Seems like a prime opportunity for Jack Layton to realize his high school dream of one day being Prime Minister - I mean, surely, outgoing Dion would not be suitable, nor would he want, to lead a coalition of the Liberals and NDP. Interesting days ahead for sure.
Sphere: Related ContentLatest polls are in from Harris/Decima. The gap is getting tighter and tighter. Here’s the past three days polling stats:
The NDP and Green soft vote is shifting to the Liberals. Nanos put the Liberals even closer yesterday.
Of interest, Dion is polling higher in “leadership” than Harper.
41% positive for Dion, 40% positive for Harper
stuff
Economy issue good for the Liberals, bad for the Cons and NDP
The latest polls from Nanos are showing some very exciting data. As most of us know, the only real way to prevent a Conservative government, at least in this election and short of forming a coalition government, is to vote Liberal - and it seems the Canadian public are making the shift.
Why is it happening? I think part of this is attributable to both Harper’s and Dion’s performances at the debates, but more than anything else, its Harper’s “laissez faire” attitude to the economy that’s changing this race. Elections aren’t won, they are lost.
Don’t want to call anything too early as stats are constantly in flux, but the trend looks good.
Cons down (34%), Libs up (31%), NDP down (18%), Bloc up (11%), Greens down (6%)
Cons up (33%), Libs up (39%), NDP down (25%), Greens up (3%)
Cons up (20%), Libs down (22%), NDP up (11%), Bloc up (46%), Greens down (2%)
Cons down (31%), Libs up (40%), NDP down (22%), Greens up (7%)
Cons steady (47%), Libs up (26%), NDP down (18%), Greens steady (8%)
Overall, the English debate was a much more mixed event to me than was the French debate last night. There was no clear winner, a lot of the discussion was a repeat of the French debate, and the discussion was less ideas-based and more argumentative.
I would like to note that, from my perspective, the moderator from TVO seemed to ask some rather offbeat questions and tended to favour Stephen Harper with both response opportunities and his biased, fringe queries.
1. Jack Layton and Stéphane Dion
To me, there was no clear winner. That said, these two made the most gains in the night.
Jack had two great one-liners. Calling out Harper on his lack of clear policies, he asked, “Where is your platform? Under the sweater?” and, in talking about the effect of the economic woes on average Canadians, “Either you don’t care or you’re incompetent. Which is it?”
Layton attacked Dion a few times, dropped the prime minister line a few times, surprisingly agreed with comments from both Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May, and continued to focus his talking points on raising corporate taxes to help pay for better infrastructure, R&D, healthcare, and child care.
Jack’s problem though was that he stayed the course. He comes across to me as far too scripted. Furthermore, I’m not too big on his “average Canadians”, “kitchen table” bombardments, so I’m a bit biased. He was strong, but he didn’t outright win it for me.
Stéphane needed a breakthrough here, and the delivery was mixed. I think once again, the language barrier was the problem. He was excessively stiff at the beginning, but at times throughout the debate he showed genuine caring and passion about his country and the issues we face in Canada. It was the same type of energy he gave off in the French debates, however, it wasn’t as well presented because of his lack of understanding for English vocabulary and the language’s rules.
Dion was quite solid in presenting a number of progressive Liberal policies, and did very good (with the help of Liz May and Gilles Duceppe) to properly confront Harper’s claims that the Green Shift was a tax hike. He explained several times he would lower taxes on what we want, like income, investments, and profits, and raise taxes on pollution. It will help to address a lot of the misinformation the Conservatives and the NDP have been spreading about the carbon tax shift.
Dion’s performance was enough to sway a few votes, but wasn’t what he needed to put himself back in this race. I don’t think he did well enough to really change things, unfortunately.
2. Gilles Duceppe, Elizabeth May, and Stephen Harper
Duceppe brought forth some good attacks on Harper, but tried too much to constantly put Québec first over the rest of Canada. He played a lesser role than in the French debates, and rightly so. His English is better than Dion’s, in my opinion.
Liz May didn’t produce the stellar performance I was looking for after her terrible French last evening. If anything, I feel she got less air time than yesterday, she put forth even less Green party policies than yesterday, and focused primarily on calling out Harper. I think it helped Dion and Layton, hurt Harper, but I don’t know if it will produce too many votes for the Green party. She did however mention Nova Scotia specifically a few times, and I think that may very well translate into more support for her personally in the Central Nova riding she’s trying to win.
And good on Liz for making electoral reform and proportional representation her number one priority!
Stephen Harper tried again at the beginning to attack the other parties, and the Liberals specifically, on “big government” policies and “raising taxes”. However, he quickly ceded and stayed on the defensive all night. It’s quite obvious his whole image was scripted by the Conservative war room. Part of this image though is having Harper refrain from attacking the other parties or leaders in an attempt to make him seem more warm and fuzzy - like a blue sweater!
I personally think that in doing so though, by allowing the parties to gang up on him, it made Harper look weak and I think will lower his numbers on “leadership”.
Sphere: Related ContentI watched a lovely online stream of the non-dubbed version at Radio-Canada.ca last night. Thank god it wasn’t the awful WMV streams that CBC uses, but instead was this terrific Silverlight, Flash-like app stream, with very high quality video. The CBC and other news outlets could learn something from Radio-Canada here.
I actually really enjoyed the roundtable format. It was the difference between a press conference and a John Lennon sit-in, and I thought it allowed the candidates to loosen their ties (or blouses) a bit. I found the format allowed for direct dialogue and debate in a way the podiums don’t.
1. Stéphane Dion
He was the obvious winner of the night. Stéphane was a little stiff at the beginning, but soon got into his element. Towards the end, he was speaking more passionately on crime and Canada’s place in the world than I’ve ever heard him talk about the environment!
He spoke directly to the question making citizens, which was a nice touch. His responses were concise, accurate, and passionate - he would attack the Conservatives record, but at the same time explain easily what a Liberal government would do differently.
I do think there’s two reasons Dion did so well. The whole night he stayed on the offensive because neither Layton, nor Harper required him to get into why the Liberals didn’t accomplish this or that during their 13 years in office. He managed to not get into defensive territory, which was good for him.
Furthermore, I think language had a huge effect here. More than ever, I realized that potentially Dion’s single biggest problem is that English is not his first language! I saw this problem on almost everyone except Duceppe (that’s for tonight!). In French, Dion was able to say exactly what he wanted without having to try and figure out what the word is in English. It’s a huge barrier for his campaign.
2. Gilles Duceppe
Gilles was, in my opinion, the runner up of the evening. It’s quite plain to see that Duceppe has been around for a while, and this is in fact advantageous for him and his party. Fortunately, the Bloc, seemingly, has a lot of progressive ideas for Québec, and I think instead of having his experience to weigh him down as an old man with old policies (McCain anyone?), by mixing his wealth of knowledge with the party’s progressive plans, Duceppe remains lively and original.
He is quite capable of expressing his policies very well and put a lot of pressure all evening on Harper, comparing him several times to George Bush. Duceppe was able to tie in, time and time again, how each topic would affect Québec, something Harper didn’t even touch on once!
Duceppe knows the territory, and he performed wonderfully. He’s able to touch on the different levels of government, the relations between them all and Québec, and even branched out a little in mentioning Ontario and Alberta.
3. Jack Layton
Jack stayed on his message, dropping the “If I were PM” line several times. He had his facts prepared, his policies ready to explain, and attacked both Harper and Dion. He just didn’t really stand out during the debate.
One thing I find troubling is Layton’s french voice, which sounds heavily of an English-accent and I think could be holding him back a little in Québec (it’s surprising because he grew up in la belle province).
4. Elizabeth May
Liz won points just by being there. Her french was absolutely horrific, and at times she would go into English or ask for the translated word from the moderator. The language barrier was here again with Liz. For example, while Dion or Duceppe would be able to fit in a mouthful during his 45 seconds, Liz would talk very slowly, trying to translate in real time in her head - it held her back dramatically.
That said, she was able to broadly explain most of the Green party’s policies, and tried to call out Harper on every lie he made during the debate. The evening was better with her there though, and I think it’s apparent she’ll do much better on the English debates.
5. Stephen Harper
He was the clear loser. Harper was on the defensive all night with attacks coming from all sides. At the beginning, he tried to drop the “we dont’ need more taxes right now” line, but he soon let up and didn’t really attack any other party all night.
He did remain calm and on message throughout the whole debate and he deservers points for being able to “stay the course”
—————————————————————————–
The English debates will be broadcast this evening at 6pm on CBC, CTV, Global, City TV, Newsnet, and Newsworld.
Sphere: Related Content
Elizabeth May in happier times
A favourite religious past time of Conservative candidate Nicole Charbonneau Barron
Former PM Jean Chrétien rocking out with Bono's glasses. Warning: This image is completely unrelated to the story below
Only in America
Wow, he sure does remind me of Barack Obama! Strike that pose Jack!
“The Conservative Party today released a website with a puffin defecating on Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.”
Imagine Harper here instead
While I am not necessarily a Green party member myself, I definitely support the majority of their policies and would do everything I could to ensure that their voice in represented in government. I think it’s quite clear, with polling rates hovering just under 10% that the Greens at least deserve to be in the national debates, if not, perhaps, even gain a seat or two in Parliament.
The argument that they are a fringe party does not hold up because of their high polling numbers. I remember when the Greens had 1-2% not too long ago. In fact, more locally, in Vancouver Centre, a high profile riding with Hedy Fry for the Liberals, Lorne Mayencourt for the Conservatives, Michael Byers for the NDP, and Adrianne Carr for the Greens, guess who’s polling at the tops?
According to Rob Hines, the Green Party’s regional organizer for B.C. and the North, three recent polls have showed Carr to be in second behind the incumbent Fry.
Carr said she wasn’t sure there’d been that many polls, but she’d heard from a reliable source about how when the Conservatives were testing Mayencourt’s name with the public they discovered Carr was doing surprisingly well and running second in the riding.
Furthermore, what’s more fringe - a party that represents the interest of one particular province with the single purpose of weaning out as much as it can from the federal government on the threat that they will secede if they are not satisfied, or a party that represents progressive sustainable policies for the environment and society across the country?
And sure, maybe the Greens are making more deals with the Liberals. But so what? In this day and age, with a broken electoral system that is not representative of the popular vote, and with the Conservatives on the door step of a majority government, what exactly are your priorities? If you ever study the policies of the two parties, they are in fact quite similar, and I do not see what is so wrong with cooperation - in fact, it’s nice to see for once! The Liberals and the Greens support two major ideas - a carbon tax and the removal of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister - and if by working together in a few ridings, they can accomplish this goal, then why not go for it? I believe the country would be stronger by realizing that mutual objective.
So, what the hell is going on when a “consortium” decides that the Green Party will not be included in this years debates:
“The Consortium approached the parties to explore the possibility of including the Green Party in all or part of the Leaders’ Debates. However, three parties opposed its inclusion and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no Leaders’ Debates. In the interest of Canadians, the Consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all.”
Disgusting. Especially knowing the NDP were against having May tag along.
Sphere: Related ContentWith the federal election right around the corner, the latest polls are showing that the Tories are within “striking distance” of a majority, something that is both shocking and quite frightening. If you have followed Stephen Harper or some of his colleagues’ history, you will know that they are truly conservative individuals with extremely right wing agendas.
However, what frustrates me the most is the fact that the majority of Canadians are in fact progressive individuals. There’s the Conservatives who are scooping up the right vote, but then there’s four parties splitting the centre-left vote: the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, and the Bloc.
Here’s the latest polling data done by Globe/CTV:
Which, if you add up the percentages of the four progressive parties, goes to show that there are in fact 73% of Canadians that do not want a Conservative government.
When a progressive populace and a progressive country are represented by a conservative government, I think the alarm bells should be ringing and people should be questioning the representative capacity of our elective system.
I understand why the progressive parties want to stand on their own, but after the Progressive Conservatives merged with the Canadian Alliance, it has in effect given them are unfair advantage over the remaining progressive parties. They collected up their vote, while we continue to split ours.
I do not think the burden should be on gathering the centre-left vote, because Zeus knows the last thing we need is a US-style two party system. We need to be looking seriously at overhauling the elective system and installing some form of proportional representation.
Canada is not a conservative country. Canada should not have a majority Conservative government. Plain and simple.
Sphere: Related ContentBeen emailing with Bryan Volger, one of the advocates behind what we now know as the West Coast Express. I was seeking the information to help in figuring out how to restore service to the Interurban. Here’s what he wrote:
Sphere: Related ContentThe West Coast Express was started by myself at an all mayors rally in Port moody in 1989. At the time the Socreds were loosing power and the N.D.P was building a winning party for the 1990 election. At the same time the Progressive Conservatives in Ottawa were going down in the same year. Both of those parties are no longer with us today. The N.D.P got the majority of the seats in B.C. and pounced on my idea. By 1990 I had formed a group of railway people from across Canada mixed with local intrest groups and called it The Lower Mainland Commuter Rail Consortium. The Consortium dealt with national rail policy which had seen Via chopped in half and C.N. going up for sale.
Via needed more passenger business to stay alive in Vancouver. The proposal was to run commuter rail down the BN-CN tracks and one leg would join up with B.C. Southern and the other leg would go to Mission. Both would split at Sapperton junction. When the merger plans of C.N. and B.N. fell through the commuter rail plan was moved onto C.P.R.track. However we had reached a deal with Burlington Northern for full cooperation from B.C. Transit.
One of the members of the Consortium was Bombardier Transportation who had made bi- level cars for Toronto and Florida. Los Angles Metrolink had ordered about 100 cars and Bombardier offered Glen Clark to order some while the line was up.
Im 1990 I ran in Burnaby for council with the commuter rail plan. I failed to get in because with the C.P.R. I could reach the valley with C.N. access to B.C. Southern tracks at the Patullou rail bridge. At the time in 1986 the Socreds had run light rail cars on the old interurban for Expo 86. Most felt that would continue, but it did not. Proof that it can be done though.
The West Coast Express was part of an international move that had Seattle next in line with the Sounder commuter rail system. The West coast of north America was doing the same thing. These cars are all interchangeable and can be bought and sold if a track lease fails to be renewed.
In 1992 the Cascadia Talgo trains were being built for Amtrack service between Seattle and Vancouver which would connect all commuter rail operations by train on the West Coast.
In 1993 after a year of speeches at cities between Burnaby and Mission every riding was now N.D.P.
The North East Transportation Plan was put together by community groups and B.C. Transit for a fifteen year transportation plan including highways and train infrastructure. It got approval from the B.C. Government and the first objective was to get a deal with the C.P.R. Through the B.C. Terms of Union between Ottawa and B.C. to bring the province into confederation linking Canada by rail and the recent law suit in 1989 by the Socreds to stop Ottawa from shutting down the E&N on Vancouver Island strengthened the B.C. hand.
The cars were ordered in 1992 from Bombardier at 2 million each and G.M. supplied the locomotives.
In 1994 the commuter deal was done giving the commuter rail plan success and the Millennium line to run parallel to the BN-CN tracks. By 1995 the schedule was fixed to have only the commuter rail running in time slots to avoid collisions with freight trains. In 1995 the N.D.P had a name contest and the West Coast Express was chosen.
In 1996 The Millennium Line was planned because the people of Burnaby did not want Skytrain running from Edmonds to Lougheed Mall across Burnaby. With full cooperation from the B.N. and a huge rally the public told Burnaby to build the line from new Westminster over the B.N. yards to Lougheed Mall and follow the original proposal with Skytrain.
Meanwhile the freight company on Vancouver Island Rail America was closing down and B.C. Southern took over. Today theyshare the track with Via Rail and there is no reason why they cannot run in the Fraser Valley also. The President of B.C. Southern told me this year its a done deal if the governments have money. We will not go anywhere without the government. Obviously the former government railway owner followed the same recipe as C.P.Rail. and Express.
So I have got permission to press ahead with railforthevalley.com and other groups. I have submitted a plan to the President of B.C. Southern whom may not reply until the envelope arrives from Victoria. I have written Mr. falcon and he is not against the railway serving the people with passenger rail. He knows the freeway faults and the high gas prices that just started going up last year. I believe he will announce it before the next election.The future expansion of the express was to go around Coquitlam on the C.P tracks from Braid to Coquitlam Station, however I believe that is the Evergreen line with Skytrain now.
The other expansion was to Abbotsford to Mission over the C.P.R. bridge, however now Via does not use that route it is closed to all passenger trains.
Via was awarded a multi-million dollar repair contract by The West coast Express to maintain the cars. Now Via could stay in Vancouver.
The ground work has been done it needs money and I think you have it. Falcon needs pushed, but his political timing to keep the valley Liberal is important.
We have suggest B.C. buy into Bombardier fast train technology being made for Sweden in Canada. The factory goes into operation this year.
This train would getr people from Chilliwack to Whistler in three hours using the B.N. track thru Burnaby to North Vancouver and switch onto C.N. track there.
We have suggested Colorado Rail Car EMU self propelled diesel cars the Budd cars of today.
We have recommended Bus service between Kawatlen College in Langley and The University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford as a inter-city route run by school buses or contract buses. They will pick up at both airports on the Fraser Highway.
Would someone please tell me what all this ridiculous raucous over the carbon tax is about?!
The escalating carbon tax is a mere 2.4 cents to begin with. That is absolutely nothing compared to the market’s 10 cent increase over a week! People are looking for someone to blame for the high gas prices and the media has jumped onto Campbell and his carbon tax.
I’m not trying to support them - the Liberals have done a lot of things wrong in their time. But the NDP are by no means are a reasonable alternative, and they are simply playing into people’s fears - no different than the federal Tories policies! That’s politicking at its highest!
At least Campbell is doing something. The point is that the carbon tax will fund the provision of alternatives. Yes, alternatives should be happening much sooner, and yes, we’ve had a general gas tax for how many years? And yes, there will be regional discrepancies. But to call off a progressive climate change and taxation policy like the carbon tax because gas prices are getting higher is absolutely ridiculous and illogical - especially when the tax itself will only cost 2.4 cents a litre!
Which, according to calculations will only come out to $46 annually in carbon tax for a year’s worth of fill ups for a family of four’s van. That’s less than one fill up a year.
So really people, put the friggin’ tax into perspective.
Not to mention, low income British Columbians will receive an annual Climate Action Credit of $100/adult and $30/child. Which works out well for them, since presumably they’d be taking the bus anyways - which is much cheaper than driving will ever be. That could get them one month’s transit pass - certainly a better choice than one tank fill up!
If there is one certainty about the current rise in gas prices, it is that it will not continue forever.
Sooner or later, global demand for oil will come more into balance with its supply, and prices will fall. [The Province]
And, I’m sorry, but the reality is, gas prices are not going to go down. They may fluctuate, but prices will continue, over the long term to go up.
Think about the demand that’s coming from India and Asia. Think about how much resources our “North American” lifestyles use up. Considering neither of these groups is likely to demand anything less anytime soon, demand will not cease.
The concept of peak oil is that as soon as we have passed the midpoint in global oil resources, prices will skyrocket. That is because, from that point on, we will never have enough supply to meet the demand.
So, you think $1.50 is bad? Are you fearing the $2 mark predicted to arrive by 2012?
Well, consider this. Peak oil is estimated to hit between 2010 to 2013. Then the shit will hit the fan because you ain’t seen nothing yet. Prices will zoom to numbers never before imagined possible.
So please, stop trying to find someone or something to blame. Please stop trying to find some way of sustaining this unsustainable way of life.
Think positively for once and coming up with creative solutions to this big problem: electric vehicles, or moving closer to work, or bringing the bike out of the garage, or buying locally grown food.
And of course, support the politicians who will help facilitate this transition towards a sustainable way of life.
Sphere: Related Content
