Besides my already mentioned strategic NDP vote in 2000 I’ve always voted Liberal federally since I was old enough to vote. As a youth coming to voting age, I looked at all the major parties and found the Liberals to come the closest to sharing my political philosophies: sound fiscal management with a social conscious.
I don’t always agree with them. One point of remaining pain is when, as finance minister, Paul Martin exempted student loans from the bankruptcy act, at the same time slashing the education component of the transfer payments to the provinces. I’ve never considered bankruptcy as an option personally for my student loans, but I fail to see why a shady businessperson should have the option and not a starving student.
Still, despite disagreement on issues like student loans, lack of support for the military (important to me as a former Air Force brat) and disgust with the so-called Liberal MPs that voted against same-sex marriage, we’re mainly on the same page policy-wise. I might be a Red Tory were it not for Brian Mulroney’s legacy, and the NDP is just a little too holier than thou for my tastes.
I’m going to get into the Liberal civil war and Martin’s poor handling of Gomery, the last campaign and his time in office in a later post, but in this post I wanted to talk about how why, despite everything, I’m still voting Liberal.
I share the feeling of many inside and outside of the party that some time out of office would be good for the Liberals. The house needs to be cleaned, some rather substantial egos need to be deflated, and, sadly, leadership needs to be changed. I voted for Paul Martin as leader, but this is not the Paul Martin I voted for. That’s another post though.
The alternative is a Conservative government, most likely a minority. The question becomes, can Canada handle even 18 months of Conservative rule? Maybe with a Peter McKay or Bernard Lord as PM, but not Stephen Harper. Try as he might, he just can’t escape his Reform past.
Stephen seems to have learned his lesson from the last campaign, and taken a page from George W. Bush, hugging the centre while campaigning. Remember Dubaya’s compassionate conservatism? Once in office, it was replaced with deficit-financed tax cuts for the rich, along with cuts in services for those in need. Harper is now trying to out-Liberal the Liberals in this campaign, but I have no doubt once in office we would see his true colours.
Having been a volunteer on the periphery of the Liberal Party for a few years and having met some of the players I can tell you two things about this party: it’s cutthroat, and only winning is acceptable. Even if Paul Martin wins another minority, he’s through. This will be his last election. The party members will demand a new leader who can deliver a majority and he’ll have no choice but to resign, giving us the housecleaning we need without letting Harper into office.
I think there’s a lot of good in the Liberal Party. Most members are honest people committed to a vision of Canada that I share. I’m also mad as hell at those few that have acted inappropriately, and I want them dealt with. The RCMP is investigating, and I’m confident that those responsible will see justice. But the actions of a few bad apples don’t tar the entire bushel, and sponsorship isn’t the only ballot-box question. It’s fine to be mad, and I’m mad too, but I don’t believe in cutting off my nose to spite my face.
Given all these considerations, I’m still be voting Liberal January 23rd. And in favour of leadership review at the next convention.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Why I’m voting Liberal
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
You're a Liberal? Shut your mouth!
It has been brought to my attention recently in my comments section that as someone who has supported the Liberals (confession time, I voted NDP once strategically out of annoyance with Mac Harb when I lived in Ottawa-Centre) I have no right to point out improper behaviour by other political parties. I have always tried to point out behaviour I disagree with by all parties (for example, nomination fixing by the Liberals and the Cons), and will continue to do so. I must have missed the memo that said voting Liberal cancels your right to free speech.
In the interests of balance through, I offer these thoughts on recent Liberal scandals, prominent Liberals and ex-Liberals, in no particular order:
Paul Martin: Squandered his potential, too loyal to a self-absorbed clique that has/is giving him bad advice.
Jean Chretien: Liked the little guy, but he wore out his welcome even before he left office. Benefited greatly from a divided right.
Sponsorship scandal: Bad, those responsible should, and are, being punished.
Nomination fixing: Bad when the Liberals do it (Etobicoke-Lakeshore), bad when the Cons do it (Ottawa-South, Newton-North Delta). Bad for Dippers and the BQ too.
Mike Klander: Bad and stupid, good riddance.
Scott Reid: Dumb, with a dash of arrogance, smarten up.
Scott Feschuck: Funny and entertaining.
Warren Kinsella: Was a fan, but his bitter is hurting his credibility.
Now back to the World Junior Hockey Championships. I hope that, despite being a Liberal, I can still cheer for Canada. Go Canada Go!
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Sign, sign, where are the frickin signs?
I’m home for the holidays on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. The snow of Toronto has been replaced with rain and wind, but at least it’s a little warmer. What is missing on the Left Coast landscape however is any Liberal campaign signs.
I’ve seen signs, both lawn and large, for the Conservatives, the NDP and even the Green Party, but nary a Liberal sign is up yet in my old riding. I’m told this isn’t confined to this riding though, in the Lower Mainland (where we’re actually competitive) and across the province it seems the ‘brain trust’ have decided not to put up any signs until after Christmas.
Genius, pure genius. Makes us look amateur, like we can’t afford signs or think we don’t have a chance and aren’t bothering. The kids really do need some adult supervision, I think.
On another note, the local Conservative incumbent, John Duncan, sent out a mailer yesterday, courtesy the taxpayers of Canada. First week or two of the campaign I could let that go, but this is a little too late for these to be going out on our dime. He narrowly squeaked back in last year, trailing the NDP candidate until the military vote came in. When you’re fighting for you life though, ethics seems to go out the window, doesn’t they John?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Talking points, eh
Joshua Marshall, author of the influential Talking Points Memo in the United States, weighed in yesterday with his take on the PM the PM, Ambassador Wilkins bru ha ha.
An excerpt:
The whole thing vaguely reminds me of Gerhard Schroeder's 2002 reelection campaign. In the world of Bushdom, every center-left leader gets to win once on his own steam and then a second time by running on domestic disdain for George W. Bush.
It's good politics.
Everywhere.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Nomination Fixing Part Two, Electric Boogallo
Left Coast writer and blogger Sean "The Public Eye" Hollman is tracking still more Conservative nomination fixing, again in Gurmant Grewal's old riding of Newton-North Delta. You'll recall that's the same riding former Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum had wanted to run in, but claimed he was shoved aside by the party brass. Now it seems another wannabe candidate, Jesse Johl, is crying foul and filing a complaint with the Conservative Party bosses.
Who is the "star" Conservative candidate that it seems John Reynolds and Stephen Harper have pushed aside any nomination competition to secure an acclimation for? One Phil Eidsvik. Hollman has another interesting piece on his background. He really seems worth the trouble, doesn't he?
two candidates sidelined in Newton North-Delta to get Eidsvik "acclaimed", and then there's the ongoing Allan Cutler/Alan Riddel saga in Ottawa South. It seems Riddell is still sticking by his story he was offered $50,000 cash (in a brown envelope maybe?) by the Conservatives for his campaign expenses in exchange for dropping out of the race in favour of Cutler, the sponsorship scandal whistleblower.
Very troubling. I'm still waiting for the Cons to spin their way out of this one while condemming the Liberals for doing the same thing they're doing. Or we could just keep talking about beer and popcorn. Yes, that's more relevant, isn't it?
Hot off the wire
The latest Ipsos Read poll just came out and some interesting results given all the talk of ads and gaffes on the blogsphere of late. The summary: Ontario still doesn't trust Stephen Harper and his mad acting skils (skillz?), and Quebec is still BQ country.
The full figures will probably be on TV tonight and in the CanWest papers tomorrow, they're only available online if you subscribe. The numbers they tease though are striking, and I'm sure will generate much consternation on The Right. Conservative supporters like to blame Ontario for not supporting them, but you have to wonder at what point will they look in the mirror and consider if maybe the problem is not Ontario, but them?
Liberals (36%, +2 Points) Ahead Of Conservatives (27%, -3 Points) By 9 Points Nationally
NDP (17%, +1 Point) And Green Party (5%, Unchanged) Trail Front-runners - In Quebec, Bloc Quebecois Dominates (56% vs. 25% For Liberals)
Grits Open Up Big Lead In Ontario (19 Points) Over Tories As Canadians Offer Tepid Reviews Of Tory Ads
Toronto, ON, December 13, 2005 - The latest Ipsos Reid poll conducted for CanWest News Service/Global News gives the Liberals (36%, +2 points from last week) a 9-point lead over the Conservatives (27%, -3 points) in the national polls -- a lead which apparently has been fuelled by a substantial shift in voter opinion in the crucial province of Ontario where the Liberals (47%, +6 points) have sprung out to an impressive 19-point lead on the Conservatives (28%, -6 points).
Premium Content subscribers can access the full release, with detailed tables, at:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2902
Edited to add:
There's more stats from the poll at: http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&searchText=false&showText=all&actionFor=571746
Some of the highlights (depending on your perspective):
Further, Canadians offer rather tepid reviews of the Conservatives recent election television advertising campaign. Among those who have seen the Conservative Party TV ads... 25% say the ads have made them "less likely" to vote Conservative. However, one in seven (15%) feel the ads will make them "more likely" to vote Conservative.
When those who say they do not plan to vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives (those who plan to vote for Liberals, NDP, Bloc Quebecois, or Green Party) are asked why:
* 26% say "because they don't like Stephen Harper the Conservative leader";
* 48% say "because of the policies of the Conservative Party"; while
* 22% have some other reason for not voting for the Conservative Party.
Among those non-Conservative voters, these regional figures were pulled out by Ipsos:
* Those in Alberta (41%) and Atlantic Canada (40%) are the most likely to not vote Conservative because of Stephen Harper.
* Those in British Columbia (58%) and Quebec (53%) are the most likely to not vote Conservative because of the party's policies.
It seems Atlantic Canada still hasn't gotten over the culture of entitlement gaffe but the Alberta figure is interesting. Obviously he's still going to sweep Alberta, but it's food for thought. To know him is to not love him so much?
Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers
Monday, December 05, 2005
Hello Pot? It’s Mr. Kettle calling
I've always been against the idea of appointing candidates, particularly when there is a strong and active riding organization in place. When I've been politically active it has been at the grassroots riding level, and appointed candidates are a slap in the face to the people on the ground that tirelessly, and thanklessly, do the hard work between campaigns.
That said, I'd rather see an appointment than a manipulative rigging of the nomination. The Liberals took a lot of flack for bungling the Michael Ignatieff nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and rightfully so, although reading articles like this one lessen my sympathies. Still, if they'd just appointed him it's a one-day story, and they can move on.
It is rich though to see that despite all the high-mindedness of The Right, they are not immune to such backroom bungling and manipulation. Former Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum is crying foul, saying the Conservatives rigged the process to prevent him from running in Gurmant Grewal's old riding of Newton-North Delta. Party brass reply he simply missed the filing deadline. Sound familiar?
More disturbing though is the mess that's brewing around Alan Cutler's nomination as the Conservative candidate in Ottawa-South. Cutler, who blew the whistle on the sponsorship scandal, is by all accounts a man of integrity, and his running is a real coup for the Conservatives. On the government or opposition side, he’d be a welcome addition to the House.
Questions are being raised though about how he got the nomination. The story is that the 2004 candidate Alan Riddell, who wanted to run again and was disqualified once by the party before being let back in the race. Early reports said he was disqualified, giving Cutler the nomination by acclamation, but that was quickly corrected by Riddell and the local riding assocation, which said he had "graciously stepped aside" to make way for Cutler. Already, something weird is going on.
Last week though, Riddell went on TV to say he was asked to step aside, and the party promised $50,000 to cover his expenses in seeking the nomination. From weird to scandalous.
Harper campaigned in the riding with Cutler this morning and dodged the question, except to say the party never agreed to pay Riddell a dime, although it did discuss it, and allude to Riddell being an “unacceptable candidate.” But that’s in conflict with a letter posted on Bourque Newswatch from the party’s executive director stating Riddell was “withdrawing voluntarily” and the party “looks forward to having him run as a candidate in subsequent elections.”
Granted, Bourque also posts a release from Riddell’s campaign saying that he withdrew voluntarily, in conflict with his comments last week on the CBC. So, clearly something stinks here. Did the Conservatives agree to compensate Riddell for stepping aside and then change their minds, causing Riddell to break his silence, or is he just a wacko? Either way, Harper isn’t talking, and Alan Cutler must be wondering just what the heck he’s gotten himself into.
The moral of the story? Political parties that live in glass war rooms shouldn’t throw stones. Oh, and a second moral. Just appoint your star candidates and save yourself the embarrassment, or better yet, help them organize to win a fair and democratic nomination race.
Just shut up already
Would it be "Nazi-like" of me to say I wish Jean Lappiere would disappear?
Recommend this Post on Progressive BloggersFriday, December 02, 2005
The near-week in review
Since the election kicked off this week I think I've been like most Canadians, too busy with Christmas-related activities to pay much attention to the goings on. Although I did love that Jason Kenny, Omni thing. Too hilarious.
The media spin seems to be that Harper has won the early days with his GST cut promise yesterday, and could carry that momentum forward with a health care announcement today. Cutting the GST sounds nice, but why by just two per cent? If you're going to mess with the consumption tax, why not kill it all together? That might almost get my vote. Well, no it wouldn't, but still, it's smart politics, and some early momentum for the Cons.
While their pre-election spending orgy takes some of the wind out of their sails the Liberals do need to fight back, and they do have a case to make. A sales tax cut will more greatly benefit the wealthy, and the loss of that revenue to the government will hurt lower income Canadians more greatly. The Liberal income tax cuts, both proposes and past, will much more greatly benefit lower and middle class Canadians. Paint the Cons as the party of the wealthy, and if they come back with trickle down economics, hit them with Regeanomics and mention the great success of Dubaya's tax cuts.
His earlier policy announcement was the federal public prosecutor, which amusingly was almost immediately shot-down by Peter McKay. Again, it's something that sounds great on paper, and on TV, but becomes highly questionable on closer inspection. Besides the cost of such an office versus what it would be able to do, all the Liberals need to do is say Ken Starr and stains on dresses, is this what we want for Canada.
In wonder about the soundness of Harper's strategy here though. I can see the thinking, soften up the ground and get the voters thinking of us as a moderate alternative. This is a marathon though, not a sprint. Would these announcements have more impact in January, when they would be fresher in the minds of voters on e-day?
The Liberals are letting him get away with it though. Where's the quick response, where's the counterattack? Yes, you don't want to empty the gun before Christmas, but if you let Harper reframe the election and built up a large lead before the New Year, it will be too late. Remember 2004? It wasn't until two weeks to go that The Board and Co. got out of their stupor and got to work, and it cost them dearly. They barely salvaged a minority. Lesson learned by The Paul Martin Team? It remains to be seen.
Handicapping the election
It's been a busy pre-holiday stretch at work this week, plus a few vendor and public relations firm Christmas parties to attend ('tis tough, the life of the trade journo). I'll have more to post later, but I wanted to get up this press release that crossed my desk earlier in the week.
Not that I advocate gambling, never. Still, it's interesting. But for entertainment purposes only!
PinnacleSports.com Posts Odds on Upcoming Canadian Election
Despite No Confidence Vote, Liberals Favored Over Conservatives
WILLEMSTAD, Curacao, Nov. 30 /CNW/ -- After Monday's vote of no-confidence brought an end to the 17-month reign of the ruling Liberal government, Canadian voters will head to the polls in January to decide the
future governance of the nation. With the sitting government falling for the first time since 1979 and possibly ending Paul Martin's hold on Canadian politics, PinnacleSports.com today announced odds on the outcome of the upcoming election for control of the Canadian Parliament.
Despite being the first government to fall on a straight motion of no-confidence, PinnacleSports.com lists the Liberals as favorites to win the most seats in the upcoming election at 2/5 odds. The Liberals have also been
made a 12.5 seat favorite over Stephen Harper's Conservatives for the total seats won in January's vote. PinnacleSports.com has also created unique over/under betting lines on the total number of seats won by each of the four major political parties. Although they held 133 seats in Parliament after the last election, PinnacleSports.com believes that recent government corruption and scandals will not go unpunished by the electorate and lists the over/under in seats won by the Liberals at only 120.5.
The loss of Liberal MP's means potential gains for the other political parties and the bookmaker predicts
that the Conservatives (over/under 107.5), Bloc Quebecois (over/under 60.5) and NDP (over/under 29.5) will all gain seats in the House of Commons.
"After losing the parliamentary majority in June 2004, the public's confidence in Paul Martin and the Liberal party has continued to wane, and the no-confidence vote in Parliament seems to reflect widespread public sentiment," said Simon Noble of PinnacleSports.com. "Despite all of the recent controversy, the polls indicate that the Liberals will gain the most seats in this historic election, but with little chance of gaining an overall
majority."
In addition to offering betting on the Parliamentary seats won by the parties, PinnacleSports.com has also posted odds on some of the key ridings in the upcoming election. The oddsmakers currently list Liberal Carolyn Bennett as a 10,000 vote favorite to win re-election in the riding of St. Paul's in Toronto over Conservative challenger Peter Kent. In what is certain to be one of the most closely watched votes, NDP party leader Jack Layton is favored by a mere 3,000 votes over Liberal Deborah Coyne in the Toronto-Danforth riding. PinnacleSports.com will accept wagers on the Canadian Election until the vote on January 23, 2006. For more information and a complete list of odds, please visit http://www.pinnaclesports.com .
Current Odds: *All Odds Subject to Change*
Which Party Will Win More Seats?
Liberals 2/5
Conservatives 12/5
Total Seats Won, Including All Recounts
Liberals -12.5 seats
Conservatives +12.5 seats
Total Seats Won by Liberals
Over 120.5 seats 11/10
Under 120.5 seats 5/6
Total Seats Won by Conservatives
Over 107.5 seats 5/6
Under 107.5 seats 11/10
Total Seats Won by Bloc Quebecois
Over 60.5 seats 1/1
Under 60.5 seats 10/11
Total Seats Won by NDP
Over 29.5 seats 10/11
Under 29.5 seats 1/1
St. Paul, Toronto Riding
Carolyn Bennett -10,000 votes
Peter Kent +10,000 votes
Toronto-Danforth Riding
Jack Layton -3,000 votes
Deborah Coyne +3,000 votes
About PinnacleSports.com
PinnacleSports.com (http://www.pinnaclesports.com) is the Internet's largest sports betting site, serving customers in more than 80 countries worldwide. Founded in 1998, PinnacleSports.com was the first sports book to introduce reduced margin wagering, using a -105 pricing model that gives bettors up to 50% better value on wagers than traditional bookmakers. With low minimum bet requirements and the highest maximum limits on the Web, PinnacleSports.com has earned an industry-leading reputation for providing consistent value to the player, professional customer service and the quickest payouts online. Fully licensed and regulated in Curacao and the United Kingdom, the company offers a secure environment for sports betting, racing and casino gaming.