Election is on Now

Well to no one's surprise the government fell on a non-confidence vote. What was interesting is three of the four independents, including two former Liberals supported the non-confidence motion (Bev Desjarlais, David Kilgour, and Pat O'Brien in favour, while Carolyn Parrish opposed). It looks like we will have a rather long campaign with a break in the campaigning around Christmas, as should be the case. I would suspect any candidate who showed up at someone's door on or near Christmas day would be less likely to get their vote. Anyways I will give more in depth analysis including my opinions as the campaign continues. So far I think the Liberals are on the right track with their decision to make the economy the main issue. I thought making Health Care the main issue the last time was a mistake as they don't have the same level of credibility there as they do with the economy. Stephen Harper has already made two stupid remarks, which were accusing the Liberals of being a criminal organization and also saying he would re-visit the same-sex marriage issue. Ironically the Tories have narrowed the gap with the Liberals, which is no real surprise to me as the governing party usually drops after the writ is dropped. I expect them to rebound as people begin to think of the prospect of Stephen Harper becoming prime-minister, which I don't think most Canadians want to see. I also expect the attack ads towards the end of the campaign to scare many undecideds over to the Liberals. This time around, I will be helping out Joyce Murray in New Westminster-Coquitlam and Brenda Locke in Fleetwood-Port Kells. Since both of them were very strong cabinet ministers, I believe they would bring a lot more to the table for BC, compared to Paul Forseth who has been completely useless and Nina Grewal who is a complete embarassment. Anyways I'll have more later.

Election Predictions

Okay, now that a federal election looks imminent, I thought I would make a few predictions to see if I can continue my streak of correctly picking the winners. I predict a Liberal minority government will be produced. In 2004, I made seat guesses with several of my friends and while all of us were way off in terms of what the final numbers were, I was the only one to correctly predict the Liberals would be re-elected. After watching the Reform/Alliance parties always fall apart, I knew as soon as Stephen Harper became leader that the Liberals were going to bring up some of his past controversial statements and views and that when voters were faced with a choice between someone who was perceived as very right wing versus corrupt, but middle of the road, voters would go for the latter. In the US election, with the exception of Brandon Langhjelm who wanted Bush to win, but predicted Kerry, I was alone amongst everyone I talked to in wanting Kerry to win, but predicting a Bush win. All the others I know who thought Bush would be re-elected wanted him to be re-elected. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time in my Youth traveling through the Red States as well as talking to people who lived in them, I was well aware of the strong right wing tendencies so Bush's re-election was no surprise to me. The average American has a very limited knowledge of the outside World compared to Canadians as well as I was well aware of how powerful the Religious Right was so that is how I made my predictions. Finally I predicted the BC Liberals would win a reduced majority, even back when they were trailing in the polls since the BC Liberals were approximately at the same spot the former Social Credit was usually at going into an election, so I figured they would pick up a lot of the undecided votes (which aren't included in opinion polls).

My Predictions here (I will make riding by riding predictions as we get closer to the election, but rather than list each riding individually, I will list the ones which I think which will switch hands)

Atlantic Canada: Not much has changed since the last election and besides there were very few close races unlike further West, so the results will probably be similiar if not identical. The Liberals will hold the majority of seats, while the Tories and the NDP will win in their traditional strongholds, but not do particularly well in the whole region.

Quebec: With support for the Bloc Quebecois being at an all time high, I think it is almost a guarantee they will gain seats, probably over 60 this time around. The Liberals won't get completely wiped out as they are at least 8 ridings in West Montreal that will go Liberal no matter what. The only prediction I will make, is they won't win any seats they didn't win last time around. The Tories and NDP will likely be shut out of Quebec again.

Ontario: Conservative support is stuck in the low 30s and so no change over last time in share of the popular vote, but could change in terms of seats depending on the NDP/Liberal split. The Conservatives are strongest in rural ridings, especially Southwestern Ontario and Eastern Ontario, while the Liberals are strongest in the GTA and the NDP has their pockets here and there. If the NDP increases their share of the vote, the Liberals will not only lose seats to the NDP, but also to the Conservatives as you could see what happened in several BC and Saskatchewan ridings or like what happened in Oshawa where the Conservatives didn't do particularly well, but were able to come up the middle since most NDP votes are likely to come at the expense of the Liberals. Likewise if the NDP vote drops, the Liberals will go up and therefore the Conservatives will lose seats. At this point the Liberals will still win the majority of seats in Ontario, but will it be only around 60 seats under the worse case scenario or as high as 80 seats under the best case scenario. Likewise the Tories could win as few as 15 seats to as many as 40 seats. The NDP should get between 5-12 seats.

Manitoba: The Liberals will hold the three ridings they current have, while possibly pick up as many as three at the most (Churchill, Kildonan-St. Paul, and maybe but not likely, Charleswood-St. James-Assinboia). The NDP certainly won't gain any seats, but other than Churchill, they won't lose any of the three Winnipeg seats. The Conservatives also won't gain any seats, but only risk possibly losing their two Winnipeg seats; they will easily hold the five rural seats.

Saskatchewan: The Conservatives may get 13 seats again, although considering Saskatchewan doesn't have a strong conservative history unlike neighbouring Alberta, I would be very surprised if they pull if off again, although I still expect them to win the majority of seats, probably 8-11 seats. Ralph Goodale will be re-elected, but if they are lucky they might pick up one more seat, but I don't expect them to do particularly well. After the embarassment of the NDP winning no seats in their birthplace, I think they will put a lot more resources into Saskatchewan to ensure they win at least one seat. At the same time their strength is largely limited to Regina and Saskatoon, which will make making Saskatchewan an NDP stronghold again very unlikely. I would say 3 seats at the most.

Alberta: Besides Anne McLellan's riding, I would be surprised if there are any other ridings that don't go Conservative. The only real battle is Anne McLellan's riding, which will be close. The NDP will be shut out of Alberta as usual.

British Columbia: The Conservatives will almost certainly lose seats even if they partially re-bound. I am guessing they will get between 10-16 seats, although considering how volatile BC is, I may be wrong here. Both the Liberals and NDP are likely to gain seats at the expense of the Conservatives, but I could also see them swapping a few seats (NDP gaining Victoria, Vancouver Centre, and Vancouver-Kingsway, while Liberals gaining Burnaby-Douglas and Burnaby-New Westminster). Although I am pretty sure both will end up with more seats than they got last time around, but neither will likely win over half the seats in BC.

North: Liberals hold Yukon and Nunavut, while the Northwest Territories is a tight battle between the Liberals and NDP.

Green Factor

Much like the 2000 election in the US where some voters were confused by the butterfly ballots in parts of Florida, a similar thing seems to be making news in Vancouver's municipal election, i.e. the argument that some voters mistakenly voted for James Green when they meant to vote for Jim Green. Since James Green got considerably more votes than any other independent and the fact the two combined would have received more votes than Sam Sullivan, the argument goes several Jim Green supporters accidently voted for James Green.

I for one do not think one should second guess voters. Since we don't write our name on ballots and we cannot find out how each individual voted, there is no way of really knowing how many were accidental votes or real votes for James Green. I suspect that they were probably many who accidentally voted for the wrong Green, but I think it is unlikely it would have changed the final outcome, as they are some people who probably did actually intend to vote for James Green. I think the best thing is to look at the exit polls and see what kind of numbers James Green got versus the actual number of votes he got. If it looks like a lot of mistakes were made, the ballot should be designed better, but not have the election overturned. The fact is I always double check my ballot to make sure I didn't accidentally mark the wrong candidate. I don't hand my ballot in until I am 100% sure I voted for who I wanted to vote for. In fact I even counted the number of councillors, school board members, and park board members I voted for to makes sure I didn't vote for too many, so a lesson to all voters; no matter how rushed you are, take the time to check the ballot carefully and make sure you have marked the person you want to vote for. If you have trouble reading the ballot or understanding it, ask for assistance, which you can do. Finally read the whole ballot, not just until you see the candidate you think you want to vote for.

At the same time, I think the election officials could have done a few things different. As is done in the provincial and federal elections, the party name should be written out completely in large print so people with poor eye sight can read it. On the municipal ballots, Besides Jim Green's name was VV in small print, which someone could easily mistaken as a W and not know what it means, whereas the field beside James Green's name was blank. If I designed the ballot, beside Jim Green's name would have been Vision Vancouver written out fully and not in small print. Likewise, Independent would be written beside James Green's name. If people still made mistakes, then that is their problem, not that of the voting officials. In addition I don't believe that the fact James Green had a similar name to Jim Green should disqualify him from running. In a democratic and free country, everyone who is eligible to run should be able to do so. It would be like saying if someone on the ballot had the name Myles Lunn, I would have to drop out as people might confuse the two of us. And besides James Green entered the race before either Sam Sullivan or Jim Green were nominated as candidates so this idea that he was an NPA creation to split Vision Vancouver's votes is completely silly. That may have been an unintended consequence, but that was certainly not the reason he ran.

Andre Bosclair's win for the PQ

For starters, I am not a supporter of the Parti Quebecois and would never elect them, still with polls showing that they will likely win the next election in Quebec, I do have an interest in who they choose as leader. I would probably go Liberals if I lived in Quebec since despite his unpopularity, I think Jean Charest has being doing what is necessary to make Quebec economically strong. If I lived in a riding where the Action Democratique was more likely to win than the Liberals, I would then vote for them since Mario Dumont has promised to have moratorium on all future referendums even though he voted YES in 1995. Even though he is accused of being very right wing, he is more of a libertarian than a conservative as he is, like myself, right wing on economic issues, but left wing on social issues.

The fact Andre Bosclair took cocaine is really not a big issue for me just as Gordon Campbell's DUI record wasn't, nor was Sam Sullivan's mistake of buying cocaine for a drug addict an issue for me in the municipal election. Since politicians are human like all of us, I am more concerned about their policies than personality. I am also glad that Andre Bosclair is on the right of the Parti Quebecois (he is still to the left compared to Jean Charest or Mario Dumont, but not a socialist, but rather more in line with the federal liberals) since the last thing Quebec needs is a socialist leader who will wreck their economy.

I think this maybe a good thing for the Liberals as his decision to use cocaine, while not an issue for me, certainly won't help him. Also the fact he is on the right of the Parti Quebecois might cause some of the more left wing members to break away and form a left wing separtist party or support the UDF, which would split the separtist vote. I don't think the Liberals have much chance at winning a majority, but hopefully they can hold the PQ to a minority. If this happens, they could form a coalition with the Action Democratique who aren't too far apart, although a little further to the right.

Municipal Results across BC

First off, as a BC Liberal, I was pleased that three strong candidates who were unfortunately unsuccessful last provincial election were elected: Richard Stewart - Coquitlam, Ken Stewart - Maple Ridge, and Susan Brice - Saanich. I think many people in their ridings liked them as MLAs, but didn't like Gordon Campbell, which is why they lost their seats last provincial election, yet did really well in the municipal elections. Unfortunately Ted Nebbling was unable to win as mayor of Whistler.

I was pleased with the results in Vancouver. Clearly, Vancouverites were tired of the fighting and idelogical rigidness of COPE. The NPA has regained control of school board, park board, and council, while even though four Vision Vancouver members won on council, they are centre-left vs. hard left so I think council will be a lot more productive while the five NPA members elected are all on the left of the party so on the balance we have a centrist city council. I voted for 9 NPA councillors, while the one Vision Vancouver member I voted for was George Chow since he ran as an Independent last time and was not a supporter of COPE formally. I felt that it is never good for one party to hold every single seat. On Park Board, I voted for 5 NPA, one Green Party, and Juliet Andalis (BC Liberal candidate in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant last spring, ran as an independent), while for School Board, 8 NPA and Andrea Reimer of the Green Party.

In Burnaby, I was glad to see Burnaby Citizen's Association grip on council and school board weakened even though their mayor Derek Corrigan was re-elected. This shows Burnaby is moving away from its socialist past as we saw last provincial election. In Coquitlam, both the mayoral candidates, John Kingsbury and Maxine Wilson are BC Liberal supporters (she was the 1996 candidate in Coquitlam-Maillardville) despite the fact Maxine Wilson is seen as the more left leaning of the two. In Surrey, I expected Doug McCallum to lose, but I am glad SET retained control of the council and school board. I am especially pleased to see Barbara Steele, Judy Higginbotham, and Reni Masi elected. It looks like in Surrey voters were unhappy with Doug McCallum, but not the SET slate.

Conservative Merger: Right Idea, Wrong Time

There has been much debate recently as to how things would have turned out had the two "right wing parties" not united. Some believe we would now have a Progressive Conservative government while on the other end, some believe we would have had a fourth Liberal majority government. My views lie somewhere in between the two.

The Progressive Conservatives likely wouldn't have formed government for a few elections, but unlike the Canadian Alliance, they were moderate enough they could appeal to mainstream Canadians. They were not only the second choice of most Alliance voters, but also of most Liberals. On the other hand, the Canadian Alliance was the second choice of only around 10% of Liberals and only about 25% of the Progressive Conservatives, while 50% of progressive Conservatives had the Liberals as their second choice. This explains why, despite the Corruption, the Conservatives fell well below the combined vote of the two parties and had one of the worse showings ever in Canadian history for a Conservative party.

Had the parties not merged, the PCs likely would have done better in Atlantic Canada as no party at either the provincial or federal level (with the exception of the Confederation of Regions Party of New Brunswick) has ever been as right wing as the Conservatives and won seats. Atlantic Canadians tend to be close to the centre so hard-right parties don't sell there. In fact I was surprised the Conservatives didn't do worse in Atlantic Canada. In Quebec, the prospects weren't good for either party, but at least the Progressive Conservatives had a chance at winning one or two seats and certainly they could have made a breakthrough if they had a Quebec leader. On the other hand, the Alliance was struggling to break the 1% mark in Quebec as their policies have absolutely no support in Quebec. Even Jean Charest who is relative moderate compared to Harper is become quite unpopular in Quebec since he is seen as too right wing for Quebecers. Most polls before the Merger put the PCs at around 20% in Ontario while the Alliance at under 10%. With the Liberals losing support to the NDP on the left and the fact the PCs likely would have gone up after the Sponsorship Scandal broke lose, a PC breakthrough (10-20 seats) was certainly possible. The fact is there were many who were planning on voting Conservative but switched to the Liberals at the last moment, whereas had the PCs still existed, those votes likely would have stayed with them. Likewise many who were planning to vote NDP, but switched to the Liberals to keep the Conservatives out of office, whereas had the PCs still existed, there wouldn't have been that fear, thus splitting the centre-left vote. In the West the Alliance would have done well in the Prairies, but not necessarily British Columbia as their positions on key issues such as gay marriage, War in Iraq, BMD, and Kyoto Protocol were offside with most British Columbians. Much of their previous success came from protest votes as opposed to genuine support who historically went NDP and likely would have returned to the NDP with or without the merger. Even in conservative Alberta, the PCs were averaging around 25% in 2003 while the Alliance couldn't break the 40% mark. Albertans are not a bunch of right wing wackos like many believe, but rather frustrated at the perceived anti-Alberta bias of the Liberals. Since the PCs were more acceptable to Albertans, but also moderate enough for Ontario, I think it is quite possible they could have picked up some seats in Calgary and Edmonton since many in Alberta are tired of always electing opposition MPs.

I supported the merger at the time since I felt the agreement in Principle was a balanced one, but I must say I really wish the Progressive Conservatives still existed since I am not too happy with the Liberals but cannot stomach the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. Had they waited until after the 2004 election, the PCs likely would have been from a position of strength rather than weakness. The Alliance had a stronger base than the PCs, but very little room for growth as their policies were out of touch with most Canadians. On the other hand the PCs were seen as arrogant and needing a time out in 1993, but once the Liberals began to exhibit those traits they might have picked up some support again. Some say the PCs were in such bad financial shape they would have gone under while the Alliance was a better financial shape than any other party, but my view is once a party reaches its ceiling in support, it doesn't matter how much money they have. Elections are about whose ideas are the best and whose values are closest to ones, not about who has the most money in the bank. I agree that their needed to be one centre-right party, but the PCs should have waited until they were in a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. The Conservative Party would have been in much better shape than it is now.

In the next few days, I will discuss the problems with the Conservative Party today and how conservatism can be made into a viable force again.

Why we need an election soon

Most of those wanting an election soon, want one to throw the Liberals out of office, however I want one for very different reasons. For a government to be effective, it must be stable. Any government that is under the constant threat of an election cannot govern properly. By having an election sooner rather than later we can return to a stable government that can actually get something done rather than constantly be worrying about losing the confidence of the house. Some of you may say that the next election will result in another minority government so we will face the same problems again. I would disagree for a couple of reasons. If the Conservatives don't win the upcoming election, Stephen Harper will have to resign as leader. Until they have a new leader in place and the leader has had enough time to become known by the general public, I don't think they are going to want to bring down the government. If the NDP loses seats, they will be of less relevance, while if they gain seats, they will have more leverage, so the Liberals will be more likely to give them what they want. I understand there are some important pieces of legislation on the order paper such as C-55 and C-66, but there is no reason those pieces of legislation cannot be passed this week. The aboriginal First Ministers summit could still go ahead if an election was called, although I agree it would be best to wait until after the summit, but that is only a couple of weeks away. Finally there is the Christmas Holidays, but this can be averted by Paul Martin asking the Governor General to extend the election period. The only rule says the election must be held on a Monday and must be at least 36 days. My advice to the opposition is to bring the government down in early December. To Paul Martin, I would ask the Governor General to extend the election to early February. I would offer to make a deal with the opposition not to do any campaigning during the holidays, but instead to begin campaigning on January 2nd for a February election. The sooner we can get the election over, the sooner the government can get back to governing. Also this will mean the Conservatives will get rid of Stephen Harper as leader, which I have been advocating since the last election; hopefully they will replace with a real leader who is moderate and sensitive to the needs of Canadians.

Jack Layton's Deal

I am personally glad that Jack Layton didn't succeed at getting the Liberals to support his health care ideas. His view on health care is a dogmatic one that public is good and private is bad. In reality, health care is a very complex subject that should never be approached from a purely ideological point of view. Neither a public monopoly on health care or a pure private system is desirable, rather we should be discussing what is the right mix between the private and public health care. The major component of the proposal is to prevent double-dipping i.e. working in both the private and public systems. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal to work in the private system, so long as the doctor works exclusively in the private system. Every province with the exception of Newfoundland & Labrador has passed various pieces of legislation, which don't outlaw private health care, but make it unprofitable. 6 out of 10 provinces prohibit individuals from buying private health insurance for covered procedures, which no other country besides North Korea and Cuba prohibit. All provinces already making working in both systems illegal. This is not unique to Canada since other countries such as Sweden, Italy, and Greece have placed similar bans, while other countries such as Britain limit the amount of time a doctor may spend in the private system. Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia ban doctors in the private system from charging more than what they would bill the government in the public system. This type of restriction also exists in some countries such as Sweden and Netherlands, but not in others such as Germany, Britain, and Australia. Despite the fact it is possible to work in the private system, almost no doctors outside of Quebec have chosen to work in the private system, while none of the major health insurance companies will provide private health insurance for covered procedures, even if one lives in the four provinces where it is permitted.

Instead of the usual rhetoric of claiming that allowing any private health care will destroy public health care or that if we allow any private elements, we will end up with an American style system; we should instead look at examples of other industrialized countries that have universal public health care systems, but allow competition from the private sector. There is no one model, but countries such as Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Britain, France, Switzerland, Japan, and Australia show that it is possible for the two systems to co-exist without destroying the public system. Although each country has its own uniqueness, the two primary models that should be examined is a parallel private system as exists in Britain vs. a social insurance scheme as exists in the Netherlands. Under a parallel private system, everybody would be required to pay taxes to support the public system and no one would be denied treatment due to inability to pay. However, those who wished to purchase private health insurance for covered procedures could do so. Under a social insurance scheme, health care would be funded through payroll taxes rather than general taxation. Individuals making above a certain income could opt out of the public plan and instead use private health insurance, however individuals on the public plan would be prohibited from buying private health insurance. We should also consider introducing a small user fee or co-payments, while allowing as France does and Britain does for prescription drugs, those making below a certain income to be exempt from co-payments. One has to pay to use an ambulance and this has not deterred low-income individuals from refusing to call for an ambulance when an emergency occurs, so why would it deter them from going to a doctor.

These changes would require making changes to provincial legislation as well as the Canada Health Act. I don't support the Harris-Manning recommendation of getting the federal government out of health care entirely since I believe all provinces, whether wealthy like Alberta or poorer ones like Newfoundland & Labrador should be entitled to the same level of health care. Instead the Canada Health Act needs to be amended. The Public administration principle should be scrapped altogether, portability should only apply within Canada as Romanow recommended, comprehensiveness should only apply to primary care in a hospital and doctor visits, while the ban on user fees should be replaced with a $10 limit to user fees. This would mean every additional dollar raised above the $10 limit would be docked from provinces who violate this. Doctors should be permitted to work in both systems so long as any doctor working in the public system who works also in the private system only works in the private system for additional income on top up what they would make in the public system; not to supplement their income they would make in the public system. Doctors working in both systems should also be prohibited from advertising in their office of their work in the private system or referring their patients in the public system to their work in the private system. Health Care is a complicated topic that cannot be discussed in ten second soundbites. It is necessary to have a thorough debate on the issue rather than political posturing.

Municipal Election

For those of you who know me, I am not a big follower of Municipal Politics, but I thought I would give my opinion on the upcoming Municipal Election. I am personally supporting Sam Sullivan for mayor, while undecided on council, school board, and park board. The majority will be from the NPA and I will not vote for anyone running on the COPE slate. I feel that Sam Sullivan has been a strong city councillor as well as his plans are more balanced than that of Jim Green. His positions taken on the past city council have not been the best for making Vancouver a business friendly environment. His strategy on the Downtown Eastside has been too one sided since while harms reduction should be part of the strategy, so should increased policing. In addition, I believe the safe injection site should supply the drugs rather than ask people to bring their own drugs since the drug addicts aren't going to get the money to purchase the drugs without stealing. I am against his idea of reducing the Burrard Bridge to two lanes each way with one for bikes. This would be a nightmare during rush hour, which would clog up not just the Burrard Street Bridge, but also the Granville Street Bridge and Cambie Street Bridge as commuters would move over to them.

For council, school board, and park board, my reason for refusing to elect anyone running under the COPE slate is COPE members have shown themselves to be rigid in ideology and very inflexible, which is not what we need. They also spend a huge amount of time and money dealing with issues that are not within the control of the municipal government such as opposing missile defence shield, stopping the privatization of BC Hydro etc. If they feel so strongly on those issues, then run provincially or federally which is the proper place to deal with those issues. I may consider electing one or two Vision Vancouver members simply to provide some balance since they are more moderate than COPE, but I won't elect all of them as I think an NPA school board, council, and park board is what we need. We also need people who can cooperate with the provincial government to get things done, not always pick fights with them. Since Gordon Campbell has decided to take a cooperative approach with the federal government, this has really benefited BC as opposed to the past when previous governments would pick fights with the feds. I feel the municipal government ought to follow the same strategy.

Stephen Harper is an Ass

Even though I would like to see the Conservatives some day form government, I just cannot stand their current leader Stephen Harper. If Peter MacKay or Benard Lord were currently leading the Conservatives, I would certainly be planning to vote Conservative, but like many others who I have talked to, I will hold my nose up and vote liberal. I was listening to Stephen Harper today on CTV's question period. He was going on and on I about how the government doesn't deserve to be in office and he will not cooperate with them even if he could get them to implement part's of their platform. Perhaps he needs a lesson in Politics 101. Canadians knew about the Sponsorship Scandal last election and re-elected the liberals. Stephen Harper, you lost the election, so get over it and quit whining like a little child who cannot get his way. I am more concerned about the policies implemented rather than who implements them. As for the liberals being corrupt, yes some individuals within the party are corrupt, but we have seen corruption from all parties at one time or another. At least Paul Martin had the guts to call an inquiry rather than shove it under the rug. Off course any opposition leader thinks they are more fit to be prime-minister than the current one, but that doesn't mean they should refuse to cooperate if there is a minority government. If every opposition leader took this attitude during a minority government, we would have a situation similar to Italy where there is an election on average once every 13 months. I don't think Canadians want this and I certainly don't. I ask Stephen Harper, if the liberals form another minority government, is he still going to play his obstructionist tactics. Hopefully, after next election, the Conservatives can get a real leader, preferable from the former PCs, not one of those Reform/Alliance/Republican Wannabes who are so out of touch with mainstream Canadians.

This is guy is so condescending. He basically runs the party like a dictator and refuses to consult. Sure, there needs to be some leadership and I think a leader has to discipline those who make insulting and off the cuff remarks. Unfortunately Stephen Harper lets the extremist run amok while comes down hard on the moderates. No wonder Belinda Stronach defected to the liberals. If I were a Conservative MP with Stephen Harper as the leader, I probably would have done the same thing. This guy needs to go as leader ASAP. For those who want to dump him go to www.petitiononline.com/noharper as well as go to http://www.dehors-harper-out.blogspot.com/ and sign the petition asking him to step down as leader.

Liberals will win the next election

The most recent polls show the Tories and the Liberals in a virtual tie, so many Tories are gleeing at the prospect of forming the next government. I will say one thing to my friends who still support the Tories, the liberals will re-bound as they have in past instances where the Tories pulled into the lead. Why? Because whenever news on the scandal breaks out, people's attention turns towards the liberals who people are obviously unhappy about. But once people start to think about the prospect of Stephen Harper becoming prime-minister, they return to the liberals, not because they support them, but simply because they are the lesser of the two evils. Although I am generally to the right of the liberals, I will still vote liberal since I believe Paul Martin would be a better prime-minister. For all his flaws, at least you know what to expect. Besides the Liberal Party is a big tent party where people with different views are welcome, while the Conservatives have increasingly become more and more narrow. People like me who support lower taxes and two tiered health care, but support gay marriage and oppose the War in Iraq are told we are not welcome in the Conservative Party. Former Progressive Conservatives like myself who were uncomfortable with the more right wing Reform/Alliance parties are told we are not real conservatives. This is why I have quit the Conservative Party despite my views on many issues being closer to theirs than the Liberals and why I will not vote Conservative next election if Stephen Harper is still the leader.

Introduction

Welcome

I am currently a recent graduate from Simon Fraser University and currently am working on a three month project at Western Financial Group. My hobbies include travel, hiking, and skiing and snowboarding in the past. I am passionate about politics. I am currently an active member of the BC Liberals while a former member of the Progressive Conservatives. I consider myself as being centre-right. I am for lower taxes, less government regulation, and smaller government. At the same time I am a social liberal who believes in individual freedom as well as I am strong supporter of minority rights. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, legalizing prostitution, euthanasia, increasing the number of immigrants Canada receives as well as I favour of progressive and independent foreign policy that believes in avoiding the use of military action unless absolutely necessary. Unlike many on the right, I believe the Iraq war was a mistake in light of what I know now, even though I initially supported it. I was also hoping for John Kerry to win the US election and I am for dumping Stephen Harper as Conservative leader. On the economic front, I am for scrapping regional development programs and business subsidies in favour of lower taxes in economically depressed regions as well as funding to things that government legitimately belongs in such as funding R&D and infrastructure. I support a parallel private system for Health Care similar to what exists in most European countries, but not a private system like in the United States. I favour privatizing most Crown Corporations including Canada Post and CBC at the federal level, while ICBC and BC Hydro at the provincial level. I oppose the current childcare program being proposed, which only supports institutionalized day care, but instead support giving subsidies (as opposed to tax credits) to families to use as they see fit for child care, otherwise a voucher program. I am generally a libertarian, but also a pragmatists, who believes government does have a legitimate role in protecting people's rights as well as providing help to those who cannot help themselves. I supported Scott Brison for the Progressive Conservative leadership race in 2003 since I liked his bold new innovative ideas, while I was an active supporter of merging the two conservative parties since I believed it was essential to have a competitive alternative to the liberals. I supported Tony Clement for the Conservative leadership race even though I didn't think he was the greatest choice, but the least worse of the three. He wasn't as rigid an ideologue as Stephen Harper, but neither did he lack political experience like Belinda Stronach did, although she was my second choice. I helped campaign for Gary Mitchell in the riding of Vancouver Centre, since despite my uneasiness with Stephen Harper, I felt if we were going to have a conservative government, we needed to have moderate MPs elected to help modify Harper. I quit the Conservative Party last year as I have become increasingly uncomfortable with more right wing stances, especially on social issues, issues of national unity, and foreign policy. I have also found Stephen Harper to be incredibly arrogant and self centered, whereas for all my disagreements with the liberals, I generally think Paul Martin is a decent person who has done an adequate job of running the country and would do a better job, if he didn't have to rely on Jack Layton to prop him up. I helped Richard Lee in the last provincial election in the riding of Burnaby North, which he won despite the fact the riding had gone NDP for 40 years prior to 2001. In my blogs you will hear more about my take on the day to day issues.