Showing posts with label Ontario Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario Election. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Why politics is stupid much of the time: the flip-flop attack

Trying to save is drowning campaign the day before e-day, Ontario C leader (I've redacted the P) Tim Hudak was in Mississauga today, where he used Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty's decision to cancel a controversial local power plant project to frame the Premier as a promise-breaker unfit to govern.

“This site symbolizes why we need change,” Mr. Hudak said as he stood in a parking lot overlooking the construction site. “More Dalton McGuinty broken promises are going to hit Ontario families in the pocket book. Friends, we need change.”
Seems simple enough, right? McGuinty promised to build this power plant and now he's breaking his promise. He's flip-flopping. He's a naughty promise-breaking flip-flopper who can't be trusted.

But here's the thing: Hudak opposes the power plant project. He supports McGuinty's decision to cancel the project, and has said if he's elected, he'll cancel the thing too. So, like, what the heck, Tim?

It'd be fair to say McGuinty got the initial decision wrong. It'd be fair to say making the right decision up-front would have saved taxpayer dollars. And it would be fair to say the timing of McGuinty's reversal is politically suspect. All fair ball.

But to attack him for taking a position you support because it involves changing his mind? That's really stupid. If McGuinty hadn't reversed himself, would Hudak be saying "this is the wrong decision but I respect him for being inflexibly unwilling to shift from his previous decision?" Of course not.

What a thoroughly stupid attack to make. What is Tim's message "Once I made a decision, no matter how bone-ass wrong it turns out to be I'll stick to it no matter what, because that's leadership?" That's not leadership, that's insanity.

This seems to have been a regular thing with McGuinty, actually, who has had some other fairly high-profile reversals in the face of public opposition and/or contrary policy evidence. While getting the call right in the first place is, of course, preferable, I don't want a leader who just makes the decision once and moves on. I'd rather they have the political courage to, when presented with the evidence, be willing to make the decision to change course if necessary.

The thing is, while stupid Hudak's attack will find a level of resonance. He made these comments for a reason. It's up to us as voters, though, to signal what we want. Sometimes a flip-flop is a good thing. Sometimes it's not. If we want politicians that will never change their mind on something no matter how much circumstances may change, that's what we'll get. If we want something different, that's up to us too. But it will take looking beyond the soundbite.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, October 04, 2011

Belated random thoughts on political happenings

I've found myself too busy with work and what not lately to be blogging as much as I should be, so here's some short random thoughts on recent events until I can write something longer. Which I promise to do soon. Ish.


* Montreal's crumbling Champlain Bridge was in the news today; it was a topic in question period and apparently Conservative transport minister Denis Lebel is about to visit the city to announce another study on its replacement. This tweaked my memory, as I recall the Conservatives, during the 2008 by-election in St. Lambert (cancelled by the 2008 general election) were doling out pork and promised to replace the bridge. Three years and two election after Lawrence Cannon said "We are starting to plan for the construction of a new bridge" they're going to launch another study?

* Peter Julian won't be running for the NDP leadership. As much as I would have enjoyed a battle of the roomates (he shares an Ottawa apartment with fellow BC MP Nathan Cullen) and the fun that could have ensued (Peter doesn't wash the dishes! Nathan drinks the last of my fair trade coffee!) it's probably for the best. I spent some of the 2008 election in the Burnaby area (Peter represents a Burnaby-area riding) and he struck me as a rather abrasive fellow. Maybe it was just seeing him in contrast to fellow Burnaby NDPer Bill Siksay, a very warm and personable guy. Anyway, when his name was floated I just couldn't picture Julian as a unifying bridge-builder.

* On the other hand, I'm really happy to see Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership. I spent the 2004 federal election in Prince Rupert working on the Liberal campaign of Miles Richardson, who, along with Nathan, was seeking to unseat Conservative incumbent Andy Burton in Skeena-Bulkley Valley. I got to see a fair bit of Nathan on the campaign trail and he's a great guy, very friendly, kind and in touch with the communities of the riding. I disagree with him on a few issues (his support of the gun registry, for example, although that is definitely reflective of his riding) but he has proven himself a very hard-working MP. He'll make this a better race, for sure.

* Speaking of the NDP leadership race (which also includes party insider Brian Topp, another great guy in Paul Dewar, the unknown but possibly impressive Romeo Saganash and the just plain unknown Martin Singh ... Tom Mulcair may deign to run at some point) it occurs to me I'm having a hard time picturing one of this group as a Prime Minister. Because, for the first time in their history, the NDP aren't just choosing a leader. They're choosing the next Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and a leader who, in three years, will go to the polls and ask for the trust of Canadians to be their Prime Minister. They've asked for that before but this time, people won't be snickering. It's a whole new field they're playing on, and the rules of the game have changed. It will be interesting to see how, and if, they can adjust.

* Of course, things haven't changed too much yet. Love may be better but politics is politics, and rival leadership camps are already sparing. But you know it's an NDP leadership race when you get smears of opponents like this one:
Mr. Brahmi added that Mr. Topp, who has the endorsement of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, “is the candidate of the apparatchik.”

* Meanwhile, there's a provincial election going on in Ontario. I confess, I've been unable to muster-up too much enthusiasm and interest. But I do know it's getting nasty, and I'm pretty sure it's not going too well for Tim Hudak's (not overly) Progressive (but very) Conservative Party. The polls are all over the map, from a strong Liberal lead to too close to call. We'll see who gets their vote out Thursday. What all of them show though is an undeniable trend over the past year of Conservative decline and Liberal rise. And it's clear who is panicking. Watching TV the last few nights, I've seen a steady diet of harshly negative Conservative ads and extremely positive Liberal ads. That's telling as we go down to the wire. But hey, Tim can still draw a crowd.

* Speaking of panic, this homophobic flyer from the Ontario Cs (I've revoked their P) is disgusting. When I first saw it on Twitter this weekend I thought it had to be a plant, a sick joke. But then Hudak embraced it on Monday, and it was more saddening than upsetting. First, much of the brochure is misleading, if not outright lies. And much of the material in question was developed under the last C government, in which Hudak was a minister. They're so panicked that Hudak goons are elbowing reporters in the gut to keep them away from one Brampton-area candidate that was distributing the fliers.

* But as mentioned, I haven't been following the race that closely. I observed early on though that McGuinty's Liberals are, quite wisely, running the same campaign Stephen Harper's federal Cs (they redacted their own P) ran this spring. No extravagant promises, the steady hand on the tiller with the experience to make the tough decisions, it's no time for rookies and risky schemes. McGuinty ('s comms staff) has even been tweeting "Only a strong, stable #olp government will create jobs in tough economic times." Harper's line repeated Ad nauseam was "strong, stable, Coservative majority government."

* John Baird drew some attention with his gold-embossed business cards. We're all attracted to shiny things so this drew much mockery, though not enough Austin Powers references. Baird was able to laugh it off though because the criticisms ignored the real story: he also redacted Canada from his business cards. Yes, he ordered the Canada wordmark, including the Canadian flag, removed from his cards. And it's not like he's the minister responsible for FedNor, he's the frickin' Foreign Affairs Minister! Of Canada! Yes, on the one hand they want to protect the flag, and on the other they want it off their business cards. And you're focusing on the extra couple hundred dollars it cost to emboss the coat of arms? Forest for the trees; it's the flag, stupid!

* To end on a positive note, I was pleased to see the Liberals focus on a substantive and important policy issue today with a call for a National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was embraced in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP. It's an important and overlooked issue, and hopefully this leads to more action. You can still sign the petition here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Owwwwberta

Not following Alberta politics, well, at all, I have no real insight to offer into the election results there last night. Except to say the name Special Ed has a whole new meaning now. Who would have thought he could better Ralph Klein’s numbers? If you're an Alberta Liberal, ouch.

I gathered at a T-Dot pub last night to watch the results come in with Calgary Grit, Jason Cherniak and some other Liberals, including some of the ex-pat Alberta variety. Reactions from the Albertans in the room were, well, animated to say the least, and we’ll leave it at that.

I think as an (for the time being, geographically-speaking) Easterner, I think I look on Alberta the same way the Alberta looks on Ontario. With confusion and lack of understanding.

It seems to us they keep electing Conservatives no matter what, and it seems to them we keep electing Liberals no matter what. Although, we did at least give Mike Harris’s Conservatives two terms and Bob Rae’s NDP one. Both worked out fantastically, btw. Nevertheless, I think we’re both equally puzzled about the other. Ontarians are from Mars, Albertans are from Venus I suppose you could say.

I did want to comment though on the spin I’ve been seeing coming from some Conservative bloggers and commenters, saying the strong Conservative victory in Alberta shows the Liberal brand is dying nationally, and a Conservative wave blah blah across the country and what not.

Yeah, no. I think Dalton McGuinty would beg to differ. He won a bigger Liberal majority in Ontario last fall too. Did his win mean the Conservative brand is dying nationally? I doubt they’d agree with that.

If you’re going to try to ascribe national implications to the Alberta result you need to do the same for Ontario, and the trends are contradictory. Maybe their respective expanding bubbles of brand-killing will meet in Manitoba and fight to the death at Portage and Main.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, October 11, 2007

John Tory is no Paul Martin

Since I'm on the other side of the continent at the moment, in Las Vegas, it's hard to comment too authoritatively on the election results. On the other hand, I'm just back from a Hootie and the Blowfish concert (it was free) and I can report that, yes, the dolphins still make them cry.

But back to the provincial election. From what I can glean from a cursory look around the blogs and the Web it looks like Dalton got a majority, the Cons got whooped, and John Tory couldn't even win his handpicked riding. And, despite that, he intends to hang on as leader.

There have been comparisons during this campaign between John Tory and Paul Martin. Both tried to stake-out new ground for their party. Both tried to run on cults of personality. Paul Martin's Team. Your John Tory candidate. And so on.

Well, I've met Paul Martin. I've shaken Paul Martin's hand. And you, John Tory, are no Paul Martin.

I was far from a Paul Martin fan by the time January 2006 came around. But I regained a good deal of respect for the man that election night when he took responsibility for the result and announced his resignation, short circuiting any internal controversy. He showed a good deal of leadership, and class, that night.

John Tory took another route tonight, and a it's a less honourable one that puts his ambition and ego ahead of his party. His party suffered an embarrassing and humiliating defeat tonight, and it's one entirely of his making. The religious schools play was his call, and it flopped big time. Without it this was a very different race. He built a cult of personality, and it was rejected soundly tonight. For him to try to hang on is embarrassing. He's just prolonging the inevitable, and doing his party as a disservice.

Leadership does matter. John Tory had an opportunity to show it tonight. But he didn't. It's too bad.

Congratulations to Dalton, and all the Liberals, and members of all parties, elected to the legislature tonight. Congrats also to Kate Holloway, for fighting the good fight against a strong NDP incumbent in Trinity-Spadina and falling just 3000 votes short. Hopefully we'll see her on a ballot again soon.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

One last poll

The day before the Ontario vote and a poll from everyone's favourite pollster, SES, hits my mailbox with a subject line that has to warm Liberal hearts: Liberal Victory Imminent.

The poll, completed over the weekend, makes it clear the Liberals will win Wednesday's vote, with the only question to be answered being the size of the victory.

The numbers:

Ontario Provincial Ballot (N=441, MoE +/- 4.7%, 19 times out of 20)
Liberal 42.6% (among Women 43.4%)
PC 30.5% (amongWomen 25.0%)
NDP 17.5% (among Women 22.0%)
Green 9.4% (among Women 9.5%)
* 11.9% of voters were undecided

The Green Party numbers will be interesting to watch tomorrow night. SES notes Green Party numbers are often inflated in polls by 1/3 because people like to say they'll vote Green but often change their mind at the ballot box. If that trend continues, SES predicts these adjusted numbers based on the second choice of Green supporters:
Ontario Provincial Ballot - Green Adjustment (N=441, MoE +/- 4.7% , 19 times out of 20)
Liberal 43.8%
PC 31.0%
NDP 19.0%
Green 6.1%

* 11.9% of voters were undecided
Interesting that the reallocated Green vote is spread fairly evenly across the three major parties, although the NDP does gain slightly more than the others. Which would imply the NDP would be in more trouble if Green support ever grew and solidified.

And analysis from SES:
In the past week, Tory's announcement of a free vote on the faith-based school issue has not positively moved his numbers. The New Democrats are marginally up. The real story of this election has been the inability of the PCs to effectively compete for the support of women. The Grits enjoy an 18.4 point lead over the Tories among women.

If you look at most federal polling you'll see the Harper Conservatives also have been unable to build their support with women, and they don't seem to be doing much of anything to change that either. Could this be a factor in the next federal vote, or will Harper learn from Tory's experience? Time will tell.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, October 06, 2007

I've voted, now off to Vegas

I'm off to Las Vegas on Sunday until Thursday for a work-related conference, so I'll be out of town for provincial election day. Actually, Wednesday I'll be poolside at the Mandalay Bay for the conference closing party and a concert by, of all people, Hootie and the Blowfish. Yes, apparently they are still touring. Who knew.

So, since I'll be away for the election I voted in the advance polls. Unsurprisingly I voted for my Ontario Liberal incumbent in Scarborough-Centre, Brad Duguid. The second ballot of course was for the referendum, and after a lot of thought I decided to reluctantly vote no on MMP. I thought I'd share why.

I’ve been back and forth on this thing from the start. I favour electoral reform, but I’m not a big fan of MMP. I was leaning towards reluctantly supporting it, agreeing with the pro-MMP supporters that the parties would ensure the list candidates are democratically chosen. And I’m sure they would be. I’m not concerned about the stability issue, I think the parties would be forced to work together, and they’d find a way to work it out. I don’t think small parties would wield undue or radical influence. There’s a lot of positives with the system that outweigh most of the negatives.

I began to change my mind however during a discussion in this thread on the issue of List MPPs that leave caucus, voluntarily or involuntarily. It was the speculation of MMP advocates that those seats would belong to the party, not the member, and therefore the member would likely be required to resign with the seat filled by the next person on the list.

I said speculate because that’s all it is, speculation. No one knows exactly what would happen because that hasn’t been decided yet. It would be legislated later. On the concept of the seat being ‘owned’ by the party I have to say I’m fundamentally opposed, it gives far too much power to the party, discourages independent thought and dissent (all to rare already) and is directly opposed to the spirit of our parliamentary system, which is the member is answerable to his constituents. It would also create two classes of MPPs, and I’m not keen on that idea.

It’s all still ‘to be determined’ though, and that was a major factor in my decision. I’m being asked to cast a vote of faith, without answers to what I’d consider some pretty fundamental questions about just how this whole thing would work. I’m just not willing to do that. If these issues were all spelled-out satisfactorily I might have been willing to overlook the faults of MMP and cast a vote for change. But there is just too much left TBD.

Given that the polls show most Ontarians aren’t willing to do so either, will this be the end of the quest for electoral reform? I don’t know, only time will tell. Hopefully not, as I would like to see change. But I don’t think MMP is the way to go. The STV system proposed in B.C. (and will be voted on again in 2009) seems more promising. If we do try again in Ontario though, I hope a more complete system will be presented to the people.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Friday, October 05, 2007

SES: MMP won't pass

While it will be disappointing to MMP supporters, I don’t think it will be particularly surprising to anyone. Except maybe the many people that have no idea what MMP is or that there is a referendum. But according to pollsters SES, the Ontario MMP referendum isn’t going to pass:

The most recent SES/Sun Media poll indicates that the support to change Ontario's electoral system to MMP is unlikely to pass the 60% threshold needed for change.

Asked about their intentions related to the upcoming referendum, Ontarians generally preferred to keep the current system (47%), followed by voting for MMP (26%) and finally not casting a vote in the referendum (5%). Twenty-one percent were unsure.
So, even if all 21 per cent of the undecided broke in favour of MMP, and that’s highly unlikely, they’d still tie the no to MMP vote and fall under the 50 per cent level, which, while not enough for ratification, would still be a major psychological and moral victory in favour of electoral reform.

We can analyze to death the poor showing for MMP, and I have no doubt we will. I have my theories, I’ll save that for others to debate though.

What I want to say though is that these results should not be taken as a vote against electoral reform, it should only be taken as a vote against the MMP system. I think most Ontarians favour electoral reform, and would vote for the right system if given the opportunity.


So, hopefully this isn’t the end for electoral reform, but only the beginning.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Angry angry Howie

I share Howard Hampton’s frustration. While as a partisan Liberal I’m happy that there has been so much focus during the campaign on the faith-based schooling issue, as it has proven to be kryptonite for The John Tory Team, as a voter I’m disappointed that not enough attention has been paid to other issues.

So, I do understand Hampton’s frustration, I share his sentiments, and I think he said some things that needed to be said. But two problems:

1) His rant just went on too long. He had made his point well early but he kept on going, the smoke blowing out of his ears, and at some point he crossed the line from impassioned and forceful to whiny and pathetic. He lost his cool.

2) At its core, he’s saying he hasn’t been able to get his message out. To blame the media for that is slightly pathetic. If the NDP has failed in getting its message out, and the polling numbers would seem to back that out, then the NDP has no one to blame but itself.

So, while it will please and energize his base (which was probably the point, stop the bleeding) by crossing the line from impassioned to angry Hampton will just come off as whiny, ineffective and lacking leadership skills to the rest of the electorate, in my view. Did he look like a Premier? Not at all.

On the plus side for Howie, he sure got his message out this time, didn't he? Unfortunately though, we're talking about how angry he is, not about his issues, so maybe not so much.



Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

SES puts Ontario Liberals in majority territory

New numbers out this morning from SES echo the weekend's Ipsos numbers, also saying the McGuinty Liberals have widened their lead over the Tory Conservatives to 10 points.

The phone survey, conducted Sept. 28-30th, puts the race as follows:

Liberals: 44 per cent (+3)
Conservatives: 34 per cent (+1)
NDP: 15 per cent (-3)
Greens: 7 per cent (-1)
*10 per cent undecided
It looks like the Liberal gain came from the NDP rather than the Conservatives, indicating perhaps a stop Tory/anti-Conservative vote shifting to the Liberals. I thought this note from SES was interesting:
Interestingly, in the last seven days support among women who support the NDP has dropped and resulted in a corresponding increase in female support among Liberals.

Interesting indeed. And troubling no doubt for Hampton and the NDP. This may cause them to increase their attacks on McGuinty and the Liberals in the last week of the campaign, not that they've been shy on that front to date.

Speaking of Hampton, he hasn't been losing support personally and neither has McGuinty, who has a three point (but within the margin) lead on Tory for best Premier:
Dalton McGuinty 32% (+3)
John Tory 29% (-2)
Howard Hampton 18% (+3)
Frank de Jong 3% (-1)
None of them 6% (-1)
Unsure 12% (-2)

I'm not sure if we'll have another public poll before e-day to see how Tory's major flip-flop yesterday on faith-based schooling plays. I'm sure the parties will have their own internal polling shortly, it would be interesting to see the results. The next poll for us though may be the only one that counts, on Oct. 10. It'll be like a giant free vote.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, October 01, 2007

Tory: Leadership if necessary, but not necessarily leadership

Alternative new slogan for John Tory: Leadership matters, unless it’s too hard, then forget it. That one may be too long to fit on a bumper-sticker though. How about: John Tory is not a leader?

Yes, you’ve probably heard the news by now, but Conservative leader John Tory has flip-flopped on the central tenet of his election platform with just nine scant days to go to election day. Mr. Principles is abandoning them for electoral expediency. Mr. Trust and Integrity is breaking a major promise, and he’s doing it before the election is even over:

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory today flip-flopped on his controversial $400 million scheme to fund faith-based school.

Tory told 150 people at an Economic Club luncheon that he has heard the criticism from Ontarians of his plan.


"I have always believed that listening to the people is at the very core of leadership," he said, admitting the policy has "become too much a source of division."
So apparently leadership, according to John Tory, is backing down from a position he has called a matter of principle, a matter of fundamental fairness, an issue he has made the centre point if his campaign, because he has suddenly realized that if he sticks to his convictions on a point of principle he’d get his ass handed to him by the electorate. According to Tory then, leadership equals abandoning your principles for electoral expediency. I don’t think so John.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. The faith-based schooling retreat is a MASSIVE failure of leadership by John Tory. He chose this issue. He staked his political success on it. And, over the course of the campaign, he has spectacularly failed to convince the people of Ontario that he is right on this issue. Every poll shows his approach on this issue has been soundly rejected by Ontarians, and it’s one of the reasons why the Liberals have a ten point lead.

A more accurate definition of leadership would be taking the position on an issue you know in your heart of hearts to be right, popular or not, and convincing the people that you are correct; rallying them to your side.

That’s leadership. Flip-flopping purely for political expediency is the opposite of leadership.

Leadership DOES matter. But John Tory is not a leader.

UPDATE
: It’s a bigger flip-flop then I thought. Kinsella has this transcript of a Tory press scrum from August 29th. Yes, of this year…
Reporter: What would be your position on a free vote on something like your policy of faith based education? Would you allow your caucus a free vote on an issue like that?

John Tory
: I’ve always been consistent is saying that on significant matters of policy, of party policy, you’re going to have to have a discussion within caucus and perhaps as often as not say you’re going to have to vote as a party.

That’s the same as the budget – a fundamental instrument of government policy that you can’t be taking a chance, even in a majority that the government might be defeated. So your job as a leader is to earn the confidence of your members so they feel comfortable saying “we’ll vote as one on this”.


So, I’m saying the same thing I’ve been saying on this subject – there’s a number of items of essential party policy where you’re going to have to have a vote where party discipline prevails.

If he’s such a great leader, why can’t John Tory even lead his own caucus on this issue?

Earlier Monday, Tory held a conference call with all of the party's candidates, many of whom have complained about how much voters dislike the idea.

Meanwhile, another Progressive Conservative candidate has broken ranks with the party on the issue.

Hamilton East-Stoney Creek candidate Tara Crugnale told The Hamilton Spectator that she "can't defend the policy as it stands now."

...

Last week, Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch said he would not support the policy.

ELSEWHERE: Unsurprisingly, there’s lots of blogsphere reaction. For other takes, visit Adam Radwanski, BigCityLib, Jason Cherniak, Far and Wide, Liberal Arts and Minds and Scott Tribe. I have to give the medal though to Scott Feschuk:

“I have always believed that listening to the people is at the very core of leadership,” John Tory said in a speech today to the Economic Club of Toronto.

Other things that “listening to the people” is apparently at the very core of:

• Desperately trying to save your own political ass.

• Uhh, that's it.

• Wait! Also being a psychiatrist!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tory’s ship is sinking: Will 'leadership' get thrown overboard?

The new polling numbers on the Ontario provincial election released over the weekend by Ipsos Reid surely have to be giving Conservatives pause, and causing John Tory to ask what ‘matters’ more: leadership, or polling numbers.

Because these polling numbers aren’t good. Unless you’re a Liberal, that is. Looks like Dalton is the debate winner after all. The latest numbers show the Liberals (43) opening-up a 10 point lead over the Conservatives (33), with the NDP treading-water at 17 and the Greens continually unchanged at 6.

For all the Conservative bluster, the numbers show the Liberals down just three points from the 46 they achieved in Election 2003, while if the vote were held today John Tory would have done two points WORSE than Ernie Eves, who had all that Mike Harris baggage to deal with. Ouch.

Here’s the chart:

Ipsos indicates the landscape is hardening, with people becoming more firmly decided in their voting choice. Interesting also though is the motivation of voters to get out and vote, always key for electoral success. Conservative voters are the most motivated at 74 per cent, followed by NDPers at 70 per cent and Liberals at 68 per cent.

Even factoring in those figured though, Ipsos still projects a potential Liberal majority, with Libs 42 per cent to Cons 35 and NDP 17. So, get out the vote will be essential if the Liberals want to get a majority.

On the issues front, the number one issue dogging Tory, according to Ipsos, and, well, everybody paying even a little attention, is faith-based schooling:

While at the beginning of the campaign 35% of Ontarians either ‘strongly’ (14%) or ‘somewhat’ (21%) supported the Progressive Conservative plan to extend funding to faith-based schools throughout Ontario, just three in ten (30%) Ontarians currently either ‘strongly’ (13%) or ‘somewhat support’ (17%) this idea. What is profound is the intensity with which Ontarians overwhelmingly oppose (68%) this plan, with a majority (51%) indicating that they ‘strongly oppose’ and two in ten (17%) saying that they ‘somewhat oppose’ the Ontario Government in extending full funding to faith-based schools and others of a similar nature.

If there’s any solace for John Tory it’s his personal numbers. On the Best Premier front he’s still neck and neck with Dalton McGuinty, with Dalton at 33 per cent and John at 32 per cent.


So, perhaps people do think leadership matters. It’s the rest of the ‘John Tory Team’ that Ontarians have a problem with. And, one wonders how strong Tory’s leadership numbers will stay if he flip-flops and breaks his promise on the faith-based schooling issue, forsaking ‘leadership’ for political opportunism. Perhaps that’s why, as Jason speculates, he was pushing supporters to vote last week.

Just a week and a half to go to e-day. Makes me a bit sad I’ll be in Vegas and will miss all the excitement. But only a little bit.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Thoughts provincial and federal, international and animated

An increasingly busy work schedule has prevented me from blogging as much as I’d like, so just a few quick thoughts on matters provincial and federal to share.

*The centerpiece of John Tory’s election campaign, focusing not on the Conservative brand but rather The John Tory Team™, has been that Leadership Matters. That theme hammered in on every lawnsign, every nasty attack ad, and every speech Tory gives.

What does it say about Tory’s leadership skills, then, when he can’t even lead his own caucus during an election campaign?

Opposition to Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory's contentious policy on faith-based schools hit close to home yesterday when the first member of his caucus broke ranks by announcing he would vote against it.
How long before the ‘John Tory is Not a Leader’ ads are posted to YouTube, I wonder?

*Speaking of YouTube, the folks at ToryTube have another video posted. Somehow they’ve gotten a hold of a copy of John Tory’s diary. OMG, when I watched it I was ROTFL.



*On a more serious note, the issues page on the Working Families Coalition Web site is worth checking-out. It’s a forum for people to discuss issues of interest in the election campaign. They also have some interesting tv spots.

*New poll numbers out today from SES show the provincial race relatively unchanged. The Liberals maintain a strong lead, 41 to 33. Tory has gained popularity to tie McGuinty for Best Premier and six in 10 said they don’t know who won the debate or that no one won.

Interesting, though, was the gender gap, which SES calls a significant hurdles for the Conservatives. The ladies aren’t keen on the Tory Cons. Among women its Liberals 42%, PC 28, NDP 23, Greens 7.

*Moving onto federal matters, I plan to write more in depth on this when I have the time but I’m increasingly of the view that the Liberals, barring something shocking being in it, will have to vote against the Throne Speech. The fall isn’t perfect but it’s looking better than spring, and I don’t think we can be seen backing-down and keeping this government in power any longer. But more on that later.

As for throne speech ultimatums go though, the BQ isn’t the first to the table here. The LPC put its demands on the table two weeks ago:

  1. Immediately inform NATO that Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan will end in 2009
  2. Table the Clean Air and Climate Change Act in the next Parliamentary session
  3. Put forward a "real" economic plan
  4. Put forward a credible plan to address poverty




*I don’t know, this seems like a natural progression for the Giuliani campaign, given their strategy to date:
A spokeswoman for Rudy Giuliani says it is unfortunate that a supporter throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican's presidential campaign is asking for that amount.
*The fall tv season is beginning, tres fun. The Simpsons premier was good, I liked the continuity from the movie in the opening credits. And seeing Colbert have a cameo was fun. But The Simpsons was overshadowed by the one-hour Family Guy premiere parodying Star Wars. One of the most hilarious things I’ve seen in years. Particularly the Robot Chicken thing at the end.



*Lastly, has anyone noticed Firefox crashing a lot more lately, probably since they pushed the last update? It’s starting to really piss me off. I’d hate to go back to IE, but I may have no choice…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Discussing MMP

A friend from university is living in Europe these days (lucky guy) but is still an Ontarian and is getting ready to vote in the upcoming election. He's been trying to read-up on MMP, and he asked me a question the other day that I thought was interesting, and it was one I hadn't heard before so I thought I'd share it:

What happens if one of these (list) guys votes against the party due to his concience? Are they kicked out of caucus then they have no party to vote with and no constituency to represent?

It's an interesting question. With no constituency to represent and no party to be a part of they'd essentially be a free agent. Obviously, if they're now not in any party (assuming they don't join another caucus) if they wanted to get re-elected it would have to be as a constituency MPP, so they'd have to chose a riding (if they hadn't already) to unofficially represent and start working the grassroots.

Something else occurs to me though. Would a list MPP be more beholden to their party, more apt to tow the party line, in order to stay high on the party list next time, perhaps feeling they couldn't get elected directly, without the list's help?

Food for thought. I'm still trying to wrap my head around MMP but I'll need to do it soon, as I'll be down in Las Vegas for a work trip on E-Day. I'll see if I can find out what odds they're offering on the referendum...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Live blogging the Ontario leaders debate

6:30pm: Time to live blog the Ontario leaders debate. Because making quick, snarky and sarcastic comments is easier than doing in depth analysis. I've got a plate of pizza bagels, a rum and coke (because it worked so well last time). So, let's go.

6:32pm: Steve Pakin is back as host, I liked him during the federal debate. Instead of opening statements they're doing videos? I like change, but not change for change sake. Seems too commercially. McGuinty's video tackles head-on the broken promise on taxes and the health premium, explains and apologizes. I like it, defuse it up front, and take responsibility too. The NDP's ad is a positive message, and I like it. I wonder though, those workers that said Howard was the only one that helped them with their plant closed, how exactly did he help? Tory, surprise surprise, is once again harshly negative. Criminals set free by Dalton McGuinty's catch and release justice program? This is U.S. Republican-style smeers. I'm not sure if Tory's negativism is because he's desperate, or if it's just because he doesn't have anything positive to say at all. I'd ask if maybe he's a jerk, but everyone that has met him from all parties seems to think he's a good guy personally

6:35pm: A question on Tory's faith-based education plan. Unity, inclusiveness and equality doesn't mean a balkanization of the school system John, that doesn't make sense.

6:38pm: Howard does seem off, maybe he is under the weather.

6:39pm: Dalton and John go at it over public education and faith-based private schools; Hampton has to push his way in, we'd forgotten about him for a minute. He's right though, we should focus on improving the public system. I think Dalton agrees with that too (and has been), but Tory's plan is such a loser how can he resist taking shots.

6:43pm: Second question is on education too. Dalton keeps brining up the Harris record, which is good, He isn't mentioning Harris' name though, which is bad. Howard acknowledges McGuinty has raised funding, but says most of it has gone to “government pet projects.” But he doesn't say where. He says he'll fix the funding formula. But he doesn't say how. Tory doesn't say how he'll do it either, nor explain how he'll fix things while taking $500 million out of the system to add the faith-based schools.

6:52pm
: Question on transit, first to Howard. He promises to upload 50 per cent of transit costs to the province, I like that but that's a huge dollar amount, how could you pay for it? He also seems to want to kill the York subway expansion, the students won't like that. Tory wants more long-term, stable funding, I can agree with that. It's not just capital funds that's needed, it is stable operating funds like he said. Dalton keeps talking about public transit plans. That's great, and very needed. But what about operating funds? All the capital spending in the world is no good if you don't have the funds to operate that snazzy equipment. The situation right now with the TTC illustrates that. The gax tax is good though. But we need more operating funds Dalton.

6:56pm: Question to Tory on downloading to municipalities, with a shot at Conservative offloading. Tory says McGuinty is continuing the trend of not doing anything...whose trend John? Your party's trend. Opps. Dalton says picking-up from the mess Tory's friends left isn't easy, but they're working on it. Howard says not only is that not happening, things are worse. He's going to upload even more stuff, I wonder if anyone is keeping a tab on the cost of all this. In the Q&A, Tory gives a shout-out to the rural towns, then returns to a running theme of McGuinty leaving everything until the end of his mandate. Would love to do everything at once and magically, says Dalton, but you stuck us with a huge deficit. You can blame your predecessor for a couple of weeks or a couple of months, says Tory, but no more. Has he told Steve Harper that? Why haven't I heard the name Mike Harris yet? Dalton doesn't like Howard's comments, but he needs to watch the muttering while someone else is speaking.

7:03pm
: Broken promises, a voter video asks about recall legislation. We have in it B.C., it doesn't work. Dalton says he opposes it, we have recalls: elections. And apologizes again for the health premium thing. John Tory says everyone knew Ernie Eves was full of shit when the Cons said they'd balanced the budget, so why'd he believe him. Smirk. Tory doesn't say if he'd support recall or not, but says shouldn't be needed if people were nice. If only were so, John. Dalton says John has been calling him names, be tougher Dalton. Howard gangs-up on him too on broken promises, McGuinty outlines the progress he has made. Tory looks comfortable, but a bit smug. It's a fine line between confident and smarmy. McGuinty says Tory promises your cake and eating it too, that's what the last guy said too. Last guy. Say it: Mike Harris!

7:10pm:
Question to Howard on the economy and manufacturing jobs, with a reference to the last NDP government's poor economic record. Howard seems stunned, he ignores the NDP record and instead discusses his plan. Tory says the health care tax killed manufacturing jobs? And says next to nothing concrete, Hampton was more specific on his plans. Dalton says it's not all bad. Talks about an auto industry strategy that is saving and creating jobs, a plan the Cons opposed. 1300 jobs a week lost under NDP, 1800 jobs gained under Liberals. Tory seems unwilling to defend the Conservative record. Unsurprising, this is the John Tory Team, not the Conservative Party.

7:16 pm:
A question for Daddy Warbucks, John Tory, on fighting poverty. It seems he used to hang-out in disadvantaged neighborhoods all the time while running Rogers. And hey, he mentions the name of his party, emphasis on the Progressive. McGuinty outlines his accomplishments, plan and tosses in the word progressive too with a little smile for John. Howard wants to raise the minimum wage to $10/hour, I agree. He takes a shot at the MPP pay raise, that's lame. Tory commends McGuinty on the Child Tax Benefit. He said something positive. Stop the presses! Then he goes back to the health care tax, Dalton corrects him: low income families are exempt. Then we veer away from poverty into health care. Tory doesn't buy it, Dalton comes back with Tory's push for bringing private health care into the public system Interestingly, Howard helps John and brings it back to attacking McGuinty on the health tax.

7:24pm:
Question for Dalton on crime, it's going down but still a concern for people, feel too many repeat offenders on the streets. McGuinty has funded police, courts, strategy on gangs, and programs to address root causes, and opportunities for youth. Howard wants more funding for outreach/root causes, and attacks Conservative cuts to those programs. Tory says it's gang warfare in the streets and it's McGuinty's fault. He hasn't “fixed” the justice system, but Tory magically will, whatever that entails. Dalton says Ontario crime rates are actually lowest in Canada, but still more to do, and says he wants Harper to ban handguns, and wants Tory's support in that. And wants to do it in Ontario. Tory says they're banned already, says need more enforcement at the border. Call up Harper for that John. God, his crime messaging is really so ridiculous. Willie Horton much?

7:29pm:
We need a commercial so I can refresh my beverage.

7:30pm
: Question for Howard on university tuition, should be an easy pitch for a Dipper, and he likes the question. He want a rollback of tuition to 2003 levels and a freeze, among other things, including public investment. I hope he doesn't pull a Rae and get elected, to pay for all his promises (nice as they are) the deficit will be huge. Tory wants more grants, and to look at ancillary fees. Grants aren't the answer if tuition keeps increasing, he's right on fee creep though. Dalton is going to infuse $6 billion. Said no government ever froze tuition for two years like he did – I believe B.C. did under Harcourt actually.

7:36pm
: Question on nuclear for Tory, he says we need them and goes after Dalton for not closing coal plants like he said he would. He liked solar power too he says. McGuinty says the Cons nearly killed the hydro system, says nuclear is needed but downplays it to talk about renewable energy. Howard doesn't like nuclear, wants more efficiency, loans to retrofit homes and buy efficient appliances. That's good Howard, but it's not going to go far enough to address the supply issue. Dalton says Tory is making stuff up, smirk. He wonders how Howard would eliminate half of the system's supply without things collapsing, it's not realistic and its right. I wonder too. Howard points to California.

7:43pm:
Question for Dalton, what are you doing with our health premium money? He says it's half of our program spending, but we're doing a lot, and lists is. He's obviously memorized a lot of statistics ad is throwing them at us, I wonder if its a bit too much. Howard wants long-term care and home care for seniors, that's good. Tory asks if we're better off today on health care than when Dalton came into government? I think so, but no one has “fixed” health care, and I haven't heard much concrete from Tory. John brings up the slush fund – during a discussion on health care. And jabbers about a secret phone number or something. Seems an odd place to jam that in. Why no talk here of Tory's private care musings? Howard brings it up, and tries to link McGuinty to it too. John Tory doesn't trust doctors on wait times. Dammed statistics! I'm not clear on what Dalton's saying Tory is taking $3 billion out of the system is about.

7:49pm: Question for Howard, is Ontario still great? There's some good stuff, is the answer, but he'd rather talk about why it sucks. So would Tory, and lists a bunch of ways that he thinks we suck. The answer: leadership, of course, and lots of negative advertising. Dalton says Tory won't fight for Ontario with the feds and the provinces, but he will. Got money from Martin for immigrant settlement. Ontario must assert itself. Howard is pack to the minimum wage, and the MPP pay raise. Dalton decides to address the raise issue and explains the process. Says the NDP's minimum wage plan is too fast. Tory is trying to say leader as many times as possible. I went back and rewound the PVR: four times in less than 20 seconds. McGuinty hits Tory again on private clinics and faith-based schools. Tory firmly commits to private health care with your health card.

7:56pm: Howard's closing statement, quick shot at McGuinty and Tory before moving to what he'd do, with specifics, I like that. Six commitments you can count on. I don't like the third-person referral though.

7:57pm: Dalton thanks the other two leaders, classy, and focuses on the progrress he has made and his plan moving forward. We've come a loing way. I like it.

7:58pm: John says it's a clear choice. Says why he's there, but no specifics on what he'd do. Leadership, blah blah. Doesn't say anything specific, but at least it's positive.

8:00pm: Pakin signs off, says hopefully you found it useful. I have my doubts.

Final thoughts: No knock-out punches that I could see. Tory continued with his harsh negativity, at least in debates that's expected. Howard seemed fine, I liked some of his policies but there's no way he could ever pay for everything he'd like to do. Dalton did well for being attacked on both sides all night. He tried to strike a line between humility and pride in the record. I thought he was a bit too stat heavy at times. And I'm shocked, shocked, that I don't recall him saying the name Mike Haris. He talked about “the conservative record” enough, why not say Harris? It was so striking it had to be a strategic decision.

Anyway, not an overly exciting hour and a half, but these things rarely are. At least no one made any stupid-ass promises like a constitutional amendment never to use the notwithstanding clause.

Time for me to rustle-up some dinner. Live blogging complete.

8:18pm: Except for a brief update because something just occured to me: no one ever mentioned MMP, or the referendum. I mean, really, a question on recall legislation but nothing on the very real referendum on electoral reform? What up with that? I could see Dalton and John, not bringing it up, but why not Howard? And why not Steve Pakin?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, September 17, 2007

Speaking of referendum education...

Elections Ontario has launched some new online elements to its advertising campaign around the referendum, including this nifty little widget. I understand it's possible to post it to your sidebar, but I can't get it to work for me for some reason. You can also post it to Facebook and other social networking sites.



They've also launched a YouTube channel where a number of amusing referendum commercials have been posted:







Full details on the publicity campaign are available here, and the main Web site is here.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Confused by Elections Ontario

I'm completely confused as to why we won't know the results of the MMP referendum until Oct. 11, if not later, almost a full day after the close of voting in the Oct. 10 provincial election.

Here's the explanation from Elections Ontario:

That's due to the vastness of Ontario with its 29,712 polling stations in 107 ridings, an extension of voting hours to 9 p.m. from 8 p.m. – and the higher threshold for passage of the vote.

They go on:
Complicating matters is the election and referendum ballots will be cast in the same boxes and must be separated for tallying.

"We have 29,712 polls so until we have 29,712 results, we just don't go to bed," said Hollins, noting election results should be known by midnight Oct. 10 because those ballots will be counted first.

Doesn't make sense to me. The only thing that sounds slightly plausible is that polls don't close until 9 pm, but even that's a stretch. The vastness of the polling stations doesn't matter because each poll is staffed by the same number of people that can do the count, and I fail to see how the threshold needed to pass could impact the speed with which ballots are counted. And time to separate the referendum ballots from the electoral ballots? Doesn't take that long.

In May 2005, B.C. held its election on electoral reform in conjunction with a provincial election, and I worked for Elections B.C. as a DRO. As an aside, when we handed people their two ballots, one for their MLA and one for the referendum, I'd say almost half had no idea what the referendum was about, and the level of spoiled ballots ended-up being high. Education will be an issue in Ontario as well, I think. In B.C., that lack of education made the difference.

Anyway, despite having both ballots going into one (very stuffed) ballot box we were able to have our count done and results released for both referendum and MLA that night. Indeed, I'd say it took my poll clerk and I just over an hour, although some of the other polls at our station were slower.

Separating the ballots wasn't a problem: one was black and one was red, and the black (MLA) one was a fair bit longer too. So we dumped the box, stacked the electoral ones and put the referendum ones back in the box. We did our MLA count, did the paperwork, filed the ballots in their envelops and then did the referendum count. Took 20 minutes, tops. Yes, No or spoiled. Fill out paperwork, into their envelopes, bam, done. Count sheet goes to the returning officer and the unofficial results are made public on the Web site.

That night, British Columbians knew the unofficial result of the referendum, namely, that while it got more than 50 per cent (it got 57 per cent) of the vote it failed to reach the 60 per cent threshold needed for ratification. They'll try again in 2009. Now, naturally it took takes for the official results but that's normal for all elections. They're not usually certified for weeks.

So, given that the mechanics of the system seem to be the same in Ontario, I fail to see why we can't have unofficial results on e-night. Reading the article it seems they might be planing to not do the referendum count at the polls, but rather ship the ballots back to HQ for the counting. That seems an odd choice, one that causes unnecessary delay.

If B.C. can do it, I'd like to think Ontario can too.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Saturday, September 15, 2007

A few weekend Ontario polls

It's the weekend but the Ontario election campaign seems to be starting to heat-up.

Watching television on Friday I was teated to a barrage of political advertising. A few positive ads from the Liberals with Dalton McGuinty talking issues, and a raft of Conservative ads (actually, the same ad again and again I think) with the sound of breaking glass detailing Liberal broken promises, and blaming McGuinty for every crime committed in the past four years. And the kidnapping of the Lindbergh Baby too possibly.

So, I still don't know what John Tory stands for, besides Liberals bad, free booze in casinos, and creationism if necessary, but not necessarily creationism. Really though, while I think the Cons are crossing the line somewhat on the crime front in this ad, their radio ads and their earned media, this tv ad isn't bad. The breaking glass sound serves to draw attention to the TV while cooking dinner, much like the horn honk in the federal Con ads last election.

I wonder though, while the Tory Conservatives continue their campaign to drive down McGuinty's favourables and the Liberal numbers, which is certainly something they have to do, at what point do they start working to define Tory, and what he's all about. Right now, they seem to be positioning him as simply “Not Dalton.” While they keep trying to give people reasons not to vote Liberal, at some point are they going to try to give people reasons to vote Conservative?

Polls


Anyway, a couple of polls hit my inbox this weekend I thought I'd pass along, take from them what you will.

Religious schools

The first is from our friends at SES, who surveyed 501 respondents in Ontario via telephone between August 24th and August 26th on Tory's proposal to bring faith-based schools into the public system. It should be noted Tory's creationism gaffe occurred Sept. 5, and thus wouldn't have been a factor in these numbers.

The survey found Ontarians divided on the proposal with 50 per cent opposed/somewhat opposed and 43 per cent in support/somewhat support. SES noted the intensity of those opposed was greater than the intensity of those supportive, which I'd conjecture means those opposed are more likely to base their vote on the issue. After the creationism gaffe, not good news for Tory.

Here's the exact question they asked, and the results:

Question: As you may know the Ontario PC Party has proposed bringing faith based schools into the public school system. Faith based schools which choose to participate in this program would receive direct funding from the provincial government on the condition they incorporate the Ontario Common Curriculum, participate in Ontario's standardized testing program and ensure teachers maintain proper credentials. Do you support, somewhat support somewhat oppose or oppose bringing faith based schools into the public system?

Support/Oppose (N=501, MOE ± 4.4%, 19 times out of 20)

Support 28%
Somewhat support 15%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Oppose 40%

Unsure 8%

Issues and the horse race

The second poll is from Ipsos Reid and looks at both the ballot box issues and the horse race numbers, including regional breakdowns. The poll surveyed 800 Ontarioins by telephone between Sept. 4 and Sept. 13, which means any impact of the creationism gaffe should be visible here.

Issues


Let's look at the ballot box issues first, the issue respondents said is or could motivate their vote:
...four in ten (43%) identify education/faith-based school funding of the top three issues (for nearly one quarter (23%) of Ontarians it’s the number one motivator), followed by healthcare (41%) as one of the top three campaign issues for them, with Taxes (19%) and the environment (18%) in a dead heat for the third issue (all issues identified were unaided, open-ended responses, allowing up to three with the primary identified separately)

That the top issue is religious education is interesting, particularly when considered with SES's point about the intensity of those opposed to this issue being greater. Tory has made this an issue, if he hadn't it wouldn't be on the radar screen, and yet the issue seems to be working against him. One has to question his strategic decision here to go big on faith based education, creationism gaffe or not.

The number two issue, but only narrowly back from top spot, is health care. This is an issue the Liberals feel well positioned on with the progress they've made in recent years, and it's one McGuinty and Co. have been campaigning on, as well as strongly on education this past week.

The fact taxes are so far back at 19 per cent has to be troubling for Tory. If he'd spent more time on taxes and less on religious schools it would be higher, and I'd have to wager the Liberals are more vulnerable on taxes than they are on religious schools/education. A change in emphasis might be in order for the Cons to raise the importance of this issue higher. They've been hitting hard on criminal justice this week but it's only at seven per cent and another of their issues, integrity/trust, is at just six per cent.

Horse race


On to the horse race numbers. Ipsos characterizes the numbers as stagnant, which would seem to indicate the creationism incident didn't hurt (or help) Tory's numbers. Indeed, the numbers among decided voters stayed pretty much the same from the last Ipsos poll:

Liberals: 40 per cent (-1)
Conservatives: 37 per cent (+1)
NDP: 16 per cent (-1)
Greens: 6 per cent (-)
Undecideds: 6 per cent or 9 per cent (they say both in different places)

In chart form:


Looking regionally it's very tight as well, although there have been some shifts. In the GTA it's Liberals 40 (-2), Cons 38 (+2), NDP 15 (-1) but within the 416 proper there was some interesting movement. The Libs still lead with 39 per cent but that's down 5 over the week, while the Cons gained 6 to move to 33 per cent. The NDP dropped 2, to 21 per cent. In the 905 its Cons 42, Libs 40 and NDP 10.

Moving outside the GTA the Libs have a slim lead. It's Libs 40, Cons 36 and NDP 17, little changed from last week.

Seat projections


Finally, though perhaps most interestingly, Ipsos has also done seat projections based on an aggregate of recent polls. Not to besmirch the good folks at Ipsos, but I find these exercises to be a bit of voodoo science, so take it with a grain of salt.

They're projecting however a slim Liberal majority (54 seats needed). Here's how:

Liberals: 56 seats (42 solid, 14 leaning)
Conservatives: 39 seats (28 solid, 11 leaning)
NDP: 12 seats (9 solid and three leaning)

Open this pdf and they break down their projections riding by riding but again, as I said, huge grain of salt, and even Ipsos says expect big changes here by E-Day.

I found this note from Ipsos interesting:
A majority (51%) of Ontarians believe that it is ‘time for another provincial political party to take over’, however four in ten (40%) believe that ‘McGuinty has done a good job and deserves to be re-elected’—instructive given that a mirrored 40% of the vote would likely yield, as noted above, a slim re-elected Liberal majority government.
If I were an MMP supporter (I'm undecided at the moment) I'd seize on those numbers.

MMP


Speaking of MMP, odd that SES and Ipsos both didn't mention the referendum. BigCityLib has an Angus Reid poll (pdf) that does. While Scott points-out it's an online poll (which are frought with issues) the results aren't good for MMP supporters:
The poll also asked Ontarians to voice their views on the referendum on electoral reform, which will take place on the same day as the legislative ballot. A third of respondents (33%) would keep the existing first-past-the-post electoral system, while 26 per cent would switch to the alternative mixed-member-proportional system. Three per cent of respondents would not participate on this plebiscite, and 38 per cent remain undecided.

Since the pro-side needs to get to 60 per cent or the status quo remains, as BCL points out if there numbers are accurate that's a long hill to climb.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Monday, September 10, 2007

Ontario campaign officially kicks-off

The Ontario provincial election campaign is officially underway, and I think the lead of this article in the Globe & Mail sums-up well how things have gone so far:

Voters got a sense of Ontario's election campaign yesterday with Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty listing his past successes in public education, and his chief opponent labeling him a promise breaker.
That pretty well sums it up. While McGuinty has been talking about his accomplishments, discussing policy and outlining goals, the Tory Conservatives have been relentlessly negative, with nasty radio ads and personal attacks on the Web. And when Tory does try to talk policy, well, it doesn’t go well and the clarifications inevitably follow.

Tory really does seem to be dialing-up the rhetoric with comments like these:
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is the worst promise breaker of modern times, Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said Sunday on the eve of a 31-day provincial election campaign.
Really John, the worst promise breaker in modern history? As Seth and Amy would say, really John Tory? I mean, obviously Tory needs to hammer on the health care premium issue. I think there’s a solid counter-argument to be made on the Liberal side, given the record the Harris/Eves Conservatives left behind, but it’s fair game and a key issue for Tory.

But the worst promise breaker in history? Really? Don’t overreach John. Descend into hyperbole and people won’t take you seriously. I mean, why just in modern history? Why not the worst promise-breaker of all time, or, as comic book guy would say, worst promise-breaker ever? Maybe there’s a French king in the 1600s that was a worst promise breaker, hence the qualifier from Tory. I mean, really.

But I can see why John is jumping-on the hyperbole train and going negative hard. A new SES poll today shows, despite all the Tory hype, the Liberals lead the Conservatives (opens pdf). The poll puts the Liberals up six on the Conservatives at 40 per cent of committed voters to the Conservatives’ 34 per cent, with the NDP back at 19 per cent and Greens at 8 per cent.

Some 15 per cent are undecided meaning this is still anyone’s game, could go either way, and everyone will have to work very hard the next few weeks. But the vaunted Tory hype hasn’t translated into support yet. Also, looking at the polling period it appears Tory’s creationism faux pas, which pissed-off both the left and the right, wasn’t factored into these numbers. It will be interesting to see how that plays-out in the next poll. A new Ipsos poll also puts the Liberals in majority territory, albeit a slim one.

Tory is going to need to start having better weeks than he did last week though. He broke his promise and went fiercely negative, came-out against a new holiday for Ontarians, insulted University of Ottawa grads and students, confused everyone about creationism, and accused teachers and the government of a conspiracy to artificially boost test scores. Yeesh.

And now, Tory’s fiscal plan is being assailed as “lacking credibility.” Not a good start to the week, but it can only get better for John…right?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Queue Kinsella and his purple dinosaur...

That a political leader would make these comments seem to be to be one heckuva good argument AGAINST the theory of intelligent design, because this is just crazy (h/t):

John Tory spent the morning promoting his $400 million election campaign promise to introduce public funding for faith-based schools and acknowledged that under the plan, schools would be allowed teach controversial subjects such a creationism.

“They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum but they also could teach the facts to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs,” the Progressive Conservative Leader told reporters.

Taxpayer dollars to teach creationism alongside evolution in taxpayer-funded schools? And creationism, rather than the psuedo-creationism that is intelligent design, which the religious right in the U.S. is trying to peddle to overcome the church/state issue? Wowza.

And to think I thought John wasn’t conservative! Shame on me. With policy disasters like this, banishing the word from his election signs is the least of his worries. If he was looking to throw a sop to a conservative base that felt abandoned by The John Tory Team, boy howdy, did he pick a bad issue. I don't even recall Mike Harris taking a run at this one.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

John's going negative, and he's doing it poorly too

The media seems to be awakening to the fact that John Tory's provincial election campaign in Ontario, which isn't even officially underway yet, seems to have taken a decidedly negative tone.

And he's not even doing a very good job of being negative. Take this latest incident, luckily captured on video and posted to YouTube, where Tory mocks a voter’s attendance of the University of Ottawa:



The University of Zero? Is that the best Tory could come-up with? As an alum of cross-town rival Carleton University, aka. Last Chance U, Cartoon U and Carleton, where the K stands for quality, I could have provided him with many much more colourful nicknames for the U of O. We even had a whole song, and it’s bilingual too. Granted, much of it is rather vulgar and profane, but if you’re going to insult someone at least do it with style, John!

And then there’s Tory’s coming-out against the Liberal proposal for a statutory holiday in February: Family Day. Yes, that’s right, the Conservatives are opposed to holidays! And possibly families. Tune in next week for Tory’s keynote address “Cuddly Puppies, and why I think they’re lame.” And his coming proposal to stop kittens from playing with balls of yarn.

But seriously though, Tory's negativism goes beyond Ottawa U students, holidays, and possibly puppies. The Cons have released two new radio ads, one about Liberal spending and another about lottery fraud. Take a listen, it's hard to describe them as anything but negative.

And then, as Vicky notes, on John’s own Web site there’s a video that calls Dalton McGuinty a homewrecker. Ironically, John calls his Web site “leadership matters.” I’m not sure how leadership came to equal mudslinging, but alrighty then.

Anyway, so Tory’s going negative, maybe the homewrecker crack is a bit far but so what, politics is politics, and politicians go negative, right? Sure they do. But they don’t usually solemnly promise not to go negative first:

"I will not be engaging in personal attacks, I will not be personalizing, I have no interest in doing that - I'm going to try to raise the bar, in terms of the behaviour in politics and the way people conduct themselves in politics."
--John Tory, The Toronto Star, February 2, 2005

So, in an election where the Conservatives…oh, sorry, the John Tory team…is making such a big deal out of Liberal broken promises, they go out and break a big promise before the campaign is even officially underway.

I’ll give John this, he’s nothing if not ambitious. And negatively so.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers