By-elections and Polls
Yesterday, there were six by-elections for provincial houses, three in Newfoundland & Labrador and three in Ontario. In Newfoundland & Labrador, the Progressive Conservatives won all three, which is definitely a good sign for Danny Williams. He is someone you don't want to pick a fight with, look what happened to Martin. I am also impressed by the fact he is willing to stand up for his province no matter who is in power federally. In fact he promised to campaign against Harper if Newfoundland & Labrador was hurt by equalization and when Harper axed the Court Challenges Program he slammed the move as separating "right wing Conservatives" from Progressive Conservatives. I would certainly vote for him with no difficulty if I lived in Newfoundland & Labrador.
Here in Ontario, each of three parties won one by-election. The NDP win in York South-Weston which has normally been a safe Liberal seat was a big shocker. Still I suspect it was more a protest against not raising the minimum wage to $10/hour and it will flip back to the Liberals next provincial election. I personally don't support raising the minimum wage to $10/hour. I understand the plight of the working poor, but a large raise in such a short time would be difficult for businesses to adjust to and I should note it is the small businesses, not the large corporations who would have the greatest difficulty adjusting. A better solution would be to find methods to reduce the number of working poor. This can be done by investing more in skills and training as well as education so the working poor have more opportunities to move beyond poverty. Also we should spend more on social housing as rent is often the largest component of expenses for the working poor.
Markham went Liberal, which was no surprise, but what was a surprise was the margin. The fact the Liberals won by an even larger margin than 2003 says the Tories have their work cut out for them. Up until 2003, this was a safe PC riding, but has been becoming increasingly Liberal. Burlington stayed PC as most expected and it was won by a larger margin, although not nearly as large as the margins Mike Harris won the riding by in the 90s. I am glad to see John Tory gaining some votes, but I do worry Harper's unpopularity could hamper his ability to win, which is unfortunate as I feel John Tory is far closer to Stephane Dion than Stephen Harper ideologically. Likewise one poll said 46% of people in Ontario saw him as the same as Mike Harris while 34% saw him as different. He needs to counter this by pointing out that like Mike Harris he will do what he said (which was the thing people like most about Mike Harris), but his policies will be more centrist and will not involve any cuts to social programs. The Common sense revolution made sense in 1995, but doesn't now and Tory needs to emphasize how conditions today are much different than 1995. 1995 was when governments of all stripes were downsizing due to runaway deficits, whereas today most governments are posting healthy surpluses and investing in important programs.
Two polls came out today with the more reliable one from SES showing the Tories and Liberals tied, while Leger marketing showing the Tories seven points ahead. I tend to believe the SES more not because the results are more favourable, but simply because they were the closest to the actual results in both 2004 and 2006. That being said both polls showed two interesting things happening. In Quebec, both the Liberals and Tories are rising while the Bloc Quebecois is falling and I am very happy with this. Every separtist we defeat is a good thing in my view even if they lose to a Conservative. Also it showed in Ontario that the 15 point gap between the parties has largely disappeared and they are close to a statistical tie. I am not sure what caused this rapid change. The only thing I can think of for now is Ontarioans after the surprise election of the NDP in 1990 and the disaster it caused tend to be quite cautious and only vote for change when they are positive it will be for the better. At this point they are still taking time to judge Stephane Dion. However, as always I have said the polls are only a snapshot of where things are now, they do not predict the outcome of the next election.
An interesting article by http://http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/179800 Chantal Hebert on Garth Turner's past is making me have second thoughts whether we should have taken him or not. In the 1993, she points out that he had the most right wing platform of all five PC leadership candidates and it was more in line with that of the Reform Party than Liberals. He advocated privatizing CBC and Canada Post and introducing user fees for health care. Now I understand people's opinions change, since I have supported those policies in the past and still lean towards supporting them, but one has to wonder whether he will stick to the Liberal party's platform or instead run on his own views even if they contradict party policy. Unlike Turner, I am not running for office and have no intention of doing so. I plan to stay an active party member, but my career will remain in the private sector. I understand the need for some independence, but since people generally vote for the party over person, I do think it is preferable MPs fight from inside the caucus to change things than from the outside. Now I realize that Stephane Dion at least allows debate in caucus whereas Harper doesn't. Still if I were Dion, I would keep a close eye on him to ensure he doesn't post anything the opposition could use as ammunition against us. I should note though as John Ibbitson pointed out in a recent Globe and Mail article is much of the Liberal success has to do with the fact Canadians may be right wing on some issues, but left wing on others, so they choose the Liberals as a compromise. This certainly represents me as I am quite right wing on some issues and quite left wing on others, so I choose the Liberals since I find their policies they most tolerable and I have at least found the Liberals I've met respectful of my opinions and willing to have an honest debate, rather than engage in smearing and insults as I've seen quite commonly from the neo-cons at Blogging Tories.
Another issue is the Tories say they plan to ignore C-288 if it passes the House and Senate. This for those who do not know is a bill that would oblige Canada to meet its Kyoto targets. Now I realize that meeting them may be difficult and this could cause problems, but if the Tories were smart, they could amend it to obligate the government to introduce a plan within 60 days that would attempt to meet Canada's Kyoto targets and would set annual targets for reductions. Instead the Tories have said they won't follow the bill. Besides being illegal, this is highly undemocratic. The government is compose of all MPs in the House, not just the party in power and if the majority of MPs vote in favour of a bill, the government of the day is obliged to follow it regardless of how they voted. If they do not, it can be taken to court and have the courts force the government to follow or possibly face punishments for breaking the law. But regardless of legalities, this smacks in the face of representative democracy. As long as the Tories have a minority they have an obligation to listen to the opposition and accept all bills they pass regardless of how they feel. If they cannot support the bill and won't implement it, make it a confidence vote and if it passes, call an election. That is the only way out here.
Here in Ontario, each of three parties won one by-election. The NDP win in York South-Weston which has normally been a safe Liberal seat was a big shocker. Still I suspect it was more a protest against not raising the minimum wage to $10/hour and it will flip back to the Liberals next provincial election. I personally don't support raising the minimum wage to $10/hour. I understand the plight of the working poor, but a large raise in such a short time would be difficult for businesses to adjust to and I should note it is the small businesses, not the large corporations who would have the greatest difficulty adjusting. A better solution would be to find methods to reduce the number of working poor. This can be done by investing more in skills and training as well as education so the working poor have more opportunities to move beyond poverty. Also we should spend more on social housing as rent is often the largest component of expenses for the working poor.
Markham went Liberal, which was no surprise, but what was a surprise was the margin. The fact the Liberals won by an even larger margin than 2003 says the Tories have their work cut out for them. Up until 2003, this was a safe PC riding, but has been becoming increasingly Liberal. Burlington stayed PC as most expected and it was won by a larger margin, although not nearly as large as the margins Mike Harris won the riding by in the 90s. I am glad to see John Tory gaining some votes, but I do worry Harper's unpopularity could hamper his ability to win, which is unfortunate as I feel John Tory is far closer to Stephane Dion than Stephen Harper ideologically. Likewise one poll said 46% of people in Ontario saw him as the same as Mike Harris while 34% saw him as different. He needs to counter this by pointing out that like Mike Harris he will do what he said (which was the thing people like most about Mike Harris), but his policies will be more centrist and will not involve any cuts to social programs. The Common sense revolution made sense in 1995, but doesn't now and Tory needs to emphasize how conditions today are much different than 1995. 1995 was when governments of all stripes were downsizing due to runaway deficits, whereas today most governments are posting healthy surpluses and investing in important programs.
Two polls came out today with the more reliable one from SES showing the Tories and Liberals tied, while Leger marketing showing the Tories seven points ahead. I tend to believe the SES more not because the results are more favourable, but simply because they were the closest to the actual results in both 2004 and 2006. That being said both polls showed two interesting things happening. In Quebec, both the Liberals and Tories are rising while the Bloc Quebecois is falling and I am very happy with this. Every separtist we defeat is a good thing in my view even if they lose to a Conservative. Also it showed in Ontario that the 15 point gap between the parties has largely disappeared and they are close to a statistical tie. I am not sure what caused this rapid change. The only thing I can think of for now is Ontarioans after the surprise election of the NDP in 1990 and the disaster it caused tend to be quite cautious and only vote for change when they are positive it will be for the better. At this point they are still taking time to judge Stephane Dion. However, as always I have said the polls are only a snapshot of where things are now, they do not predict the outcome of the next election.
An interesting article by http://http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/179800 Chantal Hebert on Garth Turner's past is making me have second thoughts whether we should have taken him or not. In the 1993, she points out that he had the most right wing platform of all five PC leadership candidates and it was more in line with that of the Reform Party than Liberals. He advocated privatizing CBC and Canada Post and introducing user fees for health care. Now I understand people's opinions change, since I have supported those policies in the past and still lean towards supporting them, but one has to wonder whether he will stick to the Liberal party's platform or instead run on his own views even if they contradict party policy. Unlike Turner, I am not running for office and have no intention of doing so. I plan to stay an active party member, but my career will remain in the private sector. I understand the need for some independence, but since people generally vote for the party over person, I do think it is preferable MPs fight from inside the caucus to change things than from the outside. Now I realize that Stephane Dion at least allows debate in caucus whereas Harper doesn't. Still if I were Dion, I would keep a close eye on him to ensure he doesn't post anything the opposition could use as ammunition against us. I should note though as John Ibbitson pointed out in a recent Globe and Mail article is much of the Liberal success has to do with the fact Canadians may be right wing on some issues, but left wing on others, so they choose the Liberals as a compromise. This certainly represents me as I am quite right wing on some issues and quite left wing on others, so I choose the Liberals since I find their policies they most tolerable and I have at least found the Liberals I've met respectful of my opinions and willing to have an honest debate, rather than engage in smearing and insults as I've seen quite commonly from the neo-cons at Blogging Tories.
Another issue is the Tories say they plan to ignore C-288 if it passes the House and Senate. This for those who do not know is a bill that would oblige Canada to meet its Kyoto targets. Now I realize that meeting them may be difficult and this could cause problems, but if the Tories were smart, they could amend it to obligate the government to introduce a plan within 60 days that would attempt to meet Canada's Kyoto targets and would set annual targets for reductions. Instead the Tories have said they won't follow the bill. Besides being illegal, this is highly undemocratic. The government is compose of all MPs in the House, not just the party in power and if the majority of MPs vote in favour of a bill, the government of the day is obliged to follow it regardless of how they voted. If they do not, it can be taken to court and have the courts force the government to follow or possibly face punishments for breaking the law. But regardless of legalities, this smacks in the face of representative democracy. As long as the Tories have a minority they have an obligation to listen to the opposition and accept all bills they pass regardless of how they feel. If they cannot support the bill and won't implement it, make it a confidence vote and if it passes, call an election. That is the only way out here.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 10:08 PM
11 Comments:
If Pablo's bill is passed, no one wants to be the government. It is impossible.
If passed, the Conservatives will wait to table their budget and then fight an election highlighting the ramifications of how it is impossible to achieve.
I hope Pablo and Dion have a plan of how they they will achieve the impossible.
I don't think the Conservatives want to fight an election over Kyoto Protocol which they would lose. I think a more likely scenario is they fill their budget with tax cuts and hope the election fought over that and since the bill wouldn't have passed the senate it would quietly disappear.
I'm glad you're having second thoughts on Garth Turner. That is all.
Miles,
The Conservatives would win in an election over the Kyoto Protocol because:
While people may say that the environment is important, they are more concerned about their wallets. Trying to achieve Kyoto in 5 years would be disasterous. Would Canadians agree to have their economy collapse while India and China have no intention of decreasing their carbon emisions? I don't think so.
If the other 4 parties passed the Kyoto Protocol, all the Conservatives need to say is "the goal is worthy, but unrealistic in 5 years". And change the goal from 5 years to 10-15 years (2050 was ridiculous, and they realize that now). Then hammer the other 4 parties in asking how they would achieve the impossible in 5 years.
I want to see Dion's Red Book show how Kyoto can be achieved in 5 years.
BC Tory - Only time will tell if Garth Turner was a good pick or not. The one thing I will say is had he run as an independent, the Liberals would have won the riding for sure, whereas now it really depends on how the national campaign goes. I think Garth Turner would win it right now, but if Dion makes a major blunder or Harper improves his numbers he could lose his seat.
Mississaugapeter - I think you are wrong on your assessment. You are right Kyoto targets cannot be met, but most Canadians place the environment ahead of the economy and are willing to take the economic consequences necessary to deal with the issue. It is much like with the deficit where Canadians supported slashing social programs to balance the budget. Canadians realize it is better to have some short-term pain now, than take a much larger hit sometime in the future. If the main issue is Kyoto, Harper is toast. He needs to neutralize the environment and make the election on things like tax cuts, economy and areas where the party is strong. Also if he does manage to keep his fifth promise of a wait tiems guarantee, this could be a big boost, but considering how complicated federal-provincial relations are and the fact Harper is quite weak, I wouldn't count on it.
hi Miles,
A couple of points: The link to the Star article does not work. And I do hope Garth has learned a few things since 1993. I hope we all have.
Secondly, I hear the same thing over and over in blogs and comments that Kyoto is bad bad bad and will be the economic death of us all, or words to that affect.
Today I read some interesting and thoughtful posts that explained a lot about what Kyoto is about, what our responsibilities to it all. Timelines. The hype explained. What the liberals had but in place, and what the conservatives cancelled.
Like you Miles, Mike strives to explain things clearly and I believe he succeeds admirably.
Please visit... mikemarin.ca/ and check it out for yourself.
ps: the sun is out in Vancouver and after days of drizzle you know what that is like!
Georgine - Your points are well taken. In the case of Garth Turner, I know people's views evolve and I suspect his call for hospital user fees, privatizing the CBC and Canada Post may have been to tackle the huge deficit we placed. In fact it wouldn't totally surprise me if the Liberals privately looked into each of those, before deciding against them.
On the Kyoto Protocol - this is just plain fearmongering by the Tories. They have done of lousy job on the environment so such rhetoric is done to avoid accountability on the issue. Meeting our Kyoto targets is next to impossible, but according to the CD Howe Institute, the Liberal plan would have got us 80% of the way there and our economy would have stayed healthy.
I myself now take transit to work, turn off the lights when I live and do simple things like that to cut down on GHGs. Likewise I plan to buy a car that doesn't use gas when I make my next purchase. Even my parents both want their next car to be a green one. If we each do our part, we can make a difference. Governments should show leadership instead of reacting to public opinion.
Miles,
If the Kyoto Protocol is passed, it becomes law and the government of the day is required to create a plan that MEETS IT.
The government is not required to create a plan that MAY get us there.
The government is not required to create a plan that MAY get us there in 10 YEARS rather than 5 YEARS.
If passed, the government is required to create a plan that MEETS IT.
That being said, if an election is called, the 4 parties (including the Liberals) that vote for the Kyoto Protocol would be on the hook to explain to Canadian voters how it WILL BE DONE. The Conservatives would only have to explain they would hit the targets over a longer period of time.
Environment vs. Economy
You are mistaken if you think that the environment is a higher priority than the economy. That may have been the case when the last poll was taken - around Brown Christmas - but I have recently heard from more than a few people who were concerned about the lack of snow before, now whine about the lack of global warming.
Everything comes down to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If someone has food, shelter, job, etc., they will be concerned of greater things such as the environment. But they will not give up their food, shelter, job, for the environment. Trying to achieve the Kyoto Protocol will require sacrifices that I believe 42% of Canadians are not prepared to make (and that is all the Conservatives need for a majority).
Mississaugapeter - You are wrong again. Unlike the US, Canada is very much a "we" nation versus a "me" nation. Canadians are willing to not just on the environment, but on most other issues sacrifice some of their own well being if it provides greater benefits to society as a whole. Canadians in many ways subscribe to the one nation conservatism or more commonly known as Red Toryism which stresses the interests of the community must prevail over the interest of the individual.
In addition even people like myself who are centre-right realize the cost of dealing with the environment now will dwarf the cost of doing nothing.
As for the bill, it said the Tories need to have a plan within 6 months so I believe it does lay out a detailed process.
In addition over 75% of Canadians and even a majority in Alberta and Conservative voters disapprove of the Tories handling of the environment. Of all areas, this is where their approval rating is by far the lowest.
Miles,
On my page, I'm saying it's 99% sure that the Prime Minister will engineer his own defeat in May leading to a vote in June.
I hope the eggs stay in the fridge and don't take up permanent residence on my face!
PST - I hope the vote is not in early June since I will be out of the country from June 1st - June 17th. I am not sure if they next morning I will be wanting to watch the results come in (it is morning when the polls close here), but I guess I will have to vote advanced and for the remaining 3 weeks when I am in the country, I do plan to help Gerard Kennedy since whether we have a Liberal government or Conservative one, Gerard Kennedy is a person who we need in the House of Commons.
Post a Comment
<< Home