I am overjoyed at the recent election of Democrat Barack Obama as President of the United States. Obama won all the Kerry states and also won all the Gore states. In addition Obama created 9 new blue states: Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. Obama also got an additional electoral vote from Nebraska by winning the Second Congressional District of Nebraska (NE-2) which consists of the Omaha metropolitan area. This occurred because Nebraska gives two electoral votes for the statewide winner, and one electoral vote each for the winner of the Presidential vote within each of Nebraska’s 3 Congressional Districts. Maine also uses this same method. However, never before had either Maine or Nebraska split its electoral votes as a result of this “district method” of allocating electoral votes. That being said, Bush came close to winning Maine’s Second Congressional District in 2000 and in 1992 Ross Perot came close to winning one of Maine’s Congressional Districts. However, because Clinton narrowly won that Congressional District, Ross Perot was unable to get a single electoral vote despite winning 19% of the national popular vote. Because of what happened in Nebraska, Republicans in Nebraska plan to introduce legislation to restore the winner-take-all system of Presidential elections. Nebraska used the winner-take-all system prior to the 1992 Presidential election. Nebraska has a unicameral Upper House (known sometimes as the Nebraska Senate), all of whose members are officially non-partisan. Unofficially however, Republicans make up a majority of the Nebraska Senate and so the bill to return to winner-take-all could conceivably pass considering that Nebraska has a Republican governor. It is however too late to repeal the “district method” for this election so Obama will get an electoral vote from Nebraska.
I will not object too strongly if Republicans in Nebraska manage to repeal their “district method” because I favour the winner-take-all method for Presidential elections. There are many reasons for this but one of the big ones is that the “district method” opens up the Presidential race to gerrymandering and that needs to be avoided at all costs. So if Nebraska Republicans repeal Nebraska’s “district method” I am ok with that even though NE-2 could have broken a 269-269 electoral vote tie in favour of Obama if the election nationwide had been closer. Due to the electoral vote splitting that is to happen in Nebraska, the 1996 Presidential election will still be the last election when not a single state’s electoral votes were split. In 2000, and 2004, there were split electoral votes due to faithless electors. In 2000, a Gore elector for the District of Columbia refused to cast any electoral votes in protest of DC not having full congressional representation. In 2004, a Kerry elector for Minnesota cast his/her electoral vote for John Ewards (sic) for President and John Edwards for vice-president. This vote for “John Ewards” appears to have been a simple mistake. Even though the vote was for “John Ewards” it was certified as a vote for John Edwards. This faithless electoral vote was very unfortunate because it denied John Kerry a well-earned electoral vote from Minnesota. Due to NE-2 going for Obama, this Presidential election will be the first Presidential election since 1960 in which any state’s electoral votes are split (other than splits occurring due to faithless electors).
I feel that also I need to debunk claims that I have seen that Barack Obama is to the right of Stephen Harper. I’ve seen the argument made but I consider such an assertion hogwash. Yes Obama is to the right of Stephane Dion, Bob Rae, Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, and even Michael Ignatieff. But Obama is not to the right of Stephen Harper. To make my point I want to debunk the claims made in a recent Toronto Sun column written by columnist Lorrie Goldstein. Goldstein says:
“One of the most intellectually lazy and politically dishonest things the liberal media have done over the past few years is to constantly misrepresent Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a clone of outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush.
Lazy because the facts don't support it. Dishonest because those making the comparison know better.
On the bright side, they now have a lot of splaining (sic) to do, given the number of political views Democratic presidentelect (sic) Barack Obama and Harper share and it will be fun to watch them squirm.”
Goldstein goes on to make his points as to why this is his view. He says:
“For example, Harper, unlike Bush (and Obama), does not support the death penalty. Harper, unlike Bush, supports medicare and has never attempted to use the power of the state to restrict access to abortions.”
It is true that both Bush and Obama support the death penalty but I personally suspect Harper also supports the death penalty considering his government’s new policy of not opposing the death penalty given to Canadians sentenced in the United States. As for Goldstein’s claim that Harper supports medicare, I can tell you that Harper certainly did not support medicare when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition. The National Citizens Coalition opposes Canada’s medicare system, opposes the Canada Health Act and would like to see health care in Canada privatized. It was only after Harper became a party leader that he began publicly supporting the status quo for health care in Canada. As for Obama, Obama platform calls for significantly more government involvement in the United States health care system. It is also of note that Obama’s Presidential predecessor Bill Clinton has come to Canada and given speeches lauding Canada’s health care system and indicating that Canada’s nationalized health care system is the ideal. Considering that Obama’s end goal for health care is to make sure every American is covered, I think the argument can be made that Obama does support medicare. I’m sure Obama always has supported some form of medicare, unlike Harper whom we know at one time opposed the Canadian medicare system. As for abortion, Harper has refused to state his own view on abortion but over the years has clearly given more support to the pro-life side. Obama by contrast is openly and steadfastly pro-choice. This makes Obama the more “abortion choice” friendly politician.
Next Goldstein says:
“Harper's position on same-sex marriage, before the courts decided in its favour and which Harper has not overturned by invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause, is the same as Obama's.
Both support civil unions for homosexuals but not same-sex marriages. That's also the position of all the major Democratic presidential contenders in recent years, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Both Harper and Obama support the war in Afghanistan.”
Now we’ve reached everyone’s favourite issue: same-sex marriage. First off let us note that of course Harper has never had the Parliamentary votes to overturn same-sex marriage using the notwithstanding clause even if he wanted to. At first glance it does appear that Harper and Obama’s position on same-sex marriage is the same: no same-sex marriage, civil unions. However there is a key difference. Obama does not favour laws that ban same-sex marriage whereas Harper does. Obama opposed the recent California referendum to ban same-sex marriage ; he endorsed the no side of the California referendum to ban same-sex marriage. Obama also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment. It is very clearly evident that Obama does not support overturning same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction after a court has legalized same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction. This is in stark contrast to Harper. Harper wanted same-sex marriage in Canada overturned the moment it was legalized by a court in Ontario in 2003. After the 2003 Ontario court ruling, it became Harper’s policy that any court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage in Ontario or any other province were to be overturned by the government. In the spring of 2005 when the same-sex marriage Bill was being debated, Harper led a Parliamentary campaign to defeat the same-sex marriage bill and to use government legislation to overturn the court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. This is in stark contrast to Obama, who opposes efforts to overturn court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage. So it is very evident that Harper’s position on same-sex marriage is very much to the right of Obama’s position on same-sex marriage, in contrast to what Goldstein asserts.
As for the war in Afghanistan, both Harper and Obama support it. But this fact does not contribute to either the argument that Obama and Harper are both as right wing nor does it contribute to the argument that Obama is more right-wing than Harper.
Next Goldstein discusses the environment:
“Harper, from oil-rich Alberta and Obama, from coal-rich Illinois, have both softened their past opposition to the Kyoto accord and reducing greenhouse gas emissions for pragmatic reasons.”
I don’t believe that this statement accurately reflects Obama’s position on the environment. During this long Presidential campaign, Obama has been supportive of the Kyoto protocol and it really is hard to argue that Obama has ever been as hostile to efforts to fight climate change as Harper has been in the past.
Next Goldstein talks about taxes:
“Next, consider this example of the logical absurdities to which simplistic comparisons between Canadian and American politicians can lead.
Obama's major campaign promise was a $2.9-trillion tax cut to 95% of American taxpayers over the next decade, despite having inherited a $438-billion deficit from the Bush administration.
On the surface, that sounds a lot like former Conservative Ontario premier Mike Harris' 30% cut to the provincial income tax rate, despite having inherited an $11.2 billion deficit from the previous government of then NDP premier Bob Rae in 1995.
So, does that mean Obama is a Harris clone, a closet common sense revolutionary? Will the federal Liberals (and liberal media), who attacked Harris for cutting taxes without first balancing the budget, make the same criticism of Obama today? Of course not.”
I consider this comparison between Harris and Obama to be absurd because Harris’s tax cut program involved cutting taxes for all income levels (Harris did not implement enough tax cuts for the low income brackets of course), whereas Obama’s plan involves raising taxes for the wealthiest and cutting taxes for everyone else. Also of course Obama’s tax plan puts a greater emphasis on cutting taxes for lower income earners than Harris’s plan ever did. So therefore Goldstein’s comparing Harris’ tax plan to Obama’s tax plan is like comparing apples and oranges and in reality does not make help make Goldstein’s argument.
Next Goldstein makes another comment on taxes:
“Now factor in that cutting taxes in tough times (albeit with a different emphasis on who gets the most benefits) has been done by both Republican and Democratic administrations. So, is Obama a Ronald Reagan clone? See how silly this gets?”
Of course Obama is not a Ronald Reagan clone. Again, Reagan’s tax cuts did not involve raising income taxes for the highest income earners, unlike Obama’s tax plan. So Obama and Reagan cannot be compared based on taxes.
Finally Goldstein discusses the Iraq War:
“Finally, to address what the liberal media think is their best argument, yes, had Harper been PM in 2003 it is likely, despite his denials today, that we would have joined the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
But in the U.S. at the time, support for invading Iraq was a bipartisan position widely held by Republicans and Democrats -- and by prominent Liberals inside and outside of then PM Jean Chretien's government, including the current frontrunner for Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff.
For the liberal media to argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that Harper was wrong and Chretien right, is supportable. But to argue that makes Harper a Bush clone is absurd.”
Goldstein makes a good point about Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff’s position on Iraq really handicapped his 2006 bid to lead the Liberal party. But I disagree with Goldstein on his point about Iraq. Harper supported the Iraq war and would surely have sent Canadian troops to Iraq. This made his position the same as Bush’s. Why can’t we use these facts to make the “Harper is a Bush clone” argument? It is also very noteworthy that Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start, which clearly makes Obama to the left of Harper on Iraq.
To conclude, I feel that it is very fair to say that Barack Obama is to the left of Stephen Harper.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Federal election results
It goes without saying that I am incredibly unhappy about this month’s election results. They really were quite horrendous. That being said, Harper’s brazen attempt to get a majority government by gutting the fixed election date law failed. But the Liberals did so poorly that Harper could have gotten a majority if he had not turned off Quebec voters by insulting Quebec artists. I am an Ontario voter but I couldn’t disagree more with Harper’s assertion that ordinary Canadians don’t care for the arts. I am very pro-art. I like Shakespearean plays, paintings, other plays, musical concerts, and whatever kind of art you can think of. I like certain mainstream television shows and some Hollywood movies, but with the exception of the few TV shows and movies I like, I prefer the “refined art” of the kind that the other parties defended against Conservative attacks during the election.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Canadian and American politics
I am distressed about the fact that Stephen Harper wants to call an election. First he wants to meet all opposition leaders. Sadly Stephane Dion has failed to make an appointment with Harper for earlier than September 9 despite the fact that Harper has rejected September 9 as too late a date. If Dion wants an election all he has to do is refuse to meet with Harper before September 9. But if he wanted to try to avert an election he could take time out of his schedule to meet Harper before then. I am unhappy that Dion has not tried harder to find a mutually acceptable meeting time with Harper. If Harper called an election next week all the by-elections would be cancelled and I am very unhappy about that. Recently Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe found time in his schedule to meet Harper on Friday and NDP leader Jack Layton has agreed to meet Harper on Saturday. So why can’t Dion take time out of his schedule and meet with Harper soon like the other opposition party leaders have done?
In the US, I’d say Joe Biden was a fairly good choice for vice president by Barack Obama. I thought his recent speech at the Democratic National Convention was great. His only disadvantage is that he is from an existing blue state, Delaware, and therefore his presence on the ticket will not have a chance to bring in a red state. Biden is simultaneously seeking re-election to the US Senate. If Obama wins, Biden has to resign. If he resigns prior to the start of the new Congress, he will have to resign twice – resign his existing term and decline to serve the new term. Delaware has a Democratic governor who is term limited. Most likely a Democrat will win the gubernatorial election. But even if a Republican wins the gubernatorial election, Biden has plenty of time to resign and allow the existing Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic successor to the Senate before the new governor takes office.
In the US, I’d say Joe Biden was a fairly good choice for vice president by Barack Obama. I thought his recent speech at the Democratic National Convention was great. His only disadvantage is that he is from an existing blue state, Delaware, and therefore his presence on the ticket will not have a chance to bring in a red state. Biden is simultaneously seeking re-election to the US Senate. If Obama wins, Biden has to resign. If he resigns prior to the start of the new Congress, he will have to resign twice – resign his existing term and decline to serve the new term. Delaware has a Democratic governor who is term limited. Most likely a Democrat will win the gubernatorial election. But even if a Republican wins the gubernatorial election, Biden has plenty of time to resign and allow the existing Democratic governor to appoint a Democratic successor to the Senate before the new governor takes office.
Wawa
As I write this I am staying at a motel in Wawa, Ontario. Wawa is in the federal electoral district of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing. The results from the last federal election for this riding were as follows. Liberal: 38% , NDP: 34% , Conservative: 23%. The NDP almost won last time which was surprising considering the district’s strong Liberal history – decades and decades of continuous Liberal representation. In fact former Prime Minister Lester Pearson once represented part of this riding in the House of Commons. But a small swing between the Liberals and NDP in the last election and this would be an NDP riding. This should not be overly shocking considering the provincial NDP history that much of this riding had prior to 1999. A large portion of the riding was the Algoma riding that was represented by Bud Wildman all the way from 1975 to 1999. Ontario’s far North sent representatives from Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party. The Red Tory machine at the time had strength in Northern Ontario. This means that prior to 1987, the old Algoma–Manitoulin riding was represented by a Tory. But because the modern district had a large portion of it represented by Bud Wildman, we can see that this riding does have NDP history. In addition, the current Algoma–Manitoulin district was certainly NDP popular vote-wise in 1990. Northern Ontario uses different boundaries for the provincial legislature than the federal boundaries. So the provincial counterpart to Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing is simply called Algoma–Manitoulin. It is a little bit smaller in size and population than the federal counterpart. Nevertheless the results for the provincial riding were similarly close in the last provincial election. The Liberals got 42.6%, the NDP got 36.9%, and the PCs got 14%. This was quite a bit closer than the 2003 results for the riding with the exact same boundaries. The NDP vote jumped several points and the Liberal vote dropped several points. Algoma–Manitoulin is represented in the Ontario Legislature by Liberal Mike Brown. Mike Brown has represented a riding called Algoma–Manitoulin since 1987, although prior to 1999 his district was much smaller in size and population. Mike Brown was Speaker of the Ontario Legislature from 2005 to 2007. During the provincial election Brown was the incumbent Speaker and therefore it is hard to say if Brown got any extra votes because he was Speaker. If Brown had not been Speaker at the time the race between the Liberals and the NDP may have been even closer. Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing’s federal MP is Liberal Brent St. Denis. St. Denis has been an MP since 1993 and is certainly a native son for the riding – he was born in Blind River (within the riding) and has many community roots in the riding. However the NDP is gunning for his seat. The same NDP candidate as 2004 and 2006, Carol Hughes, has been renominated for the NDP and this time Hughes hopes to close the narrow gap and win the seat. I do not want to see this happen because this would involve knocking off St. Denis – a progressive, pro-gay marriage Liberal. The NDP did very well in the riding last time, even before much of the economic hardship that this riding experienced had hit. In the next federal election a major question that should determine the outcome of this riding would be whether voters in this riding would blame the incumbent party in their riding (the Liberals) or the incumbent government (the Conservatives) for the economic hardships that these Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing voters have experienced. If they blame the Conservative government, then St. Denis has more of an advantage. If they blame the Liberals, NDP candidate Carol Hughes would have a significant advantage. The interesting thing about this riding is that this is quite a left-wing riding despite it being a very rural riding. This is in contrast to Saskatchewan, where rural areas are strongly Conservative. This is also in contrast generally to many rural places in several different provinces in Canada. The reason for this discrepancy applies more generally to all rural Northern Ontario ridings with the exception of the more well-off regions of Muskoka, Parry Sound, and Nipissing. Outside those 3 regions, rural Northern Ontario tends to be more economically disadvantaged. Economically disadvantaged voters tend to vote more left-wing. This is why we see several left-wing ridings in Northern Ontario that are rural. More specifically, it can be said in general that people in these economically disadvantaged rural areas of Northern Ontario experience lower paying jobs, less job security, and higher unemployment. These things are key factors that make voters vote more left-wing. In many cases, such conditions cause voters to opt for the NDP, thus explaining the high NDP numbers in the economically disadvantaged rural Northern Ontario ridings. This phenomenon explains the left-wing nature of Algoma–Manitoulin–Kapuskasing and establishes the general fact that rural in Northern Ontario means quite different things than rural in many other parts of the country.
I want to make one additional note about the fact that the Ontario PCs used to routinely win many seats in Northern Ontario prior to 1987. In the 1987 election, most vestiges of the Northern Big Blue Machine disappeared. However, the Tories still managed to win 3 seats in Northern Ontario – Nipissing, Parry Sound, and Cochrane South. Based on political history, Nipissing and Parry Sound are not shocker wins for the Tories in 1987. However, the 1987 Tory win in Timmins-based Cochrane South seems strange from a modern prospective considering the fact that the area covering Cochrane South is reliably left-wing as evidenced in recent elections. The explanation for the anomaly comes from the personal popularity of the 1987 Tory candidate, incumbent Alan Pope. Pope was a Red Tory and the final Tory holdout in Northern Ontario outside Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing. Pope did not run again in 1990. However, he won his seat in 1987 fairly easily. The Tories were in fact drifting to the right at that time regardless of Pope’s own views but this drift to the right had not yet registered in the Timmins area. When Pope retired in 1990 his seat went NDP as part of the NDP wave and the Timmins area has been represented by the NDP provincially ever since. But due to the slightly odd circumstances of the 1987 Cochrane South election, Cochrane South has the distinction of being the only riding in all of Ontario to elect a Tory in 1987 but to not do so in 1995. Similarly, Cochrane South was the only 1987 PC riding to go NDP in 1995. I will be heading to Timmins next and I will survey Timmins more at that time.
I want to make one additional note about the fact that the Ontario PCs used to routinely win many seats in Northern Ontario prior to 1987. In the 1987 election, most vestiges of the Northern Big Blue Machine disappeared. However, the Tories still managed to win 3 seats in Northern Ontario – Nipissing, Parry Sound, and Cochrane South. Based on political history, Nipissing and Parry Sound are not shocker wins for the Tories in 1987. However, the 1987 Tory win in Timmins-based Cochrane South seems strange from a modern prospective considering the fact that the area covering Cochrane South is reliably left-wing as evidenced in recent elections. The explanation for the anomaly comes from the personal popularity of the 1987 Tory candidate, incumbent Alan Pope. Pope was a Red Tory and the final Tory holdout in Northern Ontario outside Muskoka, Parry Sound and Nipissing. Pope did not run again in 1990. However, he won his seat in 1987 fairly easily. The Tories were in fact drifting to the right at that time regardless of Pope’s own views but this drift to the right had not yet registered in the Timmins area. When Pope retired in 1990 his seat went NDP as part of the NDP wave and the Timmins area has been represented by the NDP provincially ever since. But due to the slightly odd circumstances of the 1987 Cochrane South election, Cochrane South has the distinction of being the only riding in all of Ontario to elect a Tory in 1987 but to not do so in 1995. Similarly, Cochrane South was the only 1987 PC riding to go NDP in 1995. I will be heading to Timmins next and I will survey Timmins more at that time.
Manitoba
I’m in Manitoba as I type this. I am on a road trip to Winnipeg but now I am headed out of Manitoba. The people who live in Winnipeg seem quite a bit happier than those in Toronto. It could be culture, it could be a smaller city thing, or it could be the economy – the economy in Winnipeg is doing much better than the economy in Toronto. I’m a Liberal but I was exited about entering a province that has an NDP government for the first time since Ontario had an NDP government. Manitoba only has two Liberal MLAs – Liberal leader Jon Gerrard and Kevin Lamoureux. Unfortunately, I was unable to meet with Kevin Lamoureux as I had originally hoped. Kevin Lamoureux hangs out at a McDonald’s in Winnipeg every Thursday evening and invites his constituents to come to the McDonald’s at this time in order to talk to him. Sadly I could not be in Winnipeg on a Thursday. Today I got a tour of the Manitoba legislature building. Unfortunately the actual legislative chamber was unavailable to be toured because it is being used for some sort of conference. Regardless, eventually the tour guide discussed the Manitoba government. She said that there are 57 seats in the legislature. The New Democratic Party, she said, has 36 seats. The Progressive Conservatives, she said, have 19 seats. The Liberals, she said, have 2 seats. It is also true that the federal Liberals have only 3 seats in all of Manitoba – Anita Neville in Winnipeg South Centre, Raymond Simard in Saint Boniface, and Tina Kepper in Churchill. The two Liberal seats in the Manitoba legislature are safe Liberal seats so long as the incumbents run for re-election. Jon Gerrard represents the River Heights riding and Kevin Lamoureux represents the Inkster riding. Both ridings are in Winnipeg. If Gerrard didn’t run, River Heights would easily go Tory. If Lamoureux didn’t run, Inkster would easily go NDP. The two Liberal seats in the provincial legislature are safe only so long as the incumbents run. At the federal level, there are sadly no safe federal Liberal seats in Manitoba. Saint Boniface was shockingly close last time. The Tory candidate got an astonishing 35%, and Simard won by only 3 and a half percent. Winnipeg South Centre was also surprisingly close last time – Neville won by only 7 percent. The Liberals in the Winnipeg South Centre and Saint Boniface both had 39% of the vote. Former Winnipeg South MP Reg Alcock lost his seat last time by 111 votes in a shocking upset. Alcock lost to a very right-wing Tory – Rod Bruinooge. Now ironically the strongest Liberal riding in Manitoba, based on the last election, is the Churchill riding. In the Churchill riding, the Liberals got a little over 40% of the vote, higher than the 39% from the other two Liberal ridings in Manitoba. The Liberals won Churchill in the last election by 12%, higher than the Liberal margin of victory in either Saint Boniface or Winnipeg South Centre. But when one considers the fact that former Churchill MP Bev Desjarlais is not expected to run again in Churchill, one realizes that Churchill is not a safe Liberal seat. This is because last time former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais ran as Independent after having failed to be renominated for the New Democrats the previous October. Desjarlais was a socially conservative New Democrat who defied the NDP party whip to vote against the same-sex marriage bill. This disobedience of the whip caused Desjarlais to be immediately stripped of all her critic responsibilities. A few months later she lost the NDP nomination to a 22-year-old woman –Niki Ashton. Some argue that this was not a coincidence. When Conservatives have criticized the NDP over same-sex marriage they have incorrectly stated that Desjarlais was kicked out of caucus for voting against the same-sex marriage bill. What actually happened was that Desjarlais was allowed to stay in caucus after the final same-sex marriage bill vote but voluntarily left caucus after losing the nomination a few months later in October of that year. She could have chosen to remain in caucus but did not because she decided to run for re-election as an Independent rather than standing down after her nomination defeat. In the ensuing election, received about 17% of the vote, splitting votes mostly with the New Democrats but seemingly also split some votes with the Conservatives due to her social conservative stance. This Conservative vote splitting is evident in that the Conservative vote in Churchill actually dropped several percentage points from the 2004 election results. Add some of Desjarlais’ vote to the Conservative total, add the rest to the NDP, and Churchill becomes too close to call between the Liberals and New Democrats. Niki Ashton has been renominated for the NDP and is fighting hard to become an MP. Ashton is the daughter of Manitoba NDP cabinet minister Steve Ashton. So based on how close Churchill is without Desjarlais running as an Independent, it becomes obvious that unfortunately there are no safe seats for the federal Liberals in Manitoba. However the situation in Manitoba is not as bad for non-Tories as it is in Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, all federal riding boundaries are drawn so that it is exceedingly difficult for a non-Tory to be elected. The only non-Tory to have managed this feat with any sort of ease in recent elections is Liberal Ralph Goodale. Sadly if Goodale retired, the Tories could easily end up winning all 14 federal Saskatchewan ridings – potentially with less than 50% of the Saskatchewan-wide vote! The federal Saskatchewan ridings are gerrymandered that badly. There is something about Saskatchewan’s population distribution that apparently makes it impossible to draw 100% urban federal ridings in Saskatchewan’s two major cities of Regina and Saskatoon. Instead the federally-controlled Saskatchewan electoral districts commission has been recently drawing Saskatchewan ridings that are about half urban and half rural. There are 8 such ridings in Saskatchewan, 4 for Regina and 4 for Saskatoon. Regina is divided into four and Saskatoon is divided into four. At least half the population of each of these 8 ridings is rural in nature. This disenfranchises the urban voters in Regina and Saskatoon. I believe that wherever possible districts should either be 100% urban or 100% rural. I am against mixing urban and rural areas into a single riding if it can be avoided. This is because like it or not, urban voters and rural voters vote very differently. Ballot box issues for urban voters also tend to be starkly different than ballot box issues for rural voters. Therefore urban areas and rural areas should kept in separate ridings wherever possible. But because this rule is ignored in Saskatchewan, rural Conservative votes plus vote splitting between the Liberals and NDP ensures that a Tory is elected every time in each of the 8 mixed urban-rural federal Saskatchewan ridings with the exception of Ralph Goodale’s Wascana riding. Wascana covers a rural area and part of Regina. Without Goodale this is not a safe Liberal riding. This is illustrated by the fact that in 2000 Goodale himself came close to losing to the Canadian Alliance candidate.
Manitoba also has 3 NDP MPs – Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North), Bill Blaikie (Elmwood Transcona). Aside from the 3 Liberals, the rest of Manitoba is represented by Tories – eight Tory MPs including three within the city of Winnipeg. Manitoba Tory MPs tend not to be as homophobic as Saskatchewan Tory MPs are. Nevertheless Manitoba Tory MPs are all socially conservative. But as I say the Tory MPs from Manitoba are usually not as socially conservative as Tory MPs from Saskatchewan. To give one example, thanks to the split urban-rural federal ridings of Saskatchewan urban residents in part of Saskatoon are stuck with the extremely socially conservative MP Maurice Vellacott who has made some rather anti-gay comments and has remained incredibly hostile to any LGBT rights.
Manitoba is the only prairie province where the federal NDP holds any seats. What’s more, all the prairie federal NDP seats are in inner city Winnipeg. Since the loss of Churchill, the federal NDP has held no rural prairie seats. In other words the traditional rural prairie base of the federal NDP is largely gone. The rural NDP base for the provincial Manitoba NDP is also relatively weak outside Northern Manitoba. Similarly, based on the most recent Saskatchewan election, the rural NDP base for the Saskatchewan provincial NDP is gone outside of Northern Saskatchewan. Considering that neither the federal NDP nor the Alberta provincial NDP has EVER had a base in rural Alberta, it becomes obvious that the NDP (both the federal NDP and its prairie province chapters) no longer has its traditional rural prairie base, with the exception of Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan.
Manitoba also has 3 NDP MPs – Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre), Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North), Bill Blaikie (Elmwood Transcona). Aside from the 3 Liberals, the rest of Manitoba is represented by Tories – eight Tory MPs including three within the city of Winnipeg. Manitoba Tory MPs tend not to be as homophobic as Saskatchewan Tory MPs are. Nevertheless Manitoba Tory MPs are all socially conservative. But as I say the Tory MPs from Manitoba are usually not as socially conservative as Tory MPs from Saskatchewan. To give one example, thanks to the split urban-rural federal ridings of Saskatchewan urban residents in part of Saskatoon are stuck with the extremely socially conservative MP Maurice Vellacott who has made some rather anti-gay comments and has remained incredibly hostile to any LGBT rights.
Manitoba is the only prairie province where the federal NDP holds any seats. What’s more, all the prairie federal NDP seats are in inner city Winnipeg. Since the loss of Churchill, the federal NDP has held no rural prairie seats. In other words the traditional rural prairie base of the federal NDP is largely gone. The rural NDP base for the provincial Manitoba NDP is also relatively weak outside Northern Manitoba. Similarly, based on the most recent Saskatchewan election, the rural NDP base for the Saskatchewan provincial NDP is gone outside of Northern Saskatchewan. Considering that neither the federal NDP nor the Alberta provincial NDP has EVER had a base in rural Alberta, it becomes obvious that the NDP (both the federal NDP and its prairie province chapters) no longer has its traditional rural prairie base, with the exception of Northern Manitoba and Northern Saskatchewan.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Egmont
I cannot help but say I am disappointed that Bobby Morrissey dropped out as the Liberal candidate in Egmont when Morrissey was such a good candidate and Egmont is such a winnable riding – currently held by the Liberals. Morrissey had defeated former PEI Premier Keith Milligan for the nomination. I do not know whether Milligan will now try for the nomination again. Morrissey was a strong candidate and most likely could have held the seat. His Conservative opponent would have been Gail Shea, a former PEI Tory MLA. She lost her seat in the last PEI election when the provincial Liberals swept the Island. I’ve heard however that now the PEI Liberal government is unpopular in rural PEI. But I have not been able to ascertain why. Supposedly the unpopularity of the PEI Liberal government in rural PEI would catapult Shea to victory. Supposedly strong opposition to Dion’s Green Shift would catapult Shea to victory in Egmont and catapult many other Tory candidates to victory in several Liberal ridings in Atlantic Canada. I do not want to believe this. The Tories claim that Morrissey quit because he thought he would not win the riding due to Dion’s Green Shift. The Liberals deny this and Morrissey denies this. Morrissey is supposed to have found a very promising job in the private sector that made him quit his candidacy. I do not fully understand why he could not have taken this job, then waited for the election and then run. Personally for me, being a Member of Parliament is a much more desirable job than even the most highly paid private sector job. Egmont stayed Liberal in 1984, though it went Tory with David MacDonald (very Red Tory) in the election 1968 through to and including 1979. Liberal George Henderson won it by a wide margin in 1980 and retained it by 918 votes (5% of the vote) in 1984 over the Tories. Joe McGuire won it for the Liberals in 1988 and he has held it ever since. Sadly McGuire announced that he would not run in the next election and that is where we are at now. It is ironic that a seat that stayed Liberal in 1984 is now considered the most winnable riding for the Tories in PEI. There was also a Liberal candidate who just dropped out in the riding of Palliser. However this is not as big a deal as Palliser is not a winnable riding for the Liberals – the Liberals always come in third in Palliser. However, the Liberals need to find a new candidate in Palliser and in Egmont so that the party can be ready when the time comes for an election.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Barrie examiner letter to the editor
I’ve found a good letter to the editor in the Barrie Examiner. It is entitled “Harper's bluff yet to be called”. I like this part. “Since Canadians want another federal election like they want snow in September, there also needs to be an overwhelming issue to send voters to the polls.” I certainly agree with that. There needs to be an overwhelming issue over which to pull the plug otherwise to me doing so seems inadvisable. There is also a Toronto Star article entitled “Bring on fall election, Liberals say”. It quotes Bob Rae and appears to be implying that Rae is saying “bring on a fall election.” Of course I don’t want the Star to put words in Rae’s mouth. What Rae did say is that it is only a matter of time until an election and that the Liberals are increasingly ready for one. The problem with the Liberal Green Shift is that although it is credible and doable, it is polarizing. People either support it or strongly oppose it. There is a sizeable, although minority, population that opposes the Green Shift. Opposition to the Green Shift is heavily concentrated out west, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is strong opposition in those provinces due to the oil revenue that those two provinces generate due to oil drilling. Of course the Green Shift does not put a tax on petroleum itself. Conservatives still contend that the Green Shift would cause the prices of gasoline to increase. There are genuine fears out west that the Green Shift would devastate the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would like to reassure those who feel that way. I am thoroughly convinced that the Green Shift would either have no effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan or the Green Shift would have a positive effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. By no means is the Green Shift another National Energy Program as I have seen some contend. The Green Shift is completely different. There is also opposition to the Green Shift in British Columbia where the provincial Liberal government has already implemented a carbon tax. There is strong opposition to the BC government’s carbon tax and as a result there is opposition to the federal Liberal Green Shift. Sadly the Liberals are therefore, I fear, risking the seats they have in British Columbia by promoting a policy that is similar to the provincial carbon tax that British Columbians have already rejected. Thus for all these reasons I am not convinced that the Liberal Green Shift ought to be the overwhelming issue over which the federal Liberals force an election.
The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!
The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Farewell to Howard Hampton
I’m sad to see Howard Hampton go. He has always been one of the most of the most sincere politicians around. I have always admired his principles. Hampton has always fought for what he believed in. I may have disagreed with him on policies, but he was always genuine in what he believed in. I also applaud him for always supporting gay rights, long before Ontario Liberals had jumped on the bandwagon. When NDP Premier Bob Rae allowed his entire caucus, including his cabinet, a free vote on the NDP government’s same-sex benefits, Hampton was one of the courageous 56 NDP MPPs (along with 3 Liberal MPPs) to vote for the same-sex benefits package. Sadly the majority of elected politicians in Ontario in 1994 were unwilling to allow for same-sex equality. Many of the 68 MPPs to vote against the same-sex legislation have changed their views and are now in favour of same-sex benefits and same-sex marriage.
There are several names mentioned as possibilities to replace Hampton as leader. NDP MP David Christopherson has already endorsed his provincial seatmate Andrea Horwath for leader. Also mentioned are NDP MPPs Peter Tabuns, Michael Prue, and Cheri DiNovo. Former NDP MPPs Marilyn Churley and Frances Lankin are mentioned. But Churley is the federal NDP candidate for Beaches—East York and Lankin is firmly entrenched as the head of the GTA United Way. Any of the NDP MPs from Ontario are also possibilities such as Charlie Angus from Timmins—James Bay.
I am a Liberal so I can’t endorse a candidate. But I say after the end of this weekend – let the leadership jockeying begin!
There are several names mentioned as possibilities to replace Hampton as leader. NDP MP David Christopherson has already endorsed his provincial seatmate Andrea Horwath for leader. Also mentioned are NDP MPPs Peter Tabuns, Michael Prue, and Cheri DiNovo. Former NDP MPPs Marilyn Churley and Frances Lankin are mentioned. But Churley is the federal NDP candidate for Beaches—East York and Lankin is firmly entrenched as the head of the GTA United Way. Any of the NDP MPs from Ontario are also possibilities such as Charlie Angus from Timmins—James Bay.
I am a Liberal so I can’t endorse a candidate. But I say after the end of this weekend – let the leadership jockeying begin!
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Alexa McDonough retiring
Alexa McDonough will not run in the next federal election. I am surprised by this. 63 is fairly young for a politician to retire. But Alexa has been involved in politics for almost 30 years, so she has earned her retirement. There are so many candidates from the Liberals and NDP that could possibly replace her in her Halifax riding it is mind-boggling. On the Liberal side, I can think of several names. One possibility is a political comeback by former Halifax MP Mary Clancy who represented the riding from 1988 to 1997. She is currently president of the Halifax riding association. I'm also wondering about a possible second attempt by United Church minister Kevin Little who was the Halifax Liberal candidate in the 2000 election. Another possibility is 2006 Halifax Liberal candidate Martin MacKinnon. MacKinnon had already won the nomination in 2007 to run in the next election. However last October he resigned his nomination to take another job. Now that the seat has been opened up he may regret this decision. If he wants the nomination back he will have to run for it.
On the NDP side possible candidates being discussed are former Nova Scotia NDP leader Robert Chisholm, 2006 Central Nova candidate Alexis MacDonald, and NDP MLA Maureen MacDonald. Any of the other Halifax NDP MLAs are possibilities. One thing holding back all of the Halifax MLAs is that the Nova Scotia NDP could form government sometime soon and running federally could deny them a chance to be in cabinet. I also wonder whether 1984 Halifax NDP candidate Tessa Hebb is interested in running. That may not be likely becaue I think she may live in Ontario now. Her son Matt, however, was the Nova Scotia NDP campaign director for the 2003 NS election. I also wonder whether 1988 Halifax NDP candidate Ray Larkin would be interested in running. Similarly, I wonder whether 1993 Halifax NDP candidate Lynn Jones would be interested in running.
I'm rooting for the Liberals to take back the riding. Nevertheless, Alexa will be truly missed by everyone.
On the NDP side possible candidates being discussed are former Nova Scotia NDP leader Robert Chisholm, 2006 Central Nova candidate Alexis MacDonald, and NDP MLA Maureen MacDonald. Any of the other Halifax NDP MLAs are possibilities. One thing holding back all of the Halifax MLAs is that the Nova Scotia NDP could form government sometime soon and running federally could deny them a chance to be in cabinet. I also wonder whether 1984 Halifax NDP candidate Tessa Hebb is interested in running. That may not be likely becaue I think she may live in Ontario now. Her son Matt, however, was the Nova Scotia NDP campaign director for the 2003 NS election. I also wonder whether 1988 Halifax NDP candidate Ray Larkin would be interested in running. Similarly, I wonder whether 1993 Halifax NDP candidate Lynn Jones would be interested in running.
I'm rooting for the Liberals to take back the riding. Nevertheless, Alexa will be truly missed by everyone.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ken Livingstone and George Smitherman
I am disappointed in the election results from London, England. Labour Mayor Ken Livingstone lost and conservative Conservative Boris Johnson won. I wanted Livingstone to win. He was centre-left but I like him in particular because he has consistently been opposed to the Iraq War. The result is also disappointing because Livingstone was already planning to run for another term in 2012. Livingstone has conceded defeat but ominously said that he wants to be mayor when the 2012 Olympics happen. That would mean challenging Johnson in 2012. But ousting a one-term incumbent would be difficult. Livingstone’s political career thus may sadly be over.
Another interesting fact relating to mayors is that there are rumours that Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman wants to run for Toronto mayor in 2010. The idea is that Smitherman is actually considering challenging David Miller. I am actually concerned by this. Not because of David Miller. Miller’s second term as mayor has been problematic. Nevertheless, for Smitherman to run for mayor would require for him to resign his seat at Queen’s Park. It would also mean he would have to resign his cabinet position. In fact Smitherman might have to resign his cabinet position early. Nominations open in January 2010. If Smitherman were serious about running for mayor, he’d have to register early in order to mount a credible campaign. Doing a year-long campaign for mayor while being a cabinet minister is out the question. Therefore Smitherman would have to resign his cabinet position early in the year. I expect that he would also be under pressure to resign his seat at Queen’s Park early in the year as well. The reason for this is that it would be assumed that he would rarely attend legislative sessions while out campaigning for mayor. In any event Smitherman would have to resign his legislative seat before the municipal filing deadline. Failing to resign his seat before the municipal filing deadline would make his name be removed from the list of municipal candidates. Any such resignation would create a by-election in Toronto Centre. Sadly Toronto Centre isn’t as strong a Liberal seat provincially as it is federally. In the recent federal Toronto Centre by-election, Bob Rae got 59% of the vote. However in the recent provincial election, Smitherman received only 47% of the vote, compared to 20% for the Tories and 18% for the NDP. PC leader John Tory lives in Toronto Centre. Thus if he hasn’t managed to get a seat by then Tory could run in Toronto Centre. I think a Toronto Centre provincial by-election should be avoided if possible and therefore I have reservations about Smitherman running for mayor. But that choice is Smitherman’s to make and I would encourage him to think it over carefully.
Another interesting fact relating to mayors is that there are rumours that Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman wants to run for Toronto mayor in 2010. The idea is that Smitherman is actually considering challenging David Miller. I am actually concerned by this. Not because of David Miller. Miller’s second term as mayor has been problematic. Nevertheless, for Smitherman to run for mayor would require for him to resign his seat at Queen’s Park. It would also mean he would have to resign his cabinet position. In fact Smitherman might have to resign his cabinet position early. Nominations open in January 2010. If Smitherman were serious about running for mayor, he’d have to register early in order to mount a credible campaign. Doing a year-long campaign for mayor while being a cabinet minister is out the question. Therefore Smitherman would have to resign his cabinet position early in the year. I expect that he would also be under pressure to resign his seat at Queen’s Park early in the year as well. The reason for this is that it would be assumed that he would rarely attend legislative sessions while out campaigning for mayor. In any event Smitherman would have to resign his legislative seat before the municipal filing deadline. Failing to resign his seat before the municipal filing deadline would make his name be removed from the list of municipal candidates. Any such resignation would create a by-election in Toronto Centre. Sadly Toronto Centre isn’t as strong a Liberal seat provincially as it is federally. In the recent federal Toronto Centre by-election, Bob Rae got 59% of the vote. However in the recent provincial election, Smitherman received only 47% of the vote, compared to 20% for the Tories and 18% for the NDP. PC leader John Tory lives in Toronto Centre. Thus if he hasn’t managed to get a seat by then Tory could run in Toronto Centre. I think a Toronto Centre provincial by-election should be avoided if possible and therefore I have reservations about Smitherman running for mayor. But that choice is Smitherman’s to make and I would encourage him to think it over carefully.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Quebec provincial by-elections
There will be 3 provincial by-elections in Quebec on May 12th. One of these is in the riding of Hull. I would be incredibly surprised if any party other than the Liberal Party won the by-election in Hull. I interestingly found an editorial written by Fred Ryan that discusses the Hull by-election. The editorial says that the share of the vote for the PQ in the Hull riding has been growing(http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=e66221f2-93e8-4ad2-9e8f-ccdcf904ab38). However, I looked at election results for Hull and found the opposite to be the case.
Looking at elections from 1994 onwards, we get the following:
1994 election: PQ – 41.12%
1998 election: PQ – 32.02%
2003 election: PQ – 25.47%
2007 election: PQ – 23.93%
As you can see the PQ vote in Hull has actually been dropping.
As a side note, in the 1995 referendum Hull voted about 70% NON and 30% OUI. In the 1992 Charlottetown Accord referendum Hull voted about 44% NON and about 56% OUI. In the 1980 Quebec referendum Hull voted about 67% NON and about 33% OUI.
The PQ remains a sovereigntist party. Hull has twice voted overwhelmingly against Quebec sovereignty. Therefore I personally feel that it is not a good idea for federalist voters in the Hull riding to vote PQ as a protest vote. Electing a PQ MNA, especially one in such a federalist riding, advances the PQ’s sovereignty agenda and I do not believe federalists should vote to advance the sovereigntist agenda even indirectly. I believe that in the circumstances it is best for Hull to have an MNA from the governing party which is the Liberals. This may sound cliché but indeed it would be a government MLA who would best be able to fight for improved health care service in Hull.
The other two by-elections are in ridings that were held by the PQ. One of them was held by former MNA Diane Lemieux who resigned her seat over disagreements with party leader Pauline Marois. The other riding was vacated by former PQ leader Andre Boisclair who chose not to stick around after being forced out of the party leadership. These two ridings are likely to stay PQ. In one of them, former Bloc MP Maka Kotto is running for the PQ. Kotto’s resignation, however, created a vacancy at the federal level that has created a potential by-election. I have long found that Quebec, especially at the provincial level, has more by-elections than other provinces. This seems to be because Quebec politicians, especially those at the National Assembly, are more readily willing to resign their seats than politicians in other provinces. The Charest government is currently doing well right now in terms of popularity and I wish all 3 Liberal candidates the best of luck.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
By-election results
I have mixed feelings about this week’s by-election results. The Liberals did incredibly well in the Toronto by-elections and increased the Liberal vote percentage in both ridings by several percentage points. The Conservative went down several points in Toronto Centre and went up only .76% in Willowdale. I personally do not consider such a marginal increase in the Tory vote to be very significant. My feelings are mixed however because the by-election results outside Toronto were far worse news for the Liberals. The Liberals lost the Northern Saskatchewan riding badly but I was not surprised by that. I was expecting the Liberals to lose that riding. We badly messed up our chances in that riding by appointing Joan Beatty over the wishes of the powerful and influential David Orchard supporters in the riding. Orchard wanted to run for the Liberals in the by-election and was miffed at being denied a chance to do so. Had Orchard been the candidate it would have still been a tough by-election for the Liberals but the Liberals would have had a fighting chance. Causing so much controversy by appointing Beatty removed any chance the Liberals had in the riding. Now Beatty has no political office and I don’t think she would be allowed run in a by-election for her old Cumberland provincial seat after having already defected from the NDP.
Vancouver Quadra was also bad news for the Liberals. The Liberals held the riding by a mere 151 votes. The Liberal vote in the riding dropped significantly and the Tory vote surged. The Green vote surged as well from low single digits to 13% of the vote. On election night I was shocked when the final two polls came in to see that the Liberal lead had shrunk to 151 votes. Those final two polls must have been won by a landslide by the Tories. Now the Tory central party wants a recount of the results. I highly doubt that a recount would change the outcome but it could delay Liberal Joyce Murray’s ability to take her seat in parliament. From what I read, Tory candidate Deborah Meredith was not consulted on this recount ahead of time and the central party announced the desire for a recount without talking to Meredith first.
So my feelings are very mixed considering the incredibly strong showing for the Tories in the two Western Canadian by-elections. Now there is unfortunately a whole new set of by-elections that the Liberals could always lose. These by-elections would occur if the government does not fall. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is already vacant. It was held by the Liberals and astronaut Mark Garneau is the Liberal candidate. Saint Lambert (south of Montreal) is also already vacant as former Bloc MP Maka Kotto recently resigned his seat to run for the PQ in a provincial by-election. Two more ridings, both held by the Liberals, will become vacant in the near future. Guelph Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has announced that she will resign her seat on April 7. Don Valley West Liberal MP John Godfrey has announced that he will resign his seat on July 1 to accept a position as headmaster of a Toronto French school. Guelph is very iffy for the Liberals because the Liberals only won the seat last time with 38% of the vote and only 8% over the Tories. The NDP and Greens had a strong showing in the riding as well. In the recent provincial election, the Greens received a whopping 19.5% of the vote. That means that in a by-election even the Greens could win the riding. The NDP has a star candidate – Thomas King. King is a prominent Metis writer and commentator who talks extensively about Metis and aboriginal issues. The Conservatives have a well known candidate – Guelph City councilor Gloria Kovach. Her ability to be elected to Guelph council could propel her to parliament. The Liberals have a much lesser known lawyer. In a by-election the riding could go to any of the four major parties including the Greens. The Greens are a particularly distinct possibility due to the 19.5% they got in Guelph in the provincial election.
Don Valley West was won by 20% over the Tories with 53% of the vote. Local gay United Church minister Rob Oliphant has been nominated for the Liberals. The Tories have nominated the 2006 candidate John Carmichael. This riding is not as safe for the Liberals as Willowdale and in a by-election it could sadly conceivably go Conservative. The Liberals are very likely to again lose Saint Lambert which they lost in the 2004 election so a Liberal loss there would be no surprise. Sadly none of the upcoming by-elections look like a sure bet for the Liberals.
However, I am still delighted at the wonderful Toronto by-election results. Another bright note is that the Liberals easily won the popular vote of the 4 by-elections put together.
Vancouver Quadra was also bad news for the Liberals. The Liberals held the riding by a mere 151 votes. The Liberal vote in the riding dropped significantly and the Tory vote surged. The Green vote surged as well from low single digits to 13% of the vote. On election night I was shocked when the final two polls came in to see that the Liberal lead had shrunk to 151 votes. Those final two polls must have been won by a landslide by the Tories. Now the Tory central party wants a recount of the results. I highly doubt that a recount would change the outcome but it could delay Liberal Joyce Murray’s ability to take her seat in parliament. From what I read, Tory candidate Deborah Meredith was not consulted on this recount ahead of time and the central party announced the desire for a recount without talking to Meredith first.
So my feelings are very mixed considering the incredibly strong showing for the Tories in the two Western Canadian by-elections. Now there is unfortunately a whole new set of by-elections that the Liberals could always lose. These by-elections would occur if the government does not fall. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is already vacant. It was held by the Liberals and astronaut Mark Garneau is the Liberal candidate. Saint Lambert (south of Montreal) is also already vacant as former Bloc MP Maka Kotto recently resigned his seat to run for the PQ in a provincial by-election. Two more ridings, both held by the Liberals, will become vacant in the near future. Guelph Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has announced that she will resign her seat on April 7. Don Valley West Liberal MP John Godfrey has announced that he will resign his seat on July 1 to accept a position as headmaster of a Toronto French school. Guelph is very iffy for the Liberals because the Liberals only won the seat last time with 38% of the vote and only 8% over the Tories. The NDP and Greens had a strong showing in the riding as well. In the recent provincial election, the Greens received a whopping 19.5% of the vote. That means that in a by-election even the Greens could win the riding. The NDP has a star candidate – Thomas King. King is a prominent Metis writer and commentator who talks extensively about Metis and aboriginal issues. The Conservatives have a well known candidate – Guelph City councilor Gloria Kovach. Her ability to be elected to Guelph council could propel her to parliament. The Liberals have a much lesser known lawyer. In a by-election the riding could go to any of the four major parties including the Greens. The Greens are a particularly distinct possibility due to the 19.5% they got in Guelph in the provincial election.
Don Valley West was won by 20% over the Tories with 53% of the vote. Local gay United Church minister Rob Oliphant has been nominated for the Liberals. The Tories have nominated the 2006 candidate John Carmichael. This riding is not as safe for the Liberals as Willowdale and in a by-election it could sadly conceivably go Conservative. The Liberals are very likely to again lose Saint Lambert which they lost in the 2004 election so a Liberal loss there would be no surprise. Sadly none of the upcoming by-elections look like a sure bet for the Liberals.
However, I am still delighted at the wonderful Toronto by-election results. Another bright note is that the Liberals easily won the popular vote of the 4 by-elections put together.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
McGuinty, Dion, and America
I am glad to see that Dion has sided with McGuinty on the more seats for Ontario issue and says that in contrast to what Peter Van Loan said, McGuinty is actually a great man of Confederation.
Barack Obama will probably win the North Carolina primary in the US today. Whether that alone shifts him into front-runner status remains to be seen. My endorsement is Hillary Clinton but I have no problem with Obama becoming President. All that really matters to me is that the Dem nominee can beat the GOP nominee.
Barack Obama will probably win the North Carolina primary in the US today. Whether that alone shifts him into front-runner status remains to be seen. My endorsement is Hillary Clinton but I have no problem with Obama becoming President. All that really matters to me is that the Dem nominee can beat the GOP nominee.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Prohibative organ donation restrictions
I would like to express my concern over this new Health Canada policy that seeks to exclude sexually active gay men from donating organs. It opens the Harper government up to accusations of being homophobic. Unfortunately it zeroes in on a single group and reinforces stereotypes. STDs spread in the gay community but this is not inherently due to being gay. There are historical and sociological factors to do with promiscuity. In the articles I read about this I was seeing a lot about families being questioned on these things after a donor is dead. This seems to discount the numerous existences of live donors. This new policy is a blanket ban that doctors can only override in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately this blanket ban endangers the lives of those in need of a donated organ. Here is a hypothetical example. A gay man marries a woman and has a daughter. They then divorce because the man realizes he is gay. The man enters into a monogamous sexual relationship with another man that carries as little risk of HIV as a monogamous heterosexual relationship. The gay man’s daughter suffers kidney failure in both kidneys. After some time of treatment she is in serious need of a transplant. A test is done on the father and there is a requisite DNA match. The doctors set aside this match and look elsewhere because they have much higher preference for a donor who is straight. It is difficult to find a matching donor elsewhere. This girl’s life is being endangered because of a blanket policy that does not apply to the circumstances and is clearly discriminatory. This is the fault of the Harper government through failure to exercise their responsibility. I also wonder whether this regulation is an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court might actually use its precedence criteria to strike down this regulation when I think about it. Thumbs down again to the Harper government.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Joan Beatty, David Orchard, Nick Clegg
Dion is appointing Joan Beatty to be the candidate in the Northern Saskatchewan riding federal by-election. I have certain reservations about appointing her over David Orchard but think she is likely to be a better candidate than the disaster that was Jocelyn Coulon. Beatty is an NDP MLA in the Saskatchewan legislature and will have to resign her seat immediately. Because she is running for the federal Liberals, I doubt she would be welcomed back into the provincial NDP to run in the provincial by-election for her seat should she lose the federal by-election. This means that she has no job if she loses the federal by-election. Beatty herself has made some implication that running federally for her is all about being a member of the government. Beatty implies that she did not want to be an opposition member for the next 4 years in the Saskatchewan legislature. Beatty therefore must have believed the Liberals could return to power federally in a shorter time than that and she wanted to be a part of that new governing team. Beatty herself has stated she sees a return to power for the Liberals in the next federal election. I dearly hope that is true.
I would also like to congratulate Nick Clegg on his recent leadership victory that gives him the leadership of the UK Liberal Democrat Party. Under Clegg and his recent predecessors, the Liberal Democrat Party seems clearly to the right of Labour over economic issues. That may have been less so under leader Paddy Ashdown. Prior to the 1997 UK election Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown held private talks about forming a possible coalition government after the 1997 election. The idea would have been that Labour would have only a narrow majority or only a plurality of seats and thus the Liberal Democrats would be the coalition partner to create a stable coalition government. Once the large size of Labour’s majority in the 1997 election became apparent, the possible coalition did not happen. However, in the 2001 election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats coordinated their campaigns in a way that would inflict the most damage on the Conservatives. On a side note, Labour’s vote in the UK is very efficient. The Tories won more votes within England in the last election, but Labour had significantly more seats. This meant that 35% of the vote translated to 55% of the seats in Parliament and a comfortable majority. Since the fall, that parliamentary majority has been the only thing keeping Labour in power. I hope Labour’s fortunes can improve over the coming years.
I would also like to congratulate Nick Clegg on his recent leadership victory that gives him the leadership of the UK Liberal Democrat Party. Under Clegg and his recent predecessors, the Liberal Democrat Party seems clearly to the right of Labour over economic issues. That may have been less so under leader Paddy Ashdown. Prior to the 1997 UK election Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown held private talks about forming a possible coalition government after the 1997 election. The idea would have been that Labour would have only a narrow majority or only a plurality of seats and thus the Liberal Democrats would be the coalition partner to create a stable coalition government. Once the large size of Labour’s majority in the 1997 election became apparent, the possible coalition did not happen. However, in the 2001 election, Labour and the Liberal Democrats coordinated their campaigns in a way that would inflict the most damage on the Conservatives. On a side note, Labour’s vote in the UK is very efficient. The Tories won more votes within England in the last election, but Labour had significantly more seats. This meant that 35% of the vote translated to 55% of the seats in Parliament and a comfortable majority. Since the fall, that parliamentary majority has been the only thing keeping Labour in power. I hope Labour’s fortunes can improve over the coming years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)