil unions is that many experts believe they are outside the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal government would have to rely on individual provinces to decide whether they want to enact civil unions. I’m no expert, but I imagine the Alberta government, for one, might have serious trouble passing a civil union law. The next problem with civil unions is there is a glaring equality problem as illustrated in the UK’s civil union legislation. In the UK, same sex couples can enter into a civil union. But they do not have equality because a church minister cannot preside over any legally binding civil union ceremony. By contrast, church ministers can and always have presided over legally binding opposite-sex marriage ceremonies. I consider this discrepancy discriminatory. We could have had the same problem in Canada. Some have argued that the government getting out of the marriage business is a solution. The idea is that only those willing to have a religious ceremony can get married (including same-sex couples). This is discriminatory against non-religious people not willing to have a religious ceremony. It relegates non-religious couples to have a civil union instead of a marriage. This is just as discriminatory as denying marriage to same-sex couples. Yet this is the position of Burlington Conservative MP Mike Wallace (http://www.marriagevote.ca/articles/wallace.html):
"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."
I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:
"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."
McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
"My personal goal is to open up the debate and get the Government of Canada out of the marriage business. I want to leave marriage to the church organizations in Canada and the government can then create a civil union that protects all couples," Wallace said in the press release. Wallace also stated to [Kevin Flack] that "the United Church does marry gay couples in some churches in Burlington, and I am not wanting to stop this."
I have news for Mr. Wallace, the stated intent of the Harper’s December 2006 motion was expressly to repeal same-sex marriage. It said nothing about getting the government out of the business of marriage. The motion said nothing about “reopening the debate”. It simply called on the government to bring in legislation to repeal same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business The idea behind the motion was expressly that the government should introduce legislation that prevents same-sex couples from having their marriage recognized by the government. The motion was not about a broad “reopening the debate” where various options could be considered. The motion was specifically meant to start the process to eliminate same-sex marriage but keep the government in the marriage business. Therefore, if Wallace was in favour of same-sex marriage, he should have voted against Harper’s motion. I also disagree very very strongly with fellow Liberals like Liberal MP John McKay who are against same-sex marriage. McKay on June 27, 2005, made this quote in the House of Commons that I think is offensive for gays and lesbians:
"It is the foundation for family formation. When marriage is degraded to simply a public declaration of one's best buddy, then the institution of marriage becomes meaningless."
McKay claims to be willing to look at civil unions. But he opposed the government’s same-sex domestic partnership benefits legislation in 2000. He previously opposed government benefits for same-sex couples. I could accept his civil union position if it weren’t for his previous opposition to other forms of gay rights. At least, by contrast, another Liberal MP in the same vicinity as McKay’s riding, Mark Holland in Ajax—Pickering, has always voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates
I have some bad news. Bob Rae has a cold and therefore his heart surgery has been delayed. No new date has been set. My concern is that Rae will still be recovering and unable to campaign when Harper calls the Toronto Centre by-election.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Men more likely to oppose gay marriage
It has just occurred to me that every single Liberal MP to vote for Stephen Harper’s December 2006 motion to repeal same-sex marriage were men. In 2005, almost all of the Liberal MPs to vote against same-sex marriage were men, with only a handful of exceptions. In December 2006, all the female Liberal opponents of same-sex marriage were either no longer in Parliament or switched their vote. Speaking of that December 2006 vote, Liberal MP Glen Pearson had been sworn in that very day after winning a by-election and so was able to vote against Harper’s motion. Raymond Gravel, however, also having recently been elected in a by-election, had not been sworn in yet for some reason and was not sworn in until a few days later. I’m not sure why this is. It meant that Gravel (who was an openly gay Catholic priest) was unable to vote against Harper’s motion as he had announced he would. I don’t know why it took longer for him to be sworn in. All I can think of is that the returning officer took longer to submit the results to Parliament for some reason.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Speaking of by-elections, it has not been since 1986 that a governing party has picked up a seat previously held by an opposition party in a by-election in Ontario provincial politics. In 1986 there was a Liberal minority government. A Tory member resigned from the York East riding. In the by-election, Liberal Christine Hart won. Prior to this, the governing party picked up a seat in 1984 in Wentworth North when the Tories narrowly picked it up from the Liberals. This MPP never got a chance to actually sit in the legislature because a general election was called before the legislature met again.
Sault Ste. Marie
For some reason, Milton Chan from www.electionprediction.com has changed his prediction in the riding of Sault Ste. Marie from Liberal to Too Close for the upcoming provincial election. I’m not sure why he did this. He seemed confident of a Liberal win before and I do not know what made him change it. The incumbent Liberal candidate is by far the highest profile candidate. Neither the Tories nor the NDP have chosen candidates with high name recognition. To boot, Sault Ste. Marie has a popular Liberal incumbent in David Orazietti. Orazietti defeated popular 13 year NDP incumbent Tony Martin by 8000 votes in the 2003 election. He won 57% to Martin’s 32%. In an election where the percentages for the NDP went up in most ridings, this was quite a downturn in NDP support. This was an impressive victory. Tony Martin went on to win the federal Sault Ste. Marie by 700 votes. In the 2006 election when most narrowly elected NDP incumbents won by larger margins, Martin increased his margin to only 2000 votes with the Liberals an impressive second. In 2004, I heard that the Liberals actually won the City of Sault Ste. Marie and that it was the newly added rural portion that put Martin over the top. So even at the federal level Sault Ste. Marie is only a marginal NDP seat. It is for this reason that I think for Sault. Ste. Marie to go NDP provincially, it would take a signficant Liberal meltdown. Thus I don’t understand why Milton Chan suddenly changed the riding to Too Close.
Politicians
In Prince Edward—Hastings, the MPP Ernie Parsons resigned in order to become a justice of the peace. This has left the seat vacant until the general election where another MPP, Leona Drombrowsky, is going to run. Parsons applied for the JP position just like anybody else and had to go through the normal application. It was necessary to do this because Parsons had already decided to retire from politics at the end of his term. Parsons will not make a pension from his years as an MPP because Mike Harris abolished the MPPs pension. Therefore simply going into retirement may not have been an option for Parsons. It may be for this reason that he wanted to become a JP. But Parsons had to leave his old job early because the job stared in July and one cannot be a JP and MPP at the same time. I do not agree with Harris’s decision to eliminate the MPP pension. I believe politicians retiring at the normal retirement age deserve such a pension to live off of for their years of public service. Harris’s reason for eliminating the pension is because the pension was “gold plated”. I don’t know how gold plated it was, though. People need an income after retiring. Eliminating the pension simply discourages people from entering provincial politics. Instead, people may enter municipal politics which often does have a pension or federal politics which also offers a pension. Other provinces do offer pensions to their former legislature members. If such a former member goes on to become a federal MP, and are old enough to collect such a pension from the provincial government, some call this double dipping – collecting an MPs salary as well as a provincial pension. But I do not know why people refer to this negatively. I don’t see why becoming a federal MP should disqualify one from a pension for their years of service at the provincial level. Similarly, I do not know of any law that says a former MP is not eligible to collect a former MP’s pension should they go into another line of work such as politics at another level of government. For example, Carolyn Parrish is a Mississauga City Councilor. Her 12 years as an MP also entitles her to an MPs pension because she is over the age of 55. So I see no reason why she cannot collect a Councilor’s salary and an MPs pension at the same time. By the way, I met Carolyn Parrish at a talk she gave at my university shortly after she retired from federal politics. She said she wanted a seat on Mississauga City Council because otherwise she’d be bored out of her skull. Now that is a sign that she was long ago bitten by the political bug and thus for her quiet retirement is far too boring.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
To collect an MP’s pension, one must have been an MP for 6 years, and for at least 2 parliamentary terms. The six years and two terms do not have to be consecutive. What this means is that one term MPs are never eligible for pensions. Here is a scenario where I am not sure whether one is eligible for a pension. Let us say someone is elected to the House of Commons. Just for fun let us imagine that she was previously a long-time municipal and then provincial politician. Yes she is a Liberal. Let us imagine that she is elected to her first term in parliament and that this parliament lasts a normal 4 years. Let us imagine that she is re-elected at the next election and serves another 2 years in parliament. After she has been a Member of Parliament for just over 6 years, she resigns her seat to spend more time with her grandchildren. Is she eligible for an MP’s pension or not. Is she eligible because she served the minimum 6 years or is she ineligible because she did not serve her full second term in parliament?
Speaking of municipal politics, there is a strange loophole in the Ontario’s municipal election’s act. It has to do with campaign surpluses. A municipal politician’s “campaign surplus” cannot be spent by the politician on anything other than future municipal campaigns. If, however, a municipal politician does not run again, the surplus goes into the coffers of the municipality. The loophole is that the surplus can be preserved for future campaigns if the politician registers as a municipal candidate but then later deregisters. This has caused more than one former municipal politician to do a strange thing – register as a candidate and then immediately deregister. They do this just in case they run again municipally some time in the future. I know of two examples when this has happened. Former Toronto City Councilor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski retired from politics in 2003. However, in 2006 he registered to run in his old ward and then immediately deregistered. He did this to keep his campaign surplus from 2000. This could mean that Korwin-Kuczynski is contemplating a municipal run in 2010. MPP Mario Racco has also done this same trick twice, as referenced in a Toronto Star correction notice(http://www.guelphmercury.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1160689838085&call_pageid=1051266777375&col=1051266777367). In 2003, while still a councilor, Racco registered to run again municipally and later deregistered because he was in fact running provincially. In January 2006 Racco again registered to run municipally and then immediately withdrew. He did this so that he can still have his campaign surplus from 2000 should he decide to run in 2010. At first I was shocked to see him register even for a moment because he is a sitting MPP. However, I later looked at the law and saw that what he did was ok. The law says that an MPP who registers to run municipally may do so, but if they have not resigned as MPP by the close of municipal nominations, they are deemed ineligible to run municipally and are automatically removed from the ballot. This means that Racco still has his campaign surplus to run in 2010. If Racco is re-elected in 2007 and decides to run municipally in 2010, we can look forward to a Thornhill by-election in late 2010/early 2011. But I do not know whether Racco would actually run in 2010. His old ward is currently held by his wife Sandra Yeung Racco. I don’t know whether she’d be willing to give her seat up for her husband. And as far as running for regional council is concerned, I do not know whether Racco has enough at-large name recognition to capture one of the 3 spots on regional council. So if Racco loses this year, running municipally in 2010 may be his only option to remain politically active. If Racco wins this year, I am doubtful he’d run in 2010 because doing so is risky. It would either mean getting his wife to not run again and risk running in his old ward or it would mean an even riskier run for regional council.
Andy Savoy was a Liberal MP from 2000 to 2006. He physically sat in Parliament from 2001 to 2005. In the 2006 election, he unexpectedly lost his seat to Conservative Mike Allen by some 200 votes. Despite this close result he is for some reason not running in the next federal election. He should consider attempting to re-enter parliament at some point so that in future he could be eligible for a pension. He served only 5 years in parliament which is less than the requisite 6 years. He would have made it to 6 years had the 38th Parliament not been so abnormally short. It occurs to me that in Ontario one possible reason we have so many MPPs not seeking re-election after only one term is because there is not a pension and therefore there is no motivation to seek a second term in order to be eligible for a pension. But this is just a guess. I know in Mary Anne Chambers’ case it was due to health. But I still hope the Liberals can win Scarborough—Guildwood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)