Campaign update
Last night I was at Brenda Locke's campaign office opening in Fleetwood-Port Kells. As someone who worked with her when she was a provincial Liberal MLA, I believe she would be a far superior person in dealing with issues that matter to Surrey as opposed to the embarassing and useless Nina Grewal. She brought SFU to Surrey, played a lead role along with Dave Hayer in convincing the government to upgrade Surrey Memorial Hospital. She worked with Chuck Cadman on a street racing bill, so I know that she will take the crime issue seriously, which is definitely one of the top issues in Surrey. She also stands for twinning the Port Mann Bridge, which is unpopular where I live in Vancouver, but definitely popular in Surrey. David Emerson, the Minister of Industry was there and gave a good speech on what the Liberals have done for BC such as the Pacific Gateway and even mentioned that contrary to popular opinion they are not soft a crime and outlined some of the things they have done. He also talked about British Columbian's values and Liberal values and I fully agree here. I believe the Liberal Party is definitely the party closest to where most British Columbians are even if they don't vote for them. They understand the importance of a strong economy while having a strong social safety net and clean environment. Many of the people I met there were active with the BC Liberals much like they were on Joyce Murray's campaign. I even met a woman who absolutely hated the BCTF, like myself, and thought Margaret Thatcher was a great prime-minister, which I generally agree with, yet planned to vote Liberal for the first time since she saw Harper as Bush lackey. When you consider how many right leaning people besides myself are coming over to the Liberals, I think this really says something about the Tories. I also met Sukh Dhaliwal, the candidate and soon to be MP for Newton-North Delta. Harry Bloy, MLA for Burquitlam was also there to help out Brenda despite being a Tory himself, although a former PC type. Like Brenda Locke was, he is a very hard working MLA who shows up at almost every event unlike Nina Grewal who goes to anti-Gay marriage rallies but refuses to meet with people who don't share her views. A few years back, I would have never thought about going to a Liberal rally, yet from meeting the people at the Liberal Party as well as in the past meeting people from the Conservative Party, I clearly believe my values are closer to that of the Liberal Party than Conservative Party. And don't let people fool you this election is solely about corruption. This is an election about values, that is why I am voting Liberal in spite of the corruption. I don't believe in just throwing out a government without considering what the alternatives stand for. I also think people need to look at the bigger picture and while the Liberal record has its flaws, I believe Canada is better off than in 1993 and I am very optimistic about our future unlike many Conservatives I know who are always talking about Canada going to Hell and how wonderful the United States is. It also looks like the Liberals paying more attention to BC is paying off. Almost every poll shows them leading in BC, so those thinking the Liberals are going to take a pounding in BC are in for one ugly surprise come election day. The Conservatives well get a well deserved slap in the face from BC. David Emerson was saying the party's goal is to pick up another 5 to 6 seats and I think they can do it. Ridings like West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, the two Burnaby ridings, Newton-North Delta, and Fleetwood-Port Kells are all in good shape for a liberal pick-up. Also Victoria is the only riding I think they are likely to lose. Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, North Vancouver, Richmond, Vancouver Centre, and Vancouver-Kingsway are not in as a bad shape as many like to think. In fact I think the Liberals have an excellent chance at picking up South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale and New Westminster-Coquitlam. Finally all those who bash the Liberals and say only crooks will vote for them, I then ask them what they think of George W. Bush. And when considering about 90% of the Conservatives I talk to like George W. Bush and his extreme right wing policies, it is clear just how out of touch the party is with mainstream Canadians and why despite the corruption they will lose again. Hopefully, they will finally get the message that American neo-conservatism has no place in Canada, not now, not tomorrow, not ever!!
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 2:23 PM
19 Comments:
Miles this is going to be a bit out of the blue but anyway... do you intend to run for MP in the future?
I may run someday as an MP but we will see. As for my predictions, I say just look at the polls in BC, which show the Liberals leading. In the 90s, elections were along regional lines, which is why the Reform/Alliance did well in BC, while the Liberals swept Ontario. Today elections are about values rather than regions so since BC is quite liberal, even more so than Ontario, it is no surprise the Conservatives are doing poorly. That being said, BC is volatile and things could change rapidly between now and election day.
As someone who loathes the BCTF, admires Margaret Thatcher, dislikes George W. Bush, and still votes Conservative, I feel I have to make a point here. First off, the Conservatives are NOT Bush lackeys. I know you like Martin's position on softwood lumber, but lets remember, Harper did beat him to the punch on that one. I just don't see any sufficient evidence of Harper being a Bush lackey, nothing apart from Liberal rhetoric. Second of all, maybe some normally Conservative voters might be going Liberal, however, the same is true inversely. I know personally two card-carrying members of the Liberals, both of whom hate George W. Bush, by the way. One has said he is definitely voting Conservative this election, as he feels the Liberals have no real platform, and another said she is contemplating voting Conservative, as she feels the Liberal argument of Harper's hidden agenda just doesn't seem to have much steam anymore. So, yes some Tories will go Liberal this time, but some Liberals will also vote Conservative. As for BC, the numbers are offset by the Lower Mainland. Outside of there, Tories are on top, with the NDP a close second. The Liberals have no support outside of the Lower Mainland and South Island. Furthermore, both Burnaby ridings will stay NDP, and New West-Coquitlam will either go Tory or NDP, in my opinion. The Liberals will likely gain the former Grewal seats, but I believe that is the most they will gain. The rest of the disputed Tory seats will either go Tory or NDP. Also, let's not forget that the Conservatives were down and out in BC last election, but on election day, their poll numbers magically increased.
BC Tory does have some good points, but most of the Liberals who are switching to the Tories tend to be in rural areas or smaller urban centres like Prince George, Nanaimo, Kamloops type. In the Lower Mainland, the Tories are set to lose West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, New Westminster-Coquitlam, Newton-North Delta, and Fleetwood-Port Kells. I also don't think Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission and South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale are 100% safe either, although they will probably squeak it off. In the Interior the Tories are still leading while in Vancouver Island they are in second behind the NDP, but ahead of the Liberals, although the Liberal support is largely concentrated in the Greater Victoria area so those predicting the Liberals won't win any seats on the Island, I say not so fast. Outside the Lower Mainland, the only seats I predict they will lose are Vancouver Island North and British Columbia Southern Interior, which will go NDP.
As for connections to Bush, Harper supported the War in Iraq and BMD. Several party members get training from the Leadership Institute in the US, which is where Republican politicians are trained, while the party has used Republican advisors, something the former PCs never did while the Reform/Alliance did. Also the majority of Tories I have talked to would have voted Bush if they were American, so while I agree Harper isn't as right wing as Bush, he is still a little too right wing for me.
Miles knows they aren't US lackeys.
Liberals are just doing the same thing most middle eastern dictatorial regimes have done over the past quarter century:
villify the U.S. and label their opponents friends of this "great Satan" to point the spotlight away from their own corrupt and inneffectual regimes.
The nice thing is, this time around, most voters will prefer actual findings of fact and sworn testimony over baseless fear mongering designed to cover up those findings.
The fact that Miles and many like him are going so hard on this tired boogy man stuff, is because they are frightened to get into a real debate - one that scrutinizes the Liberal record (see reference to dictatorial regimes above).
Oh, and on the 23rd, when the Libs get botted, I'll be back to do some good ol fashion gloating.
No Chester - we are simply pointing out things Stephen Harper has said in the past, which as far as I am concerned is fair game. Stephen Harper needs to come clear whether he still believes all he said as NCC president, when speaking at Civitas 2 years ago and if he has changed his mind, why and how can we trust him not to change his mind again. As for bashing the United States - the Liberals aren't bashing the US, they are simply demanding the US repay the $5 billion in illegal tariffs collected in Softwood Lumber. I as a Canadian expect a prime-minister to stand up for Canadian jobs. Also I fully support the Canadian decision to abstain from the Iraq War and BMD since there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iraq posed no threat to any sovereign nation, while BMD is an incredible waste of taxpayer money on a system that doesn't work and any large superpower like Russia has enough missiles it could penetrate it even if it did work. I should also remind you that Martin was exonerated by Gomery so this idea that the Liberals are corrupt has been proven false. Instead a few individuals within the Liberals were corrupt who have been punished accordingly. When you guys quit telling lies about us, we'll quit telling the truth about you guys.
Miles, forget the boogy man for the moment.
Which of Martin's budgets do you support?
The first one of "fiscal restraint", the back of the napkin/Buzz Hargrove in a hotel room budget, the billion dollar a day fall spending budget, or the latest....uhm, not really sure what the latest one is.
Course,
the point of all of them is not what's best for Canada, but what's best to save Martin's political skin.
Chester - obviously I prefer Martin's first budget of fiscal restraint, but lets remember things were much different in 1995. We had an out of control deficit, higher inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment. Had Martin not taken the dramatic cuts he took, Canada would be one its way to becoming a third world nation. Today, the circumstances are much different as we have a massive surplus. We can afford to cut taxes, increase spending in important priorities, and pay down the debt all while maintaining a balanced budget. The fact that under Martin's leadership we were able to go from where we were in 1993 to where we are now really says something about him. Also Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have had very few private sector jobs, while Paul Martin was a successful CEO of CSL, so Paul Martin is without question the most accomplished of the four leaders.
Anonymous - If the Tories could find a decent leader like Peter MacKay or Bernard Lord, I would happily support them. But as long as they keep on throwing Evangelical Calgary School American neo-cons from the Reform Party at us, I will stay with the Liberals. The Tories need to be sent a clear message, get rid of the neo-cons and theo-cons first before we support you.
Miles,
Actually I was talking about his first budget as PM.
Three different platforms to choose from, all in the span of a year.
With the NDP and the CPC at least you know where they stand.
With Martin's Liberals, what he stands for depends on the audience he's speaking to or what particular interest group can save his hide.
In reality, the only thing he really stands for is being in power. Everything else is secondary.
Chester - I preferred the first budget as PM, but since it is a minority government that means making compromises. Initially the Tories supported the original budget only to yank their support once their poll numbers looked good and they decided they wanted an election, pure opportunism to me. This is why they agreed to the NDP budget. I am no fan of the NDP budget, but in minority governments one must make compromises with other parties. Hopefully this time around we can have a Liberal majority government so this won't be necessary.
Jeff1999, actually about 50 Conservative MPs are evangelical, so there are more Conservative than Liberals who are evangelicals. Also some like MPs Don Bell and Raymond Chan understand the separation of church and state so they keep their evangelical beliefs to themselves, while most of the Conservative candidates seem to not understand that religion and politics don't mix.
50 are "evangelical". Really. Care to name them?
As for your broad genereralizations that the CPC members mix church and state whereas the Libs don't, that's quite a rediculous statement. It's nice Liberal spin, completely untrue mind you. But then again, we are talking about the current Liberal regime - do or say anything to stay in power.
Thankfully Canadians are starting to figure that out.
BTW, watch the polls over the next week. They'll really start to go South for the Libs and never recover.
I've book marked your site, I'll be back on the 23rd.
Cheers.
Chester - This was according to a Globe and Mail article. As for the Liberal spin, how about Dave Chatters comments about Canada's decline in morality, Paul Forseth sending out his newsletter talking about the moral decline that will be cause by same-sex marriage. Why don't you go to hansard and read some of the speeches by Conservative MPs. Also Tristan Emmanuel has created an organization called Equipping Christians for Public Life whose who goal is to have laws based on the Bible. There are people such as Rondo Thomas and Darrel Reid from Focus on the Family running as candidates.
BTW, once the Liberals role out their attack ads, the Conservative support will plummet like it did last time around, except last time around at this point in the election the Tories were leading not trailing, so come election day, they will lose seats. I cannot wait to see you and all your sorry right wing asses return to my blog on election day when Stephen Harper and the neo-cons get a well deserved ass whopping by the electorate.
Ever hear of the mosiac law Miles. Our whole western system of law stems from it.
As far as same sex marriage goes I feel it should bd a dead issue and Harper is moving it in that direction.
I am a christian but understand that we live in a pluralistic and multicultural society. I also don't believe that we are to be moral magistrates for the bedroom. So please spare me the neoconservative crap once and for all and that all christians are to be feard.
I believe that Harper will put it to a free vote, knowing full well that there are not enough votes in the entire house to pass and it will be a dead issue. And furthermore there would then be no use of the not withstanding clause.
Quite frankly, I think that he is approaching it this way to get it out of the way once and for all and move the country forward.
Ever hear of the mosiac law Miles. Our whole western system of law stems from it.
As far as same sex marriage goes I feel it is should be a dead issue and Harper is moving it in that direction.
I am a christian but understand that we live in a pluralistic and multicultural society. I also don't believe that we are to be moral magistrates for the bedroom. So please spare me the neoconservative crap once and for all and that all christians are to be feard.
I believe that Harper will put it to a free vote, knowing full well that there are not enough votes in the entire house to pass and it will be a dead issue. And furthermore there would then be no use of the not withstanding clause.
Quite frankly, I think that he is approaching it this way to get it out of the way once and for all and move the country forward.
Miles,
Oh yeah, that's right, the same old attacks we saw the last time. The ones the media (who were in Martin's corner the last time but have been fooled one too many times) are now openly mocking.
Of course I guess the CPC won't have any ads criticising the Libs. After all there's hardly any material to base any attacks.
Rather than go through them (broken promises) all, lets just take a look at the one Martin prided himself on eliminating: the democratic deficit. Let's see, he ignored democratically elected senators from the West, and instead appointed Liberals from a sea of conservatives, he bribed Belinda with a Cabinet seat to get her to cross the floor (bet those hard working Libs who've toiled for the party for decades loved that move), parachuted in a candidate who'd been living in the U.S. for the past decade, ignored a non-confidence vote in the spring to get enough time to bribe Belinda....that's just off the top of my head.
That's also just one of Martin's promises.
What's amazing is that he doesn't just fail to live up to them, he actually does the opposite. The icing on the cake is that he does it for his own short term political gain, knowing that he's acting contrary to what is in Canada's best interests (as per his previous declarations.)
Nope, I can't see the CPC with any material to use at all.
Oh, and there was the findings of corruption from a Liberal appointed judge.
Like I said before, Miles, I'll see you on the 23rd.
As for the Democratic Deficit, Paul Martin has done a very good job of addressing it. 2/3 of votes in the House of Commons have had at least one Liberal break party ranks (check hansard for this), while only about 10-20% of votes have had Tories break ranks (only on private members bills and same-sex marriage), so I think the Liberals are more democratic. As for appointing senators, you cannot reform the senate on a piecemeal basis. Besides the elections in Alberta were total phoney ones as only the Alberta PCs and Alberta Alliance ran candidates so if you aren't on the right side of the spectrum, which applies to 40% of Albertans you had no one to vote for. Even one of my Grandpas who is a big supporter of a Triple E Senate refused the senate elections ballots since he knew they were bogus. The real problem as Martin said is the West is underrepresented in the Senate and this can only be done through a constituitional amendment which requires 7 out of 10 provinces with over 50% of the population. As for Belinda Stronach joining the party, she jumped ship just as I did because she wanted to create a moderate inclusive right of centre party, but when it was clear Harper wasn't interested in doing this she left. Clearly she wasn't right wing enough for Stephen Harper despite being further to the right than any previous Progressive Conservative leader, so she was pushed out. As for parachuting candidates in, I support doing this from time to time since parties need strong candidates. All parties do this and I personally see nothing wrong with it. The Conservatives essentially parachuted Allan Cutler in, which is fine by me. Interestingly enough Harper has blocked several nominations, all of moderates from the former PCs such as Adam Richardson in Tobique-Mactaquac, while not once blocked someone from the religious right. As for the findings of a Liberal judge, yeah right. Gomery's daughter worked for the same Law firm as Mulroney so if anything he is a Conservative judge.
I just cannot wait until January 23rd, when the Liberals win more seats and the Tories lose seats.
Post a Comment
<< Home