The by-elections have been called, but only the two in Quebec. The Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean should be able to be called for the same date of September 17 now that Michel Gauthier has resigned. Harper wants political conditions for him to improve before risking any of the by-elections in Ontario or British Columbia. Harper can't have thought Outremont to be that winnable for his party since he waited until the absolutely last day before calling the by-election. In my opinion political conditions for Harper in Quebec are not as good as he may have hoped, but still better for Harper than the Liberals would have hoped.
I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.
Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Outremont and Welland
Because for certain there is a by-election coming in the riding of Outremont, I thought I’d discuss the riding of Outremont. Outremont is a multi-ethnic district in central Montreal that consists of the former City of Outremont plus some surrounding areas. Its MPs are often cabinet ministers. But this has only been the case with Liberal governments. It had Marc Lalonde as an influential cabinet minister during the Trudeau years. When Lalonde retired in 1984, the riding elected an opposition member in the 1984 general election, Liberal Lucie Pépin, by a large margin. Pépin served the next four years as a member of the Official Opposition. In the 1988 election, Pépin lost Outremont by a narrow margin to Tory Jean-Pierre Hogue. This was due to a significant vote split between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. After this win for the Tories in Outremont, Hogue spent the next 5 years as a government backbencher. In 1993, Hogue was very badly defeated, receiving only 8.91% of the vote, losing to Martin Couchon. Couchon then spent several years in the Chrétien cabinet. As a Chrétien loyalist, Couchon did not seek re-election in 2004. He was succeeded in Outremont by Liberal Jean Lapierre, who then also became a cabinet minister (Transport) under Paul Martin. Lapierre was re-elected in the 2006 election. Although Lapierre had previously served as an opposition member from 1984 to 1992 (he left the Liberals in 1990 and joined the Bloc Quebecois, then resigned his seat in 1992 which Mulroney left vacant until the next general election), he didn’t want to serve in opposition again and quit his seat in January 2007 after serving in the opposition again for less than a year. The seat has been vacant since but Stephen Harper must call a by-election by Saturday.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Miller’s honeymoon is over
Toronto Mayor David Miller’s honeymoon is over and in 2010 he is going to have to actually run an offensive campaign. He will not be able to run the passive, frontrunner’s campaign he ran in 2006. In 2006, Miller was able to run as complacent a campaign as the federal Liberals were able to run in the 2000 federal election. In both the 2000 federal election, and the 2006 Toronto Mayoral election, the incumbent cruised to victory by running a complacent frontrunner’s campaign. I don’t see how Miller will be able to do this again after the ruckus of the past week. David Miller’s proposed taxes on land transfer and automobile registration proved extremely unpopular among Toronto’s electorate. While I personally do not find the proposed fee on car registrations to be that bad, the proposed land transfer tax was WAY too high. The only way I could support it is if it is made 10 to 20 times lower. Toronto’s housing market is what is keeping Toronto’s economy competitive these days. Such a high transfer tax would thus devastate Toronto’s economy. I’m not sure whether the province should have given Toronto the power to tax land transfers. Is it even allowed under the new Toronto Act? Has the city even checked the act to see whether a land transfer tax is permissible under the Act? The Act does expand Toronto’s taxation power, but only in specific areas. The city cannot charge income tax, general sales tax, or many other types of taxes. But it can charge entertainment and booze tax (bought at a restaurant). Why isn’t the city looking at entertainment and booze tax as an option. It would cause a lot less of a ruckus than the land transfer tax. My proposal is as follows. The city should charge 250 dollars on land transfer, charge the car registration fee, and introduce a reasonable booze and entertainment tax. These should really help the city out of its financial troubles. A 250 dollar land transfer tax wouldn’t cause too much trouble, unlike the currently proposed 4000 dollar land transfer tax.
City council voted on Monday to defer a vote on the two proposed taxes until after the provincial election. The councilors are hoping that provincial politicians will sometime between now and then bail the city out (so far politicians from both parties that have a shot at forming government in the upcoming election have been quite non-committal on any such possible financial help). Right after that, David Miller has made things worse by saying that the failure to immediately approve his proposed taxes could mean cuts that shut down Toronto’s Sheppard Subway. The backlash facilitated by this threat has been severe by both politicians and citizens alike. Citizens such as myself and councilors not in Miller’s inner circle are outraged by this threat, including erstwhile moderate centrist Miller allies such as John Filion, Brian Ashton, Peter Milczyn, and myself (an aspiring politician who has seen himself as such a moderate centrist Miller ally). I do not think that Subway line will close down. This is clearly a scare tactic by Miller and his ally and TTC chair Adam Giambrone. It is now ironically the most left-leaning councilors on Toronto Council who want to shut down the Sheppard Subway. But if doing so were to come to a vote on council, I think it would be defeated because Miller’s staunchest allies make up a plurality, not a majority, of council. The centrists and right-wingers hold a combined majority on council. I also do not think the province will allow the city to shut down the Sheppard Subway. I’m not even sure shutting it down can even be done unilaterally without authorization from the province. Miller could obviously come back to council with a completely alternative tax proposal such as the one I suggested and try to get it passed (presumably with much more success) to help dig Toronto out of it’s financial hole, but sadly Miller has adopted a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. Considering the backlash both against the proposed taxes and against “crying wolf” on the Sheppard Subway, I’d say David Miller’s three and a half year old political honeymoon is over. Granted, three and a half years is a very, very long time for a political honeymoon to last, so I suppose the honeymoon was bound to end eventually.
Electorally, the only thing Miller has going for him is that it is another three and a half years until the next municipal election, so all this does have the chance to blow over. But after what Miller has been through, I don’t see how re-election can be such a sure thing next time. I’d say Miller’s recovery rests on being able to dig Toronto out of its financial hole without imposing a crippling land transfer tax. If he can do that, he may regain his popularity. If not, we’re looking at a right-of-centre mayor elected in 2010. Or if we’re really lucky, a centrist mayor.
It is quite amazing how much Miller has fallen in a matter of months. People who voted for him in 2006 have said they will not vote for him again if the taxes (especially the land transfer tax) goes through. This is significant because of Miller’s electoral success in 2006. Miller had an informal NDP affiliation but at the same time won some of the most non-NDP parts of the city. His main opponent was Jane Pitfield. She was something of a centrist but in more recent times seemed to be shifting to the right. She claims to have never belonged to any political party. But if one were to assign a political affiliation to her, it would have to be Conservative because she is known to have campaigned for John Tory in his 2005 Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey by-election campaign. But for the most part she appears to be a right-of-centre politician without a formal party affiliation. She’s a great person on a personal level, but during her final years on council began to create a reputation of flip-flopping on major issues. David Miller highlighted with success these flip-flops during the mayoral campaign. In the end Pitfield’s campaign proved to be a largely unsuccessful affair. This is especially true in that Miller won every single city ward except for the two Don Valley West wards (one of which was Pitfield’s council ward). Miller’s win is what I think of as a 1984 Ronald Reagan style sweep (Reagan won every Electoral Vote jurisdiction except Minnesota and the District of Columbia, winning left-leaning, solidly Democratic states such as Rhode Island) only with reverse political ideology. In the same way that Reagan won liberal states like Rhode Island, Miller won municipally conservative areas of the city such as Ward 34, the southern part of Don Valley East (I know here it is Liberal federally and provincially, but municipally it is normally very conservative here and Ward 34 voted for John Tory in 2003), as well as normally municipally conservative Etobicoke. What’s more, Miller came within less than 1% of winning Don Valley West over Pitfield, who represented the area. For him to fall so much from this high in a few short months is for me astonishing.
I would also like to congratulate the British Labour Party for holding onto the two safe Labour seats of Sedgefield (until June 27th Tony Blair’s district) and Ealing Southall in two by-elections on Thursday. In Ealing Southall, the very loud buzz about a possible Liberal Democrat or Conservative steal came to nothing. Turnout in both by-elections was above 40%, not bad for a by-election. Granted the Labour vote fell in both by-elections, but for a governing party that almost ALWAYS happens. Also of note is that both by-elections were won easily by Labour but both had a Labour vote of less than half the total votes cast. However, this is also very common in by-elections. Due to the abnormal nature of by-elections (low turnout, protest voting, etc.), it is quite rare for the winning candidate in a by-election to get more than half the vote, especially in the UK. I am also glad to see that in both districts, the Tory vote remained very stagnant from the last General Election result, in both cases increasing only very slightly. In Sedgefield, the Liberal Democrats surged to second place and to almost 20%, an increase of almost 10% over the General Election result. In Ealing Southall, the Liberal Democrats retained second place and saw their vote percent increase a little bit. This marginal increase has to be a disappointment to Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell who faces discontent within his party and who’s party normally is a formidable force in by-elections and thus normally cruises to victory in by-elections in which the Lib Dems were also second place at the previous General Election. And this meager result for the Lib Dems comes in spite of a strong, aggressive campaign (the Lib Dem candidate may well have out-campaigned the Labour candidate). Most likely this failure for the Lib Dems occurred because new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is enjoying a honeymoon period that probably gave both Labour candidates a significant boost in the two by-election campaigns. I want to say I’m glad Labour held onto the two seats and I want to wish the two new MPs and the new Prime Minister well.
City council voted on Monday to defer a vote on the two proposed taxes until after the provincial election. The councilors are hoping that provincial politicians will sometime between now and then bail the city out (so far politicians from both parties that have a shot at forming government in the upcoming election have been quite non-committal on any such possible financial help). Right after that, David Miller has made things worse by saying that the failure to immediately approve his proposed taxes could mean cuts that shut down Toronto’s Sheppard Subway. The backlash facilitated by this threat has been severe by both politicians and citizens alike. Citizens such as myself and councilors not in Miller’s inner circle are outraged by this threat, including erstwhile moderate centrist Miller allies such as John Filion, Brian Ashton, Peter Milczyn, and myself (an aspiring politician who has seen himself as such a moderate centrist Miller ally). I do not think that Subway line will close down. This is clearly a scare tactic by Miller and his ally and TTC chair Adam Giambrone. It is now ironically the most left-leaning councilors on Toronto Council who want to shut down the Sheppard Subway. But if doing so were to come to a vote on council, I think it would be defeated because Miller’s staunchest allies make up a plurality, not a majority, of council. The centrists and right-wingers hold a combined majority on council. I also do not think the province will allow the city to shut down the Sheppard Subway. I’m not even sure shutting it down can even be done unilaterally without authorization from the province. Miller could obviously come back to council with a completely alternative tax proposal such as the one I suggested and try to get it passed (presumably with much more success) to help dig Toronto out of it’s financial hole, but sadly Miller has adopted a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. Considering the backlash both against the proposed taxes and against “crying wolf” on the Sheppard Subway, I’d say David Miller’s three and a half year old political honeymoon is over. Granted, three and a half years is a very, very long time for a political honeymoon to last, so I suppose the honeymoon was bound to end eventually.
Electorally, the only thing Miller has going for him is that it is another three and a half years until the next municipal election, so all this does have the chance to blow over. But after what Miller has been through, I don’t see how re-election can be such a sure thing next time. I’d say Miller’s recovery rests on being able to dig Toronto out of its financial hole without imposing a crippling land transfer tax. If he can do that, he may regain his popularity. If not, we’re looking at a right-of-centre mayor elected in 2010. Or if we’re really lucky, a centrist mayor.
It is quite amazing how much Miller has fallen in a matter of months. People who voted for him in 2006 have said they will not vote for him again if the taxes (especially the land transfer tax) goes through. This is significant because of Miller’s electoral success in 2006. Miller had an informal NDP affiliation but at the same time won some of the most non-NDP parts of the city. His main opponent was Jane Pitfield. She was something of a centrist but in more recent times seemed to be shifting to the right. She claims to have never belonged to any political party. But if one were to assign a political affiliation to her, it would have to be Conservative because she is known to have campaigned for John Tory in his 2005 Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey by-election campaign. But for the most part she appears to be a right-of-centre politician without a formal party affiliation. She’s a great person on a personal level, but during her final years on council began to create a reputation of flip-flopping on major issues. David Miller highlighted with success these flip-flops during the mayoral campaign. In the end Pitfield’s campaign proved to be a largely unsuccessful affair. This is especially true in that Miller won every single city ward except for the two Don Valley West wards (one of which was Pitfield’s council ward). Miller’s win is what I think of as a 1984 Ronald Reagan style sweep (Reagan won every Electoral Vote jurisdiction except Minnesota and the District of Columbia, winning left-leaning, solidly Democratic states such as Rhode Island) only with reverse political ideology. In the same way that Reagan won liberal states like Rhode Island, Miller won municipally conservative areas of the city such as Ward 34, the southern part of Don Valley East (I know here it is Liberal federally and provincially, but municipally it is normally very conservative here and Ward 34 voted for John Tory in 2003), as well as normally municipally conservative Etobicoke. What’s more, Miller came within less than 1% of winning Don Valley West over Pitfield, who represented the area. For him to fall so much from this high in a few short months is for me astonishing.
I would also like to congratulate the British Labour Party for holding onto the two safe Labour seats of Sedgefield (until June 27th Tony Blair’s district) and Ealing Southall in two by-elections on Thursday. In Ealing Southall, the very loud buzz about a possible Liberal Democrat or Conservative steal came to nothing. Turnout in both by-elections was above 40%, not bad for a by-election. Granted the Labour vote fell in both by-elections, but for a governing party that almost ALWAYS happens. Also of note is that both by-elections were won easily by Labour but both had a Labour vote of less than half the total votes cast. However, this is also very common in by-elections. Due to the abnormal nature of by-elections (low turnout, protest voting, etc.), it is quite rare for the winning candidate in a by-election to get more than half the vote, especially in the UK. I am also glad to see that in both districts, the Tory vote remained very stagnant from the last General Election result, in both cases increasing only very slightly. In Sedgefield, the Liberal Democrats surged to second place and to almost 20%, an increase of almost 10% over the General Election result. In Ealing Southall, the Liberal Democrats retained second place and saw their vote percent increase a little bit. This marginal increase has to be a disappointment to Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell who faces discontent within his party and who’s party normally is a formidable force in by-elections and thus normally cruises to victory in by-elections in which the Lib Dems were also second place at the previous General Election. And this meager result for the Lib Dems comes in spite of a strong, aggressive campaign (the Lib Dem candidate may well have out-campaigned the Labour candidate). Most likely this failure for the Lib Dems occurred because new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is enjoying a honeymoon period that probably gave both Labour candidates a significant boost in the two by-election campaigns. I want to say I’m glad Labour held onto the two seats and I want to wish the two new MPs and the new Prime Minister well.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Retirements, and then more retirements
I am shocked at all the politicians these days who are quitting politics either due to health concerns or strains on their family. First Jennifer Mossop announces that she will not run again after only a single term in the Ontario legislature due to her lack of time with family because of her job. At the same time a sitting cabinet minister, from Hamilton Mountain, Marie Bountrogianni, announced that for similar reasons she would not run again for the Ontario legislature. Then yet another woman cabinet minister, Mary Anne Chambers, announced that she too would not run again for the Ontario legislature after only a single term for health reasons. She apparently has health concerns and therefore wants to leave politics to allow herself to slow down and recover. She apparently even told Dalton McGuinty the gory details of her health concerns. She is not leaving because she thinks she’s leaving a “sinking ship”. It’s obvious she really does have health concerns. I am thrilled however to learn that her replacement candidate will be another black woman.
At the Federal level, Stephen Owen is also quitting his seat near the end of July. He also had previously announced that he wouldn’t run again but once again was probably expecting to retire at a spring election. When that didn’t happen he seems to have decided to become a professor. I do not understand why Owen is quitting politics. My only guesses are that he was a cabinet minister and does not like sitting in Opposition and/or Dion is leader and Dion was not who Owen endorsed for leader. Former MP and Conservative spokesman John Reynolds claims that the Liberals are vulnerable in Owen’s Vancouver Quadra. Owen however won by almost 12,000 votes. The Tories apparently have yet to select which candidate will run in Quadra. The Liberals will run former BC Liberal cabinet minister Joyce Murray. She ran in the 2006 election in New Westminster-Coquitlam and received only 23% of the vote, which was low enough to allow NDPer Dawn Black to defeat Conservative incumbent Paul Forseth. Murray’s former provincial riding was New Westminster. She is however seemingly a good fit for Vancouver Quadra. I do not see how the Conservatives can win the riding if the last numbers from Mustel (a polling firm that polls British Columbia federal voting intentions using decently sized samples) that I saw hold: Conservative, 33% (-4 from general election), NDP, 29% (about the same as general election), Liberal 28%(the same number as the general election if you round up). I liked seeing this poll because it showed that Liberal support in BC is holding steady, and at least staying where it was at the last general election. If Liberal support in BC stays where it was at the general election at the time of the by-election, I do not see how the Conservatives can win Vancouver Quadra.
What is absolutely shocking is that Saskatchewan Liberal MP Gary Merasty is going to quit his seat at the end of August to get a job in the private sector. He says it is due to his lack of time with his family. But it is shocking because Merasty is a first-time MP. How could a first-time MP who has only been in office for 18 months and been a very successful MP quit before his first term in Parliament is even finished? How can this happen? He only won his seat by less than 70 votes, but he would have had a strong chance of re-election at the next general election. Any chance he’s hoping that the Liberals will find a new strong candidate for the by-election and hopefully win it due to the fallout from the federal budget (oil revenues), the Kelowna Accord (this is a riding with a high aboriginal population and the Tories abandoned the Kelowna Accord and have a poor record on aboriginal issues), and the wheat board (which the Tories are defanging and/or abolishing following a plebiscite with unclear and leading questions)? Perhaps Merasty thinks he may as well quit now so as to allow a by-election while those fallouts are still fresh in people’s minds. I am still just shocked that such a successful MP would just so suddenly quit politics.
At the Federal level, Stephen Owen is also quitting his seat near the end of July. He also had previously announced that he wouldn’t run again but once again was probably expecting to retire at a spring election. When that didn’t happen he seems to have decided to become a professor. I do not understand why Owen is quitting politics. My only guesses are that he was a cabinet minister and does not like sitting in Opposition and/or Dion is leader and Dion was not who Owen endorsed for leader. Former MP and Conservative spokesman John Reynolds claims that the Liberals are vulnerable in Owen’s Vancouver Quadra. Owen however won by almost 12,000 votes. The Tories apparently have yet to select which candidate will run in Quadra. The Liberals will run former BC Liberal cabinet minister Joyce Murray. She ran in the 2006 election in New Westminster-Coquitlam and received only 23% of the vote, which was low enough to allow NDPer Dawn Black to defeat Conservative incumbent Paul Forseth. Murray’s former provincial riding was New Westminster. She is however seemingly a good fit for Vancouver Quadra. I do not see how the Conservatives can win the riding if the last numbers from Mustel (a polling firm that polls British Columbia federal voting intentions using decently sized samples) that I saw hold: Conservative, 33% (-4 from general election), NDP, 29% (about the same as general election), Liberal 28%(the same number as the general election if you round up). I liked seeing this poll because it showed that Liberal support in BC is holding steady, and at least staying where it was at the last general election. If Liberal support in BC stays where it was at the general election at the time of the by-election, I do not see how the Conservatives can win Vancouver Quadra.
What is absolutely shocking is that Saskatchewan Liberal MP Gary Merasty is going to quit his seat at the end of August to get a job in the private sector. He says it is due to his lack of time with his family. But it is shocking because Merasty is a first-time MP. How could a first-time MP who has only been in office for 18 months and been a very successful MP quit before his first term in Parliament is even finished? How can this happen? He only won his seat by less than 70 votes, but he would have had a strong chance of re-election at the next general election. Any chance he’s hoping that the Liberals will find a new strong candidate for the by-election and hopefully win it due to the fallout from the federal budget (oil revenues), the Kelowna Accord (this is a riding with a high aboriginal population and the Tories abandoned the Kelowna Accord and have a poor record on aboriginal issues), and the wheat board (which the Tories are defanging and/or abolishing following a plebiscite with unclear and leading questions)? Perhaps Merasty thinks he may as well quit now so as to allow a by-election while those fallouts are still fresh in people’s minds. I am still just shocked that such a successful MP would just so suddenly quit politics.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Davenport and Markham--Unionville
The NDP candidate for the provincial NDP in Davenport is going to be Peter Ferreira. He is Portugese and Davenport has a lot of Portugese people but I don’t know whether they would automatically switch their votes just because the NDP candidate is Portugese. The fact that he is Portugese is one of the assets he has if he wants to beat Tony Ruprecht. But his beating the well-established and well entrenched Tony Ruprecht will be difficult. The other problem Ferreira faces is that he seems to be the same Peter Ferreira who spent time as a Catholic school trustee in Mississauga, which is several kilometers from Davenport. He also ran unsuccessfully for a seat on Mississauga City Council last November. On the election website for city council he says he has long lived in Mississauga. Therefore he seems to be something of a parachute candidate for Davenport and doesn’t seem too have many roots in the community in which he is running. It is for that reason that I would still give Ruprecht the edge.
On the electionprediction.com page for Markham—Unionville, somebody has gone and predicted a PC win for physiotherapist Ki Kit Li because it is a traditional Conservative seat as well as because of “strong credentials” for the Tory candidate. Here is the full quote, by someone called “Full Name”: “Considering that the by election of 2007 had one of the lowest number of registered voters voting, that this is traditionally a PC riding, and that there is a PC candidate that has strong credentials and has been an active member of the community, I would say that John Tory and his team will probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” To go from “strong credentials” and “active member of the community” to “probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” is a bit of a stretch. The Tories winning Markham—Unionville is always physically possible but “probably”??????? Full Name gave too far a certainty. There are several things to refute this post. I want to post them on the site but I can’t get the submission page to work. Firstly Full Name is not taking into account the federal results in Markham—Unionville. In the 2006 Federal Election, Markham—Unionville was in the top 5 of strongest Liberal results across the whole country. Markham—Unionville came out in 5th place out of 308 with 61.9% of the vote, one of only 6 ridings to vote more than 60% Liberal in the whole country. Secondly, Full Name fails to take into account Michael Chan’s roots in the community. Thirdly, about the by-election and its turnout, by-elections often have low turnout and Markham was no exception. One reason the turnout was low was no doubt the cold (though not snowing) weather. That being said, I do not see low turnout as a bad sign for the Liberals. In by-elections, those who turn out to vote are a lot more likely to be those who are not satisfied with the government and wish to vote against the governing party. We saw this occur significantly in York South-Weston, as well as to a lesser extent in Parkdale-High Park. Markham does not appear to be an exception to this rule. I’d say that this factor played out in Markham. Yet despite this factor the Liberals still easily beat the Tories. Also notable is that I was involved in the by-election campaign for the Liberals and did a lot of sign counting. The Liberals easily won the sign war (only counting signs on lawns) by a 2 to one margin. Some of the committed Liberals may not have voted on election day because it was cold out. Based on what I saw of canvass results as well, there appeared to be a largely Liberal result. So there is no questioning that that support for the Liberals was there and it was not some aberration due to turnout. Based on what I saw in the election campaign, it was a little surprising to see a result of 34.9% for the Tories. One may have expected a maximum result of about 30% but on election day it was a little higher than this. My theory is that the 34.9% result was because of the factor I mentioned earlier – those wishing to vote against the government have a higher tendency to vote in a by-election. So my guess is that a higher turnout would thus likely have seen a stronger Liberal result. The next factor Full Name leaves out is that if the by-election results are applied only to the new Markham—Unionville part of the riding, the results would almost certainly be higher for the Liberals and lower for the Tories because the new riding loses some of the strongest areas for the Tories to the new Oak Ridges—Markham riding. Thus in Markham—Unionville we may have seen something like Liberal 53%, Conservative 31%. By my theory an increased turnout would likely have expanded the Liberal margin further. So really the Liberals have some distance to fall before they lose Markham—Unionville. It would take a real Tory sweep and a humiliating disaster for the Liberals before they would lose Markham—Unionville. The Tories would probably have to take 45% or so of the vote province-wide for Markham—Unionville to fall to the Tories. So for Full Name to predict a probable win for the Tories at this point is, in my view, a little far from reality.
On one more point, I am tired of waiting for the provincial election. I wish I could already be helping out Michael Chan and rooting for Dalton McGuinty and I am tired of the suspense of having to wait for the provincial election to officially start.
On the electionprediction.com page for Markham—Unionville, somebody has gone and predicted a PC win for physiotherapist Ki Kit Li because it is a traditional Conservative seat as well as because of “strong credentials” for the Tory candidate. Here is the full quote, by someone called “Full Name”: “Considering that the by election of 2007 had one of the lowest number of registered voters voting, that this is traditionally a PC riding, and that there is a PC candidate that has strong credentials and has been an active member of the community, I would say that John Tory and his team will probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” To go from “strong credentials” and “active member of the community” to “probably gain back this seat for the PC Party” is a bit of a stretch. The Tories winning Markham—Unionville is always physically possible but “probably”??????? Full Name gave too far a certainty. There are several things to refute this post. I want to post them on the site but I can’t get the submission page to work. Firstly Full Name is not taking into account the federal results in Markham—Unionville. In the 2006 Federal Election, Markham—Unionville was in the top 5 of strongest Liberal results across the whole country. Markham—Unionville came out in 5th place out of 308 with 61.9% of the vote, one of only 6 ridings to vote more than 60% Liberal in the whole country. Secondly, Full Name fails to take into account Michael Chan’s roots in the community. Thirdly, about the by-election and its turnout, by-elections often have low turnout and Markham was no exception. One reason the turnout was low was no doubt the cold (though not snowing) weather. That being said, I do not see low turnout as a bad sign for the Liberals. In by-elections, those who turn out to vote are a lot more likely to be those who are not satisfied with the government and wish to vote against the governing party. We saw this occur significantly in York South-Weston, as well as to a lesser extent in Parkdale-High Park. Markham does not appear to be an exception to this rule. I’d say that this factor played out in Markham. Yet despite this factor the Liberals still easily beat the Tories. Also notable is that I was involved in the by-election campaign for the Liberals and did a lot of sign counting. The Liberals easily won the sign war (only counting signs on lawns) by a 2 to one margin. Some of the committed Liberals may not have voted on election day because it was cold out. Based on what I saw of canvass results as well, there appeared to be a largely Liberal result. So there is no questioning that that support for the Liberals was there and it was not some aberration due to turnout. Based on what I saw in the election campaign, it was a little surprising to see a result of 34.9% for the Tories. One may have expected a maximum result of about 30% but on election day it was a little higher than this. My theory is that the 34.9% result was because of the factor I mentioned earlier – those wishing to vote against the government have a higher tendency to vote in a by-election. So my guess is that a higher turnout would thus likely have seen a stronger Liberal result. The next factor Full Name leaves out is that if the by-election results are applied only to the new Markham—Unionville part of the riding, the results would almost certainly be higher for the Liberals and lower for the Tories because the new riding loses some of the strongest areas for the Tories to the new Oak Ridges—Markham riding. Thus in Markham—Unionville we may have seen something like Liberal 53%, Conservative 31%. By my theory an increased turnout would likely have expanded the Liberal margin further. So really the Liberals have some distance to fall before they lose Markham—Unionville. It would take a real Tory sweep and a humiliating disaster for the Liberals before they would lose Markham—Unionville. The Tories would probably have to take 45% or so of the vote province-wide for Markham—Unionville to fall to the Tories. So for Full Name to predict a probable win for the Tories at this point is, in my view, a little far from reality.
On one more point, I am tired of waiting for the provincial election. I wish I could already be helping out Michael Chan and rooting for Dalton McGuinty and I am tired of the suspense of having to wait for the provincial election to officially start.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Another Ontario provincial poll
The Ontario provincial Liberals are still slightly ahead according to the latest Ipsos-Reid poll conducted during the second half of June. Based on the poll numbers, it would suggest that the release of the Conservative platform did not give the Tories a boost, perhaps because it was vague and contained the controversial religious school funding proposal. The poll result showed the Tories drop one point, and the Liberals drop two points which seemingly moved to the Greens. The result is a 3 point lead for the Liberals, 39% to 36%. Noticeable is that the Tories are hardly any higher than their 2003 election finish. If these numbers held on election day the Tories would pick up seats but only because of a vote split due to a surge in third party support. Although the article wants again to talk about a possible minority government, I have again put the numbers into an election forecaster and found it predicting a narrow Liberal majority government. This proves that the supposedly “magic” 40% citied both federally and provincially needed for a majority government is an arbitrary number. It is apparently theoretically possible for a majority government to be formed with 39% of the vote, only 3 points ahead of the nearest opposing party. A 39% to 36% result could produce a minority government of course, but a majority government is apparently also quite possible. It is important to remember that a large spread between the top two parties in a first-past-the-post general election is not needed for a majority government. For example, in the 1999 election the Tories beat the Liberals in the province overall by just 5%. Yet this produced a moderately large majority government. A party winning a majority government yet beating its nearest competitor by only 3% in the popular vote is entirely possible. It is true that the chances of a minority government in Ontario is the most possible it has been since the 1985 election (which did produce a minority government in the end), but at this point such an outcome is far from certain. The media who keeps bringing up the strong possibility of a minority government may be jumping to conclusions. The Liberals should not be counted out yet, but nor should the PCs.
There is little point at looking at the regional breakdowns given for the poll, because I believe the sample size is too small for them to mean anything. For the poll to show only a single point lead for the Liberals in the GTA, the GTA surely has to include places like Burlington, Oakville, and maybe even Hamilton. Otherwise that regional breakdown wouldn’t make sense. What makes even less sense is the result outside Toronto. Supposedly, according to the poll, the Liberals hold a stronger 39% to 34% lead outside the Toronto area. I suppose this is believable, but only if very conservative regions of the GTA held great sway in the poll. I suppose it is possible that the poll may have over-sampled GTA places such as Whitby, Oakville, Oshawa, and Burlington. If so than the Liberals would in reality have a larger province-wide lead than the poll indicated. The strangest result is in central Ontario, which gives the Liberals a 5 point lead of 41% to 36%. If this result were actually true I’d say the Liberals have a very strong chance of re-election. Central Ontario includes the very Conservative Haliburton/ Kawartha Lakes electoral district, the county of Northumberland (The Northumberland-Quinte West riding is a key swing riding that usually goes to the party who wins the election both federally and provincially), the key bellwether riding of Peterborough, as well as Conservative Simcoe County. Although the region contains a couple swing ridings, most parts of this region are rock solid Conservative and therefore I would find a lead of 41 to 36 for the Liberals to be highly questionable, yet very good news for the Liberals if true. At the very least if that result is true it means the Liberals would hold Peterborough and Northumberland-Quinte West. And the Liberals would be hard pressed to lose the election if those two ridings are in their column. However, the low sample size makes me have to take that Central Ontario result with a grain of salt.
There is little point at looking at the regional breakdowns given for the poll, because I believe the sample size is too small for them to mean anything. For the poll to show only a single point lead for the Liberals in the GTA, the GTA surely has to include places like Burlington, Oakville, and maybe even Hamilton. Otherwise that regional breakdown wouldn’t make sense. What makes even less sense is the result outside Toronto. Supposedly, according to the poll, the Liberals hold a stronger 39% to 34% lead outside the Toronto area. I suppose this is believable, but only if very conservative regions of the GTA held great sway in the poll. I suppose it is possible that the poll may have over-sampled GTA places such as Whitby, Oakville, Oshawa, and Burlington. If so than the Liberals would in reality have a larger province-wide lead than the poll indicated. The strangest result is in central Ontario, which gives the Liberals a 5 point lead of 41% to 36%. If this result were actually true I’d say the Liberals have a very strong chance of re-election. Central Ontario includes the very Conservative Haliburton/ Kawartha Lakes electoral district, the county of Northumberland (The Northumberland-Quinte West riding is a key swing riding that usually goes to the party who wins the election both federally and provincially), the key bellwether riding of Peterborough, as well as Conservative Simcoe County. Although the region contains a couple swing ridings, most parts of this region are rock solid Conservative and therefore I would find a lead of 41 to 36 for the Liberals to be highly questionable, yet very good news for the Liberals if true. At the very least if that result is true it means the Liberals would hold Peterborough and Northumberland-Quinte West. And the Liberals would be hard pressed to lose the election if those two ridings are in their column. However, the low sample size makes me have to take that Central Ontario result with a grain of salt.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Ontario Liberals
I think that Dalton McGuinty’s re-election chances depend in part on the relative popularity of the federal Conservative and Liberal parties. I’ve said this before, but once again I think there is a spillover effect between what happens on the federal scene that corresponds to attitudes at the Ontario provincial scene. In my humble opinion, the McGuinty government still has a significant chance of re-election in the fall. However, it must be remembered that 90% of sitting MPPs as well as the government itself was elected during a different political era. The composition of the current legislature was voted on at a time when the federal Liberals reigned supreme under Jean Chrétien. The current legislature was elected at a time when the federal Liberals were ever popular and unbeatable under Chrétien. It is amazing how quickly that decade-long juggernaut came crashing down mere months after the 2003 provincial election. By June 2004, less than a year later, that juggernaut that was supposed to continue under Paul Martin was gone. So the fact that the McGuinty government was elected in that previous political era is something to keep in mind. On the flip side it is important to note that the Ontario Liberals are still stronger in many rural seats than the federal Liberals. However, if the Ontario Liberals want to win the coming election they have to run an actual campaign. They cannot simply coast as the federal Liberals did in the last election. Coasting leads to inevitable defeat. The Liberals must actually campaign. If they do campaign, they still have a decent shot at winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)