First off, I'm happy that the new cabinet will have two Missers (a phrase I am now declaring coined, if no one else has) at the table, with Mississauga-Erindale MPP Harinder Takhar keeping his spot as minister of small business and entrepreneurship, and Peter Fonseca over in Mississauga-East getting a promotion to Tourism. While Harinder keeping his portfolio (small business being in Mississauga does make a lot of sense) is not a great surprise, and Fonseca getting into cabinet is as I predicted in a blog post last week (I figured either Fonseca or Sousa would get in, so my "Portuguese guy from Mississauga theory was correct) but I was slightly surprised at the portfolio. Tourism is generally given to someone from a well, "touristy" place, and while Mississauga is a great place to live, I wouldn't exactly call it a tourist destination.
Perhaps the Liberal government has a grand scheme to make the GTA West a hot spot of tourism. While Fonseca's riding does cover the "downtown" of Mississauga, and as such would probably be the focal point of any tourist development, for us down in the South, developing the lakefront would be a good tourist draw. and is something Sousa stressed during his campaign, to work towards turning Lakeview into "the Beaches of the West". Between Fonseca in Tourism, and Harinder in small business, Mississauga can probably expect some nice little investments over the next 4 years to help keep moving forward.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
What, me worry?
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/271064
Hopefully, things like this can show that Dion's leadership of the party is in command, particularly given that the GTA is the powerbase for Rae, Ignatieff, and Kennedy. The annual meeting is a good step forward to ensure a connection between the Leadership and the grassroots, and combined with the upcoming LPC-O AGM, should be a good step forward in ensuring party unity and renewal.
Hopefully, things like this can show that Dion's leadership of the party is in command, particularly given that the GTA is the powerbase for Rae, Ignatieff, and Kennedy. The annual meeting is a good step forward to ensure a connection between the Leadership and the grassroots, and combined with the upcoming LPC-O AGM, should be a good step forward in ensuring party unity and renewal.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Sorbara leaving cabinet
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071026/sorbara_leaving_cabinet_071026/20071026?hub=QPeriod
Wow. This comes as a pretty big surprise. Sorbara, who is a close ally of McGuinty, and basically saved his ass after the 99' election, seemed pretty secure in his spot as Finance Minister, particularly after running the very successful re-election campaign. Sorbara said he "wants to spend time with his family", which could either be very true, or be a euphemism. While it is still too early to tell what Sorbara's resignation could mean from a policy perspective, to me, it raises two key points:
1. With McGuinty's closest cabinet ally quiting, is that a sign the next leadership race might be starting sooner than we think? I don't think Sorbara has an interest in being party leader/Premier, so I don't think he himself would make a run, but his departure could be a sign that the "old guard" of the party wants to make a peaceful exit before the gritty stuff happens. I do think that McGuinty, whose personal popularity is below that of the party and the Liberal brand, will probably want to pull a Bill Davis, and step down as leader whenever the polls are showing he is really popular, but I don't see that happening for at least a couple of years. As Sorbara was the 2nd in command, and such a close ally of McGuinty, it is hard to imagine anyone could muscle him out but McGuinty, and no reason why McGuinty would want to remove him is apparent.
2. The new cabinet will be wide open. Ian Urquhart wrote (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/269115) about how Smithermann would be the key character in any cabinent shuffle, and that if Smithermann wanted to stay at Health, the cabinet would retain much of its current make-up, but if he wanted to move to another portfolio (the article discusses Environment) in preparation for a run for either party leadership, or for Mayor of Toronto, that would be a sign the cabinet would be more wide open. With Sorbara gone however, even if Smithermann does want to stay at Health, I think we can expect more of a major shuffle. The media buzz has focused on some of the more high-profile rookies, including Margarett Best in Scarborough-Guildwood, Sophia Aggelonitis in Hamilton Mountain, and my man Charles Sousa in Mississauga-South. I think Sophia is a good bet, being both a woman, and a Liberal in Hamilton, which is an NDP area, and Charles has a good shot too, since he won a traditionally PC seat that was supposed to be close so overwhelmingly, combined with media speculation about Harinder Takhar losing his portfolio, and the need to have a cabinet minister from Mississauga. I think that it is a safe bet that irregardless of what happens to Takhar, a Portuguese guy from Mississauga will be in cabinet, meaning either Charles in the South to both consolidate the gains made in a traditionally PC seat, and reward him for his victory, or Peter Fonseca, who has seniority over Sousa and has built himself a very nice power base and a safe seat in Mississauga East-Cooksville.
Outside Mississauga, look for former federal cabinet minister Aileen Carroll, who picked up Barrie, (the seat she used to represent federally) from the PC's, to be a fairly safe bet to get into cabinet. Kevin Flynn in Oakville has a shot, as does Deb Matthews, particularly as with the defeat of Caroline Di Cocco, the Liberals have a female, South-Western gap to fill. I also think that Kathleen Wynne, fresh of the victory over John Tory, might be a dark horse to get a promotion to finance minister. And be sure to watch the big names that have leadership whispers around them; Jim Watson, George Smithermann, Michael Bryant, and Dwight Duncan.
Wow. This comes as a pretty big surprise. Sorbara, who is a close ally of McGuinty, and basically saved his ass after the 99' election, seemed pretty secure in his spot as Finance Minister, particularly after running the very successful re-election campaign. Sorbara said he "wants to spend time with his family", which could either be very true, or be a euphemism. While it is still too early to tell what Sorbara's resignation could mean from a policy perspective, to me, it raises two key points:
1. With McGuinty's closest cabinet ally quiting, is that a sign the next leadership race might be starting sooner than we think? I don't think Sorbara has an interest in being party leader/Premier, so I don't think he himself would make a run, but his departure could be a sign that the "old guard" of the party wants to make a peaceful exit before the gritty stuff happens. I do think that McGuinty, whose personal popularity is below that of the party and the Liberal brand, will probably want to pull a Bill Davis, and step down as leader whenever the polls are showing he is really popular, but I don't see that happening for at least a couple of years. As Sorbara was the 2nd in command, and such a close ally of McGuinty, it is hard to imagine anyone could muscle him out but McGuinty, and no reason why McGuinty would want to remove him is apparent.
2. The new cabinet will be wide open. Ian Urquhart wrote (http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/269115) about how Smithermann would be the key character in any cabinent shuffle, and that if Smithermann wanted to stay at Health, the cabinet would retain much of its current make-up, but if he wanted to move to another portfolio (the article discusses Environment) in preparation for a run for either party leadership, or for Mayor of Toronto, that would be a sign the cabinet would be more wide open. With Sorbara gone however, even if Smithermann does want to stay at Health, I think we can expect more of a major shuffle. The media buzz has focused on some of the more high-profile rookies, including Margarett Best in Scarborough-Guildwood, Sophia Aggelonitis in Hamilton Mountain, and my man Charles Sousa in Mississauga-South. I think Sophia is a good bet, being both a woman, and a Liberal in Hamilton, which is an NDP area, and Charles has a good shot too, since he won a traditionally PC seat that was supposed to be close so overwhelmingly, combined with media speculation about Harinder Takhar losing his portfolio, and the need to have a cabinet minister from Mississauga. I think that it is a safe bet that irregardless of what happens to Takhar, a Portuguese guy from Mississauga will be in cabinet, meaning either Charles in the South to both consolidate the gains made in a traditionally PC seat, and reward him for his victory, or Peter Fonseca, who has seniority over Sousa and has built himself a very nice power base and a safe seat in Mississauga East-Cooksville.
Outside Mississauga, look for former federal cabinet minister Aileen Carroll, who picked up Barrie, (the seat she used to represent federally) from the PC's, to be a fairly safe bet to get into cabinet. Kevin Flynn in Oakville has a shot, as does Deb Matthews, particularly as with the defeat of Caroline Di Cocco, the Liberals have a female, South-Western gap to fill. I also think that Kathleen Wynne, fresh of the victory over John Tory, might be a dark horse to get a promotion to finance minister. And be sure to watch the big names that have leadership whispers around them; Jim Watson, George Smithermann, Michael Bryant, and Dwight Duncan.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Dion stands up for Canadian identity, and a democratic Quebec
I blogged about the PQ's thinly veiled "identity" bill (http://theliberalbag.blogspot.com/2007/10/pq-and-separatist-movement-has-not.html) previously, and now, thankfully and rightfully, Dion and the federal Liberals have entered the debate, to defend the values of the Quiet Revolution and a united, multi-ethnic, democratic Quebec.
"Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion called it a sovereigntist plot to broaden the French-English split and increase the PQ's popularity. He urged Marois to withdraw the bill.
"Thankfully we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prevents certain politicians from going off the rails like she has," Dion said."
When people ask, "What do Liberals stand for?" this is a good example to point them towards: Defending democratic rights, making a united Canada work within the framework of the Charter, defending the rights of individual citizens under the law, and committed to the ideals of a just society and multiculturalism.
And what of the Conservatives, who claim to be "putting Canada on the right track?"
Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn turned aside questions on the issue.
"That's their debate," Blackburn said, referring to provincial politicians.
Prime Minister Stephan Harper's office declined to comment.
Shameful. Apparently the Conservative vision for Canada is one of government apathy towards the rights of citizens. Although given the slashing of the Court Challenges Program, the stacking of the independent and trusted judiciary with socially regressive party hacks, and the desire to wantonly abandon all federal government power for the sake of vote buying, it is too be expected. Actions, statements, and views like these are another warning of what Canadians can expect from a Conservative majority.
"Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion called it a sovereigntist plot to broaden the French-English split and increase the PQ's popularity. He urged Marois to withdraw the bill.
"Thankfully we have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prevents certain politicians from going off the rails like she has," Dion said."
When people ask, "What do Liberals stand for?" this is a good example to point them towards: Defending democratic rights, making a united Canada work within the framework of the Charter, defending the rights of individual citizens under the law, and committed to the ideals of a just society and multiculturalism.
And what of the Conservatives, who claim to be "putting Canada on the right track?"
Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn turned aside questions on the issue.
"That's their debate," Blackburn said, referring to provincial politicians.
Prime Minister Stephan Harper's office declined to comment.
Shameful. Apparently the Conservative vision for Canada is one of government apathy towards the rights of citizens. Although given the slashing of the Court Challenges Program, the stacking of the independent and trusted judiciary with socially regressive party hacks, and the desire to wantonly abandon all federal government power for the sake of vote buying, it is too be expected. Actions, statements, and views like these are another warning of what Canadians can expect from a Conservative majority.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Conservatives "false" plan for a war on drugs
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20071019_144237_6108
The Conservatives have been ramping up the rhetoric recently on drugs in Canada, discussing the need to get "tough" on the issue, and that, in the words of Tony Clement, "The party's over". While the Conservatives had attempt to frame the issue as one of "safer communities and families", an examination of the actual issues and policy shows that the Conservative plan is focused on things they want to do very badly: ignore urban voters and issues (because urban voters won't vote Conservative anyway) kowtow to social conservatives in the party, attempt to win over suburban voters (who generally haven't, but might start voting Conservative) and blatantly copy Republican Party style rhetoric that is short on results but long on soundbites about "toughness" and "leadership".
Perhaps the prime example is the issue of safe injection sites. Despite clear results of the benefits of supervised injection programs, Conservatives want to ignore "inconvenient truths" about harm reduction because it is harder to sell to the base, and, because it requires seeing issues like drug use and abuse in more than nuanced terms, is difficult for Conservatives to remove the black and white tinted glasses.
Former mayor of Vancouver mayor Philip Owen, who invested in, and saw results from, Vancouver's drug safe-injection site, has called the plan "uninformed". Considering Harper is an economist, one would have assumed he would understand issues like supply and demand, but the Conservatives seem to be taking a page out the NDP playbook by ignoring basic rules of economics. By locking up drug dealers, both minor and major, yes, supply can be affected. But demand will still exist, and given the lack of emphasis on harm reduction in the Conservative plan, all that can result is a destructive cycle that will lead to ever more amounts of tax dollars being thrown away, less safe communities, and the high paradox of US-style drug policies, more criminals convicted, but a more broken system. A heavy-handed, paternalistic, freedom endangering drug policy can do no good for anyone. Drug polices must take into consideration those on the front lines of the struggle against abuse, rather than political convenience, and the Conservatives are showing a lack of leadership, and failing Canadians in this regard.
The Conservatives have been ramping up the rhetoric recently on drugs in Canada, discussing the need to get "tough" on the issue, and that, in the words of Tony Clement, "The party's over". While the Conservatives had attempt to frame the issue as one of "safer communities and families", an examination of the actual issues and policy shows that the Conservative plan is focused on things they want to do very badly: ignore urban voters and issues (because urban voters won't vote Conservative anyway) kowtow to social conservatives in the party, attempt to win over suburban voters (who generally haven't, but might start voting Conservative) and blatantly copy Republican Party style rhetoric that is short on results but long on soundbites about "toughness" and "leadership".
Perhaps the prime example is the issue of safe injection sites. Despite clear results of the benefits of supervised injection programs, Conservatives want to ignore "inconvenient truths" about harm reduction because it is harder to sell to the base, and, because it requires seeing issues like drug use and abuse in more than nuanced terms, is difficult for Conservatives to remove the black and white tinted glasses.
Former mayor of Vancouver mayor Philip Owen, who invested in, and saw results from, Vancouver's drug safe-injection site, has called the plan "uninformed". Considering Harper is an economist, one would have assumed he would understand issues like supply and demand, but the Conservatives seem to be taking a page out the NDP playbook by ignoring basic rules of economics. By locking up drug dealers, both minor and major, yes, supply can be affected. But demand will still exist, and given the lack of emphasis on harm reduction in the Conservative plan, all that can result is a destructive cycle that will lead to ever more amounts of tax dollars being thrown away, less safe communities, and the high paradox of US-style drug policies, more criminals convicted, but a more broken system. A heavy-handed, paternalistic, freedom endangering drug policy can do no good for anyone. Drug polices must take into consideration those on the front lines of the struggle against abuse, rather than political convenience, and the Conservatives are showing a lack of leadership, and failing Canadians in this regard.
Friday, October 19, 2007
PQ and separatist movement has not evolved since "money and the ethnic vote"
With hearings on "reasonable accommodation" going on, and the PQ eager to gain back nationalist voters from the regions who voted ADQ because Mario Dumont raised the Montreal Muslim boogeyman more often, it is unsuprising to see the PQ table such an offensive and less subtle motion. While Marois also discusses the need for more French learning programs for immigrants, which is a fairly uncontroversial idea that could help both the tensions of accommodation and the economy, the main thrust of this bill is simple: discourage immigrants from joining the political process. With the ADQ, the federal Conservatives, and even now the PQ looking to roll back the Quiet Revoultion and using increasingly xenophobic rhetoric in hope of picking up nationalist votes, Liberals and Liberalism in Quebec must clearly draw a position in favour of tolerance, secularism, and cultural growth as part of a framing agenda to protect the values of Quebec within Canada. Never forget the words of liberal thinker and forerunner of the Quiet Revolution, Jean-Charles Harvey: "French has a chance of survival only if it becomes the synonym of audacity, culture, civilization and liberty". Liberals must show they are the party of audacity, culture, civilization and liberty.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Ottawa Centre
So Yasir Naqvi managed to hold on to Ottawa Centre from the NDP, who had this as one of their top targets. What does this mean for the riding federally?
The NDP does own the seat federally, with Paul Dewar being the incumbent. His victory over arch-Martinite Richard Mahoney in 2006 was somewhat of a surprise, as it was thought that Mahoney (who had he been elected would have most certainly been given a high level cabinet post) had only lost to the NDP in 2004 because former leader and living legend Ed Broadbent was the candidate. Let's examine the both the 2000 and 2004 Federal results:
2000:
Liberal
Mac Harb
22,710
New Democrat
Heather-Jane Robertson
13,515
Canadian Alliance
David Brown
10,163
Progressive Conservative
Beverly Mitchell
7,501
Green
Chris Bradshaw
1,529
In 2000, an election which saw Chretien at the height of his power, the Liberals easily held the seat. In 2004:
New Democrat
Ed Broadbent
25,734
41.05%
Liberal
Richard Mahoney
19,478
31.07%
Conservative
Mike Murphy
11,933
19.03
Green
David Chernushenko
4,730
7.54%
A massive surge for the NDP, a drop for the Liberals, and the growth of the Greens are all notable here. Now, making allowances for the drop the Liberals saw overall in this election, and the star candidate make the NDP victory less surprising in retrospect. By 2006 however, the Liberals wanted the seat, and given that Broadbent was not running for re-election, Mahoney was figured by many to have a much easier go. The results though, didn't pan out:
2006:
NDP
Paul Dewar
24,611
36.9%
Liberal
MAHONEY, Richard
19,468
29.2%
Conservative
FOUNTAIN, Keith
15,105
22.7%
Green
CHERNUSHENKO, David
6,765
10.2%
Another NDP victory, although both the NDP and the Liberals appear to have lost some overall percentage to the rising Greens and Conservatives. Something to remember though, the rough breakdown of the votes was 35%-30%-20%-10%.
Lets examine the provincial scene. The incumbent Liberal, Richard Patten, had been around forever, and left in a bit of a huff, (although he still played an active role supporting Yasir's campaign) leaving the riding fairly open. In step 4 youngsters in Yasir Naqvi, Will Murray, Trina Morissette and Greg Laxton to try and win the divided riding, although only Yasir and Will had an actual chance, save for a massive PC lifting. For context, here are the 2003 provincial results:
Liberal
Richard Patten
22,295
45.1
New Democrat
Jeff Atkinson
11,362
23.0
Progressive Conservative
Joe Varner
11,217
22.7
Green
Chris Bradshaw
3,821
7.7
So Richard has a fairly safe seat, and the NDP and PC's battle it out for second. Oddly enough, a glance at the provincial results show that although the PC's never won the seat, they were extremely competitive, coming in under 10% behind in every election from 1967-1981, and after that, finishing well behind the eventual winner, with the exception of 1999, coming in 6% behind.
Now, in between the last provincial election and the 2007 one, the NDP had won the riding fairly convincingly twice, and seen the long-time incumbent MPP leave. Ottawa Centre was probably amongst the top 5 targets for the NDP in this election, and a must win seat if they had wished to hold the balance of power in a minority situation. They focused lots of resources on the seat, with federal MP Paul Dewar showing his face frequently, and numerous visits by Howard Hampton. The Liberals ran a tough campaign, wanting to show the NDP that they didn't own the riding yet. The results are as follows:
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi
18,239
35.0
New Democrat
Will Murray
16,074
30.8
Progressive Conservative
Trina Morissette
10,410
20.0
Green
Greg Laxton
6,438
12.3
So what do we see? My first reaction was that the share of votes for each parties position was nearly the exact same as the previous federal election, with the winner taking 35%, the runner up 30%, (with the actual winner and loser being reversed) and the Conservative and Green votes remaining similar, at 20-ish% and 10-ish percent. Now of course, federal and provincial dynamics are different, but I can draw similarities between Yasir and Paul's victory. Both saw victory despite a decline in overall vote share, both were running to take over from high profile incumbents, and both faced tough fights. Overall, the fact that we were able to run a more effective campaign is what kept the riding Liberal. Will Murray had a potential pool of 40% of the voters who went NDP only 3 years ago, and was only able to get 30%, while Yasir and his team were able to raise the Liberal vote from below 30% to a victory. The victory was certainly a morale raiser, and should help the team manage to get Penny Collenette a very good shot at knocking off Paul Dewar, who didn't seem to help Will Murray much.
The NDP does own the seat federally, with Paul Dewar being the incumbent. His victory over arch-Martinite Richard Mahoney in 2006 was somewhat of a surprise, as it was thought that Mahoney (who had he been elected would have most certainly been given a high level cabinet post) had only lost to the NDP in 2004 because former leader and living legend Ed Broadbent was the candidate. Let's examine the both the 2000 and 2004 Federal results:
2000:
Liberal
Mac Harb
22,710
New Democrat
Heather-Jane Robertson
13,515
Canadian Alliance
David Brown
10,163
Progressive Conservative
Beverly Mitchell
7,501
Green
Chris Bradshaw
1,529
In 2000, an election which saw Chretien at the height of his power, the Liberals easily held the seat. In 2004:
New Democrat
Ed Broadbent
25,734
41.05%
Liberal
Richard Mahoney
19,478
31.07%
Conservative
Mike Murphy
11,933
19.03
Green
David Chernushenko
4,730
7.54%
A massive surge for the NDP, a drop for the Liberals, and the growth of the Greens are all notable here. Now, making allowances for the drop the Liberals saw overall in this election, and the star candidate make the NDP victory less surprising in retrospect. By 2006 however, the Liberals wanted the seat, and given that Broadbent was not running for re-election, Mahoney was figured by many to have a much easier go. The results though, didn't pan out:
2006:
NDP
Paul Dewar
24,611
36.9%
Liberal
MAHONEY, Richard
19,468
29.2%
Conservative
FOUNTAIN, Keith
15,105
22.7%
Green
CHERNUSHENKO, David
6,765
10.2%
Another NDP victory, although both the NDP and the Liberals appear to have lost some overall percentage to the rising Greens and Conservatives. Something to remember though, the rough breakdown of the votes was 35%-30%-20%-10%.
Lets examine the provincial scene. The incumbent Liberal, Richard Patten, had been around forever, and left in a bit of a huff, (although he still played an active role supporting Yasir's campaign) leaving the riding fairly open. In step 4 youngsters in Yasir Naqvi, Will Murray, Trina Morissette and Greg Laxton to try and win the divided riding, although only Yasir and Will had an actual chance, save for a massive PC lifting. For context, here are the 2003 provincial results:
Liberal
Richard Patten
22,295
45.1
New Democrat
Jeff Atkinson
11,362
23.0
Progressive Conservative
Joe Varner
11,217
22.7
Green
Chris Bradshaw
3,821
7.7
So Richard has a fairly safe seat, and the NDP and PC's battle it out for second. Oddly enough, a glance at the provincial results show that although the PC's never won the seat, they were extremely competitive, coming in under 10% behind in every election from 1967-1981, and after that, finishing well behind the eventual winner, with the exception of 1999, coming in 6% behind.
Now, in between the last provincial election and the 2007 one, the NDP had won the riding fairly convincingly twice, and seen the long-time incumbent MPP leave. Ottawa Centre was probably amongst the top 5 targets for the NDP in this election, and a must win seat if they had wished to hold the balance of power in a minority situation. They focused lots of resources on the seat, with federal MP Paul Dewar showing his face frequently, and numerous visits by Howard Hampton. The Liberals ran a tough campaign, wanting to show the NDP that they didn't own the riding yet. The results are as follows:
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi
18,239
35.0
New Democrat
Will Murray
16,074
30.8
Progressive Conservative
Trina Morissette
10,410
20.0
Green
Greg Laxton
6,438
12.3
So what do we see? My first reaction was that the share of votes for each parties position was nearly the exact same as the previous federal election, with the winner taking 35%, the runner up 30%, (with the actual winner and loser being reversed) and the Conservative and Green votes remaining similar, at 20-ish% and 10-ish percent. Now of course, federal and provincial dynamics are different, but I can draw similarities between Yasir and Paul's victory. Both saw victory despite a decline in overall vote share, both were running to take over from high profile incumbents, and both faced tough fights. Overall, the fact that we were able to run a more effective campaign is what kept the riding Liberal. Will Murray had a potential pool of 40% of the voters who went NDP only 3 years ago, and was only able to get 30%, while Yasir and his team were able to raise the Liberal vote from below 30% to a victory. The victory was certainly a morale raiser, and should help the team manage to get Penny Collenette a very good shot at knocking off Paul Dewar, who didn't seem to help Will Murray much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)