Speech from the Throne
Most of my past posts have been on federal issues, but this one is on the provincial speech from the throne as the legislature reconvenes. The big headline is the BC government wants the Canada Health Act overhauled, but in reality its a little more complex than that. There were many other things in the throne speech such as protecting the Spirit Bear, which I fully support. What the provincial government promised to do was travel to Europe to look at countries with mixed systems and see whether going to such system could help improve health care. I am off course all for going to such system, but lets remember this is only being discussed. Alberta and Quebec both have more immediate plans to make reforms that involve more private sector involvement so I think the results in those two provinces should be examined closely. Also one cannot ignore the Supreme Court ruling in the Chaoulli case. Since such challenge is almost certain to be launched against BC at some later date, it is incumbent upon the provincial government to find ways to reduce waiting times so such challenge preferably isn't launched, but at least doesn't cost us a lot in legal fees. This certainly will be interesting for prime-minister Harper who is generally more open to private involvement in Health Care, but wants to be careful not be brought down over the growth of private health care. However, it should be noted that since the Supreme Court ruling, the Liberals have changed their tone on the issue. For example, it wasn't raised during the last campaign and their platform said no two tiered system within the public system rather than no two tiered system period as it said in the 2004 platform.
As a side note, there have been two other issues brought up, which are the child care issue and Campbell's support of Emerson's defection. In the case of the Tories cancelling the childcare agreements, I believe Campbell wants to try and solve the issue without getting into a federal/provincial battle. Unlike other premiers, he has generally avoided show downs with Ottawa so I suspect he will try and maintain the same tone even with a different government. However, unlike Paul Martin who was more open to negotiations, Stephen Harper tends to be less flexible so he should be willing to stand his ground if Harper refuses to compromise. Childcare is really not a big issue for me, however I do believe it is important for both Tories and Liberals to work together at a provincial level in order to keep the NDP out of power so I am somewhat concerned this issue could cause some division within the party, whereas if Harper honours the agreements this would avoid this division. Even though I don't agree with Emerson's defection, I believe Campbell (both Kim Campbell and Gordon Campbell) is right that Emerson's defection will be good for BC. He brought a lot to BC as a Liberal and I am sure he will as a Tory, however my opposition to his defection is for other reasons. Unlike Stronach's defection, I find it hard to believe it was over a serious disagreement with his party, but also Stronach defected in a riding that almost went Liberal whereas the Tories came in a distant third in Emerson's riding. Had Raymond Chan, Don Bell, or Blair Wilson crossed the floor to the Tories, they could at least claim they could win those ridings as a Tory since the Tories came in a strong second in each of those ridings, while in Emerson's riding they didn't. That is not say I would be particularly pleased. The point is here from a strictly non-partisan view, Emerson's defection is good for BC, which is why I can understand many in the business community supporting it as well as Municipal and Provincial politicians, but from a partisan perspective, I am not happy about it since I unlike the others do have a bias towards the federal Liberals although I do have my disagreements with them from time to time.
Anyways, it should be an interesting session. I hope the unions agree to the bonus Carole Taylor offered in exchange to settle early, but knowing how much they dislike the BC Liberals, I suspect some will strike for political reasons regardless of how good a deal they get since they care more about getting their friends in the NDP back in power than about helping their members.
As a side note, there have been two other issues brought up, which are the child care issue and Campbell's support of Emerson's defection. In the case of the Tories cancelling the childcare agreements, I believe Campbell wants to try and solve the issue without getting into a federal/provincial battle. Unlike other premiers, he has generally avoided show downs with Ottawa so I suspect he will try and maintain the same tone even with a different government. However, unlike Paul Martin who was more open to negotiations, Stephen Harper tends to be less flexible so he should be willing to stand his ground if Harper refuses to compromise. Childcare is really not a big issue for me, however I do believe it is important for both Tories and Liberals to work together at a provincial level in order to keep the NDP out of power so I am somewhat concerned this issue could cause some division within the party, whereas if Harper honours the agreements this would avoid this division. Even though I don't agree with Emerson's defection, I believe Campbell (both Kim Campbell and Gordon Campbell) is right that Emerson's defection will be good for BC. He brought a lot to BC as a Liberal and I am sure he will as a Tory, however my opposition to his defection is for other reasons. Unlike Stronach's defection, I find it hard to believe it was over a serious disagreement with his party, but also Stronach defected in a riding that almost went Liberal whereas the Tories came in a distant third in Emerson's riding. Had Raymond Chan, Don Bell, or Blair Wilson crossed the floor to the Tories, they could at least claim they could win those ridings as a Tory since the Tories came in a strong second in each of those ridings, while in Emerson's riding they didn't. That is not say I would be particularly pleased. The point is here from a strictly non-partisan view, Emerson's defection is good for BC, which is why I can understand many in the business community supporting it as well as Municipal and Provincial politicians, but from a partisan perspective, I am not happy about it since I unlike the others do have a bias towards the federal Liberals although I do have my disagreements with them from time to time.
Anyways, it should be an interesting session. I hope the unions agree to the bonus Carole Taylor offered in exchange to settle early, but knowing how much they dislike the BC Liberals, I suspect some will strike for political reasons regardless of how good a deal they get since they care more about getting their friends in the NDP back in power than about helping their members.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 6:26 PM
11 Comments:
Unlike Stronach's defection, I find it hard to believe it was over a serious disagreement with his party
It's probably the mootest(?) of moot points now, but it should be noted that despite Belinda's apparent "serious disagreement" with her Party, she was an open critic of the Martin govt. up until the day she shifted, and that the very weekend before she crossed the floor, she attended an in-depth CPC campaign/strategy meeting.
In any event, she has for better or worse been re-elected by her constituents, which is why - practically speaking - it is a moot point.
But whenever someone tries to condemn Emmerson by saying "at least Stronach had principled reasons", I figure the foregoing should be kept in mind.
Nice analysis
mynewsbot.com
Jason Hickman - It was clearly obvious to me that Stronach was in the wrong party, whereas with Emerson I didn't get such impression
She only won by 700 votes so it was quite reasonable to assume she could win as a Liberal. In Vancouver-Kingsway, the Conservatives only got 18%, so the idea of Emerson winning here as a Conservative is ludicrous. I live in Vancouver and I can tell you it will be a long time before the city proper elects any Tories. They should try focusing on the suburbs that they've lost in the last two elections.
Well, Liberals won't have to worry about Belinda for long anyway.
If she stays true to her ethics, once she looses the Liberal leadership battle, she'll throw a hissey-fit and cross the floor to join the NDP, citing irreconcilable differences over union affiliation with the Liberals.
Glad she's yours now. Nicely balances Stockwell I think.
Belinda Stronach did have serious disagreements with the Conservatives, while when one considers she is on the right of the Liberal Party I cannot see her jumping ship any time soon unless Peter MacKay becomes Conservative leader in which she would probably return. I suspect many of us former PCs would probably return under this circumstance.
I cannot see her jumping ship any time soon unless Peter MacKay becomes Conservative leader in which she would probably return.
Oh please. She's casting about for support to seek the Liberal leadership. She wants power - nothing else and for no apparent reason other than the nirvana of power itself. You ARE delusional.
By the way, do think the Liberals will be able to conjure up a leadership candidate, even a token one, from west of Dufferin Street?
Michael Ignatieff lives west of Dufferin Street so yes they can.
As for Belinda Stronach, she went into politics to make Canada a better place. I can tell when a politician is genuine or not and I was clear to me Belinda Stronach was quite uncomfortable with the Conservatives and so she crossed the floor out of principle.
Wll hallelujah, the Fibrals are a national party afterall. Michael Ignatieff lives west of Dufferin Street!
Of course, he only parachuted there recently from Harvard dahling.
Phaw!
Drawer of water from the hinterland
The Liberals are a national party since they have a national vision. Yes it is true this past election they did rather poorly in some regions, but that pretty much happens to any party that loses an election. Their support is not nearly as regionalized as the Reform/Alliance parties were in the 90s.
Belinda Stronach went into politics to make Canada a better place.
I'm asuming that even if you're a wrong-headed Liberal that you're still not completely loopy.
So, this was a joke. Right?
Anonymous - Belinda Stronach is a multi-millionaire, while even the prime-minister only makes about $200,000 a year and besides she promised not to accept her salary. If she truly cared about money and power she would have stayed with Magna where her job is more secure and she gets paid a lot more. So no it wasn't a joke, off course I know how hated she is amongst Conservatives, even though I think her defection did more harm than good to the party.
Post a Comment
<< Home