What is going on here? A cow, a female cow, attacking a woman unprovoked? Cows are supposed to be docile. What happened? It is a good thing her grandson could drive a tractor and he got her the quick medical attention she needed. I always figured a cow might kick you if you try and ride her, but to engage in a prolonged attack for no reason? What is wrong with this cow?
Source for this crazy cow story:
http://www.theprovince.com/Alberta+woman+lucky+alive+after+attack/3075170/story.html
On to politics. Bob Rae is reminiscing about the events that happened 25 years ago this month when he negotiated the pact with the Ontario Liberals that toppled Frank Miller’s government. The Lieutenant Governor, John Aird, allowed the Liberal party to form a minority government because the NDP had reached an accord with the Liberals that in other countries such as New Zealand would now be called a “confidence and supply accord”. In other words, the NDP agreed to support the Liberals on matters of confidence and supply in exchange for the Liberals implementing several key NDP policies. As any studier of Ontario politics knows, it was the Liberals who were given credit for these left-leaning policies and the Liberals were given a huge majority government in the 1987 election that was called after the two year accord had expired. It is Bob Rae’s dream to bring such a similar accord to the federal government. Rae was one of the strongest backers of Stephane Dion’s aborted coalition accord with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. The problem is English Canadians reacted so negatively to the Bloc’s involvement in the coalition and it is almost completely mathematically impossible for the Liberals and NDP alone to obtain a majority of seats. So as much as many people want such a coalition government it is very difficult. They couldn’t even convince Michaëlle Jean to allow the coalition. How would Rae and other coalition supporters get the next Governor General who may have strong Conservative ties, to allow such a similar proposed coalition in future?
Showing posts with label Bob Rae. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Rae. Show all posts
Friday, May 28, 2010
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!
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Bad news about Bob Rae, plus some provincial Liberal candidates
I have some bad news. Bob Rae has a cold and therefore his heart surgery has been delayed. No new date has been set. My concern is that Rae will still be recovering and unable to campaign when Harper calls the Toronto Centre by-election.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Almost all previously defeated Liberal candidates in the 2003 Ontario election and subsequent Ontario provincial by-elections are not running in the 2007 Ontario election. The only exceptions I know of are Helena Jaczek (general election), Sylvia Watson (Parkdale—High Park by-election), and Laura Albanese (York South—Weston by-election). All these candidates have some, but not a certain, chance of winning. Jaczek only narrowly lost to Frank Klees in Oak Ridges, but the redistributed results from the 2003 election in Oak Ridges—Markham has the Tories winning by a 9 point margin. At the same time, Oak Ridges—Markham has twice gone Liberal federally. So Helena could take it in the context of a strong Liberal majority win province-wide. Parkdale—High Park and York South—Weston could also flip back to the Liberals in the case of a large Liberal majority government.
Sylvia Watson is running again in Parkdale—High Park. She chose to relinquish her city council seat after losing last year’s by-election. Watson probably withdrew from the municipal race as soon as she entered the by-election race to avoid criticism of hedging her bets on two races. She also promised not to re-enter the municipal race should she lose the by-election. When she lost the by-election, she kept her word. I wish Watson had won the by-election. I was personally involved in her campaign. I may not agree with actual winning candidate Cheri Di Novo’s economic policies, but I do agree wholeheartedly with her liberal views on homosexuality. I will discuss this more in a future blog. Although Sylvia Watson could have technically re-entered the municipal race, it would have been difficult because her withdrawal attracted a large field of candidates vying to replace her. Her re-entry into the municipal race would have made the race extra crowded and may have posed a significant challenge to her re-election prospects. On council, Watson was a centrist who although not a steadfast David Miller ally, often voted for Miller’s policies. It is for this reason that I am perplexed to see this written about Sylvia Watson by Toronto politics commentator David Nickle (http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/Villager/Column/article/28047):
“Even those who might have at other times run for Progressive Conservatives, like the fiscally conservative Sylvia Watson, didn't dare fly the Tory flag in this town when she took a shot at Parkdale-High Park in a byelection last year for the Liberals.”
Sylvia seems pretty Liberal to me. She was more fiscally responsible than fiscally conservative, and I don’t think she would have run for the Harris Tories. I see no evidence that Sylvia even contemplated running for the Tories.
On a closely related note, provincial affairs columnist Eric Dowd wrote this (http://www.inbusinesswindsor.com/2007Issues/August2007/queenspark.pdf):
“The Conservatives hoped to have Bas Balkissoon, a cost-conscious municipal councilor who blew whistles on waste, run for them in a by-election in Toronto and talked to him about it, but Balkissoon opted to run for the then more secure Liberals and held the riding comfortably. Another respected Toronto councilor, Sylvia Watson, as well as TV reporter Ben Chin and news anchor Laura Albanese, viewed as star catches because everyone knows their faces, also opted to run for the Liberals in by elections, although all three lost when the New Democrats surprisingly revived.”
I’m no insider, but I’d venture to guess Balkissoon turned the Tories down not only because it was easier to win in Scarborough—Rouge River as a Liberal, but equally because Balkissoon is a Liberal at heart. I also hope Dowd is not implying that Watson, Chin, and Albanese would have run for the Tories in other circumstances. There is such a thing as simply being a Liberal, regardless of how well that party happens to be doing at any given moment. That is what most Liberals are like. The David Emersons of the world are few and far between.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Farewell to Bill and Jim
Yesterday, Bill Graham announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 2. Today, Jim Peterson announced that he would resign his House of Commons seat on July 12. I’m guessing that both these parliamentary veterans were asked to resign to make way for Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay to run in by-elections. But my concern is that the Liberals could lose one or both of these by-elections to the Conservatives. I’m particularly concerned about Willowdale, where the Conservatives got 29% to the Liberals’ 55%. In Toronto Centre I am concerned that the riding could go something other than Liberal because of continuing dislike of Bob Rae. The Liberals want all Liberal Leadership candidates to be in the House of Commons. There were initially 11 leadership candidates, 8 of which were MPs. 3 candidates, MPs Carolyn Bennett, Maurizio Bevilacqua, and Hedy Fry all dropped out prior to “Super Weekend” and all endorsed Bob Rae. MP John Godfrey was briefly in the Leadership race as well but dropped out in April 2006 before the race really started for health reasons. He did however participate in a leadership race debate in April 2006 and did well at it. It is therefore sad that after such a great start, health had to make Mr. Godfrey drop out. While I expect Godfrey could have been a great leader, he was born in December 1942. No offence to the exemplary Mr. Godfrey, but a younger leader may well have been needed to be able to take on Stephen Harper and form a future government. Not to say that Godfrey too would not have been capable of this, I’m just saying that someone younger may, I stress, may, have been a better choice. Mr. Godfrey also later endorsed Bob Rae.
There were 3 leadership candidates who were not MPs. They were Gerard Kennedy (my candidate!), Bob Rae, and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy is a former Ontario MPP and former Ontario education minister. Rae is a former Ontario MPP and a former NDP Ontario Premier. Rae left the NDP in 2002 over it’s rejection of free market capitalism (he referenced outgoing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as an example of someone who has praised free markets) and over it’s lack of support for Israel. Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish. Rae is also of Jewish decent although he was raised an Anglican. Some say Rae was the first Jewish Premier of Ontario. After leaving the NDP, Rae slowly drifted his affiliation to the Liberals. In 2006, Rae decided he wanted to seek the federal Liberal leadership. He eventually lost to Stephane Dion. I followed Kennedy’s lead and endorsed Stephane Dion when Kennedy dropped out of the ballot. Rae was also an NDP MP from late 1978 to 1982 when he quit in order to become leader of the provincial NDP. The third leadership candidate who was not an MP was Martha Hall Findlay. She has never held elected office but came close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004 when Stronach was a Conservative. In the leadership race, Hall Findlay was first to be eliminated and she endorsed Dion. Rae released his delegates and did not endorse either of the two remaining candidates, Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Ever since the leadership race has been over, the Liberals have wanted the 3 non-MP candidates to become MPs in order for there to be a stronger front against Stephen Harper’s government. But now that the next election might not be until 2009, these 3 politicians likely have started to become impatient about being on the sidelines and possibly remaining on the sidelines for a whole another 2 years before they can run in a general election. It is for this reason that I think the two retiring Liberal incumbents were asked to retire early to allow an earlier chance to get the seatless leadership candidates to enter Parliament in by-elections. Rae and Hall Findlay were already nominated in their respective ridings for the next general election. I expect that the two retiring political veterans obliged because they did not want to have to wait around another two years before being able to retire. Both Peterson and Graham announced their retirement at a time that a spring election was expected. I don’t think they were planning on the seemingly inevitable election to fizzle. Graham and Peterson likely were expecting Parliament to be dissolved this spring. I doubt either was betting on the Parliament lasting another two years as now seems probable. It is for this reason I think that both have just announced their resignation to allow for an early retirement and thus some new blood to be elected in their place.
Unfortunately this all leaves out my guy Gerard Kennedy. Under this current plan Kennedy remains on the sidelines until the next election which could be another two years. Kennedy decided to run in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. I’m glad Kennedy is running there as he is just about the only one who could win this increasingly NDP riding back for the Liberals. However, this leaves Kennedy out until the next general election unless another seat opens up and Kennedy opts to run there instead. It previously seemed like a good seat for Kennedy to run in was York South-Weston. After all Kennedy represented much of the riding from 1996-1999. However this was based on the assumption that Alan Tonks (who was born in 1943) would retire. Since then Tonks has, however, committed to running again so the seat is not becoming vacated. This is on top of the fact that there are now doubts about how safe the seat is on the federal level given the recent NDP victory in the provincial York South-Weston seat. So I’m sad to say that for now my guy Gerard Kennedy is stuck out of Parliament.
There were 3 leadership candidates who were not MPs. They were Gerard Kennedy (my candidate!), Bob Rae, and Martha Hall Findlay. Kennedy is a former Ontario MPP and former Ontario education minister. Rae is a former Ontario MPP and a former NDP Ontario Premier. Rae left the NDP in 2002 over it’s rejection of free market capitalism (he referenced outgoing UK Prime Minister Tony Blair as an example of someone who has praised free markets) and over it’s lack of support for Israel. Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish. Rae is also of Jewish decent although he was raised an Anglican. Some say Rae was the first Jewish Premier of Ontario. After leaving the NDP, Rae slowly drifted his affiliation to the Liberals. In 2006, Rae decided he wanted to seek the federal Liberal leadership. He eventually lost to Stephane Dion. I followed Kennedy’s lead and endorsed Stephane Dion when Kennedy dropped out of the ballot. Rae was also an NDP MP from late 1978 to 1982 when he quit in order to become leader of the provincial NDP. The third leadership candidate who was not an MP was Martha Hall Findlay. She has never held elected office but came close to beating Belinda Stronach in 2004 when Stronach was a Conservative. In the leadership race, Hall Findlay was first to be eliminated and she endorsed Dion. Rae released his delegates and did not endorse either of the two remaining candidates, Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Ever since the leadership race has been over, the Liberals have wanted the 3 non-MP candidates to become MPs in order for there to be a stronger front against Stephen Harper’s government. But now that the next election might not be until 2009, these 3 politicians likely have started to become impatient about being on the sidelines and possibly remaining on the sidelines for a whole another 2 years before they can run in a general election. It is for this reason that I think the two retiring Liberal incumbents were asked to retire early to allow an earlier chance to get the seatless leadership candidates to enter Parliament in by-elections. Rae and Hall Findlay were already nominated in their respective ridings for the next general election. I expect that the two retiring political veterans obliged because they did not want to have to wait around another two years before being able to retire. Both Peterson and Graham announced their retirement at a time that a spring election was expected. I don’t think they were planning on the seemingly inevitable election to fizzle. Graham and Peterson likely were expecting Parliament to be dissolved this spring. I doubt either was betting on the Parliament lasting another two years as now seems probable. It is for this reason I think that both have just announced their resignation to allow for an early retirement and thus some new blood to be elected in their place.
Unfortunately this all leaves out my guy Gerard Kennedy. Under this current plan Kennedy remains on the sidelines until the next election which could be another two years. Kennedy decided to run in his old provincial riding of Parkdale-High Park against NDP incumbent Peggy Nash. I’m glad Kennedy is running there as he is just about the only one who could win this increasingly NDP riding back for the Liberals. However, this leaves Kennedy out until the next general election unless another seat opens up and Kennedy opts to run there instead. It previously seemed like a good seat for Kennedy to run in was York South-Weston. After all Kennedy represented much of the riding from 1996-1999. However this was based on the assumption that Alan Tonks (who was born in 1943) would retire. Since then Tonks has, however, committed to running again so the seat is not becoming vacated. This is on top of the fact that there are now doubts about how safe the seat is on the federal level given the recent NDP victory in the provincial York South-Weston seat. So I’m sad to say that for now my guy Gerard Kennedy is stuck out of Parliament.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Majority governments and fixed election dates
In majority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is ridiculously easy. In minority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is often quite hard by contrast. Newly elected governments have the constitutionally given right to govern for 5 years with no new election so long as the government can maintain the confidence of the legislature. The problem with this is that governments that become extremely unpopular who happen to be majority governments are able to keep governing long past their prime. No matter how unpopular a government is, it can continue governing for 5 years. Even if the government drops down to a 10% approval rating after its first 3 months in office and stays at that level for the next 4 years and 9 months, the incredibly unpopular government gets to continue governing for the remaining 4 years and 9 months no matter how much the population absolutely despises the government. That is why Bob Rae was able to be Premier of Ontario for such a very long time. Ontario’s population absolutely despised Rae’s government, but Rae had a majority government and therefore was able to continue governing regardless of how much everyone in Ontario despised his government. The Rae government hit rock bottom in terms of popularity once it’s 1991 budget was released and remained at that rock bottom for the remaining 4 years of their term. Following the 1991 Ontario budget, the Ontario public absolutely despised the Rae government but there was nothing that could be done to remove the Rae government from power for the next 4 years.
Another good example of this is the Mulroney government. The 1988-1993 Mulroney government became very unpopular by 1990 and stayed that way for Mulroney’s remaining 3 years in office. Yet because Mulroney had a majority government he was able to stay in power even though the public absolutely despised his government. This was true even after he lost several MPs to the newly formed Bloc Quebecois. Although Mulroney’s majority shrunk substantially throughout his second term in office, it never became a minority government and so there was no way to force an early election and vote the hated government out.
I support the concept of fixed election dates every 4 years because this prevents governments that are very unpopular from governing for 5 years just to cling to power as long as possible before facing the inevitable defeat. Fixing elections every 4 years allows for governments who are in the popularity lows of Rae and Mulroney to be voted out sooner than would be possible otherwise. The problem with fixed election dates in Canada now is that they are statutory in nature. So if an unpopular government were to inherit a fixed election date law from a previous government, and if said unpopular government was already at a 10% approval rating, and if said unpopular government wanted to cling to power as long as possible, it could simply repeal the fixed election date law and remain in power for the full 5 years before finally being wiped out of office.
The Rae government’s legislature was months away from expiring when Rae called the 1995 election. Rae could have remained Premier for a few more months and could have stayed in the Premier’s office until about November before being wiped out. But he must have seen a sliver of opportunity to call the election for June, as though such a time would prevent his party from being completely wiped out. If the election had been held in 1993, the NDP would likely have lost official party status it was so unpopular during the middle of Rae’s term. Instead, what small amount of support there was for the NDP had managed to recover by June 1995 and that’s probably why Rae called the election then. Rae probably saw that time as the best possible opportunity his party had of not being completely and totally wiped out. However, at no time following the 1991 Ontario budget could an election have been held with the NDP winning the election – that’s how unpopular the 1991 budget made the NDP and there was no turning back and from that point on. Rae never had a chance to win a second term in office.
Another good example of this is the Mulroney government. The 1988-1993 Mulroney government became very unpopular by 1990 and stayed that way for Mulroney’s remaining 3 years in office. Yet because Mulroney had a majority government he was able to stay in power even though the public absolutely despised his government. This was true even after he lost several MPs to the newly formed Bloc Quebecois. Although Mulroney’s majority shrunk substantially throughout his second term in office, it never became a minority government and so there was no way to force an early election and vote the hated government out.
I support the concept of fixed election dates every 4 years because this prevents governments that are very unpopular from governing for 5 years just to cling to power as long as possible before facing the inevitable defeat. Fixing elections every 4 years allows for governments who are in the popularity lows of Rae and Mulroney to be voted out sooner than would be possible otherwise. The problem with fixed election dates in Canada now is that they are statutory in nature. So if an unpopular government were to inherit a fixed election date law from a previous government, and if said unpopular government was already at a 10% approval rating, and if said unpopular government wanted to cling to power as long as possible, it could simply repeal the fixed election date law and remain in power for the full 5 years before finally being wiped out of office.
The Rae government’s legislature was months away from expiring when Rae called the 1995 election. Rae could have remained Premier for a few more months and could have stayed in the Premier’s office until about November before being wiped out. But he must have seen a sliver of opportunity to call the election for June, as though such a time would prevent his party from being completely wiped out. If the election had been held in 1993, the NDP would likely have lost official party status it was so unpopular during the middle of Rae’s term. Instead, what small amount of support there was for the NDP had managed to recover by June 1995 and that’s probably why Rae called the election then. Rae probably saw that time as the best possible opportunity his party had of not being completely and totally wiped out. However, at no time following the 1991 Ontario budget could an election have been held with the NDP winning the election – that’s how unpopular the 1991 budget made the NDP and there was no turning back and from that point on. Rae never had a chance to win a second term in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)