The Progressive Conservative platform Changebook is a winner from a communications standpoint. It hits on the themes of voters who want change, family, and general fatigue with the broken promises and scandal of the McGuinty regime. Reading it, you can practically hear Hudak's voice in parts of it. I think it captures a mood in Ontario that maybe the Liberals haven't caught onto yet.
And it really does promise change for families; income splitting for parents; tax breaks for caregivers with elderly family members. Help with red tape for small business, a promise to put more money into healthcare. The idea of "Justice for all," to make prisoners in Ontario Jails work for their privlages. Hudak wants to clean up government and has promised no tax increases unless they have a mandate to do so. A noble promise yes, but who actually gives their government a mandate to raise taxes? It's ridiculous.
But; what's in it for me? I'm not a family yet. I'm not a caregiver for an elderly family member, or a small business. I'm a little bit past the initial university/ college stage to benefit from changes to the apprenticeship program. I'm just a single person trying to make my way in the world; keep up with all my bills. It appears there's nothing really in the platform for me for people like me... I was hoping for an HST cut at least. It's all well and good to base a platform around families; just remember single people live here too.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Walking Piano: It's a Want, not a Need
I had to chuckle a bit at the title of a thread on the Hawthorne Villager: Milton Walking Piano Proposal. And then I read it. The main reaction I had was it was a neat idea, but if a corporate sponsor couldn't be found for all costs associated with it, it shouldn't happen. We shouldn't use the community fund for it either- not when we're trying to save for a hospital expansion, and there are numerous other infrastructure projects on the go or need moving up. I classify it as a want, not a need.
I have read through the report, and Town Staff pointed out the Arts Centre was coming in on budget. "However, given the fact that the Theatre is not yet complete, and until staff are operational in the facility, there remains a list of “fit out” items which will need to be purchased." Initial plans in March 2010 called for only the theatre's shell to be built, so in all likelihood there will be extra costs.
Town Staff wants part of the costs shared with the Community Fund, which is a bad idea. I think the spirit of the Community Fund is to provide money for events, facilities, and causes that will benefit the majority of people in the town of Milton. A "Walking Piano" only benefits me if I go into the Arts Centre, and say "hey that looks cool" and walk up the stairs. I don't buy into the physical fitness argument- the Milton Sports Centre expansion will do more for my fitness than the walking piano.
It's about priorities too. This is the kind of project you usually hear about when governments have been in power too long- Council has been there barely six months. The priority with the Arts Centre should be to get it up and running smoothly- and try to stabilize the funding for it. There are so many other things going on around town that need to be expanded, fixed, and built. A "Walking Piano" isn't one of them.
I have read through the report, and Town Staff pointed out the Arts Centre was coming in on budget. "However, given the fact that the Theatre is not yet complete, and until staff are operational in the facility, there remains a list of “fit out” items which will need to be purchased." Initial plans in March 2010 called for only the theatre's shell to be built, so in all likelihood there will be extra costs.
Town Staff wants part of the costs shared with the Community Fund, which is a bad idea. I think the spirit of the Community Fund is to provide money for events, facilities, and causes that will benefit the majority of people in the town of Milton. A "Walking Piano" only benefits me if I go into the Arts Centre, and say "hey that looks cool" and walk up the stairs. I don't buy into the physical fitness argument- the Milton Sports Centre expansion will do more for my fitness than the walking piano.
It's about priorities too. This is the kind of project you usually hear about when governments have been in power too long- Council has been there barely six months. The priority with the Arts Centre should be to get it up and running smoothly- and try to stabilize the funding for it. There are so many other things going on around town that need to be expanded, fixed, and built. A "Walking Piano" isn't one of them.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Fantastic Finish
So... that was a fantastic finish election night wasn't it? It was initially a foregone conclusion; the Conservatives would win; but the N.D.P. did give them quite a scare didn't they?
I'm one of the few people who will publicly admit that I can find few faults with a Conservative majority government. Four years of unadulterated peace, of not wondering if that next budget or policy announcement will lose the confidence of the House. Four years to see what Stephen Harper can do with a majority, which, I think will prove very interesting. The results are mixed for Harper; he lost four cabinet ministers, and Quebec. Each has to be considered a light slap on the wrist. But he gained seats in what was previously termed the "Liberal fortress" Toronto and Ontario in general. The fact Harper would end the campagin the place he started- as Prime Minister was never in doubt who would oppose him was a different matter.
From the get-go everyone thought it was going to be the Liberals. They had a good platform launch, and some good ideas. Around the time of the English debate it all fell apart. It was then when the affable, charming Jack Layton of the N.D.P. struck a blow against his Liberal counterpart Michael Ignatieff. It was on the surface a harmless comment- Layton remarked on Ignatieff's attendance- or absence in the House of Commons. Ignatieff just brushed it aside, and that moment did more to crystalize why Canadians don't like Michael Ignatieff than any Conservative attack ad.
Things then began to get worse for Ignatieff; there were the near hysterical "rise up" moments. And the moments where the party brought out Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien- each viewed as a sign of the party's growing desperation. And while it got worse for him, it got better for Jack Layton.
Layton's poll numbers continued going up. Suddenly there was something about the N.D.P. that Canadians liked. Within days of the election there were scenarios that would have seen Jack Layton Prime Minister. Who knows why he got as popular as he did; it might have been the underlying need for a change or the need to see something positive going on in Ottawa. Whatever the reason was we woke up to an N.D.P sitting in the opposition with over 100 seats, and the Liberals sitting a historic third place at 34 seats. As an added bonus, the Sepratist Bloc Quebecios were reduced to 4 seats, and not one of them was Gilles Duceppe. The Greens even had their first MP thanks to Elizabeth May.
I think the N.D.P. could very well temper the Conservatives. Historically they've served as the country's "social conscience" and there's really no reason why they can't continue in that role more powerful than ever. I don't think there's anything to fear from Harper's majority- the N.D.P. will temper it, and probably force them to go a little more left. And a majority will mean a lot less sniping, and a little more governing- I don't know about you, but I am so ready for that. Let's see what Harper will do the next four years- and then if we don't like it, we can throw him out.
I'm one of the few people who will publicly admit that I can find few faults with a Conservative majority government. Four years of unadulterated peace, of not wondering if that next budget or policy announcement will lose the confidence of the House. Four years to see what Stephen Harper can do with a majority, which, I think will prove very interesting. The results are mixed for Harper; he lost four cabinet ministers, and Quebec. Each has to be considered a light slap on the wrist. But he gained seats in what was previously termed the "Liberal fortress" Toronto and Ontario in general. The fact Harper would end the campagin the place he started- as Prime Minister was never in doubt who would oppose him was a different matter.
From the get-go everyone thought it was going to be the Liberals. They had a good platform launch, and some good ideas. Around the time of the English debate it all fell apart. It was then when the affable, charming Jack Layton of the N.D.P. struck a blow against his Liberal counterpart Michael Ignatieff. It was on the surface a harmless comment- Layton remarked on Ignatieff's attendance- or absence in the House of Commons. Ignatieff just brushed it aside, and that moment did more to crystalize why Canadians don't like Michael Ignatieff than any Conservative attack ad.
Things then began to get worse for Ignatieff; there were the near hysterical "rise up" moments. And the moments where the party brought out Paul Martin, and Jean Chretien- each viewed as a sign of the party's growing desperation. And while it got worse for him, it got better for Jack Layton.
Layton's poll numbers continued going up. Suddenly there was something about the N.D.P. that Canadians liked. Within days of the election there were scenarios that would have seen Jack Layton Prime Minister. Who knows why he got as popular as he did; it might have been the underlying need for a change or the need to see something positive going on in Ottawa. Whatever the reason was we woke up to an N.D.P sitting in the opposition with over 100 seats, and the Liberals sitting a historic third place at 34 seats. As an added bonus, the Sepratist Bloc Quebecios were reduced to 4 seats, and not one of them was Gilles Duceppe. The Greens even had their first MP thanks to Elizabeth May.
I think the N.D.P. could very well temper the Conservatives. Historically they've served as the country's "social conscience" and there's really no reason why they can't continue in that role more powerful than ever. I don't think there's anything to fear from Harper's majority- the N.D.P. will temper it, and probably force them to go a little more left. And a majority will mean a lot less sniping, and a little more governing- I don't know about you, but I am so ready for that. Let's see what Harper will do the next four years- and then if we don't like it, we can throw him out.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Get out and Vote
In addition to my writing/editing duties at Milton Today Magazine I've taken up producing as well. My work as a Producer can mean anything from contacting political candidates, to being in the field with reporters and cameramen. This last Tuesday I was out with a cameraman shooting videos for our debate. We were outside a well-known grocery store, trying to get people to ask a question of Halton's candidates in the federal election. There were people who actually told us they didn't vote and weren't following the election.
I was shocked. But in a way I understood- four federal elections in the last seven years is a bit much. And I can understand the cynicism and the general jaded feelings going around out there; I have at times felt them myself. But being jaded, and cynical are no excuses for not voting. A vote is the most valuable tool we have in a democracy. It can be used to effect change- don't like what Harper's doing about corporate taxes? Here's your chance; vote Liberal. Don't like the Liberal platform? There's always the NDP, or Conservatives. Don't like any of the choices? Spoil your ballot, or register an abstention. It's up to you, it's your choice- all you have to do is make it. You have the choice; and isn't that one of the many selling points of Canada? If you don't vote how can you complain about what's happening afterwards?
Think about what's happening in the middle east. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Around the world they're fighting for the right to vote, and some are dying just so they can vote. And here we are about to vote in the fourth election in seven years- why not be thankful that we have a choice; and that we can take the 15 minutes to go down to our local polling station and mark an X beside the individual of our choice.
Advance Polls opened today, and are open tomorrow and Monday from noon-8pm. Three chances to get out on vote. Or you can get out and vote on election day. I've been pretty obvious about my choice; but what's right for me, probably isn't right for you. All that matters is that you get out and vote.
I was shocked. But in a way I understood- four federal elections in the last seven years is a bit much. And I can understand the cynicism and the general jaded feelings going around out there; I have at times felt them myself. But being jaded, and cynical are no excuses for not voting. A vote is the most valuable tool we have in a democracy. It can be used to effect change- don't like what Harper's doing about corporate taxes? Here's your chance; vote Liberal. Don't like the Liberal platform? There's always the NDP, or Conservatives. Don't like any of the choices? Spoil your ballot, or register an abstention. It's up to you, it's your choice- all you have to do is make it. You have the choice; and isn't that one of the many selling points of Canada? If you don't vote how can you complain about what's happening afterwards?
Think about what's happening in the middle east. Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. Around the world they're fighting for the right to vote, and some are dying just so they can vote. And here we are about to vote in the fourth election in seven years- why not be thankful that we have a choice; and that we can take the 15 minutes to go down to our local polling station and mark an X beside the individual of our choice.
Advance Polls opened today, and are open tomorrow and Monday from noon-8pm. Three chances to get out on vote. Or you can get out and vote on election day. I've been pretty obvious about my choice; but what's right for me, probably isn't right for you. All that matters is that you get out and vote.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
We can do better than that
I watched the English Language debate last week, as I'm sure a lot of you did. It didn't really change my vote- I was leaning Conservative before the debate, and I'm still leaning that way. But as I was watching it, I had the overwhelming thought that we can do better.
It was essentially four older men in a room, talking (or in Ignatieff's case sometimes lecturing) to each other. They didn't capture our imaginations with ideas, or catch each other up too much in a lie. And we can do better than that, because the fact is- the vision of four men in a room doesn't reflect Canada anymore; it hasn't for sometime now.
The Canada that I know, is full of dynamic, interesting people with creative ideas for addressing our country's problems. It's full of smart, engaging women who believe they can make a difference. Look for a moment at our riding; the four major parties are represented by women- Liberal Connie Laurin-Bowie, NDP: Pat Heroux, Conservatives- Lisa Raitt, and Green Party's Judi Remigio. The New Democratic Party alone, has 123 female candidates running across the country. And yet Green Party leader Elizabeth May the only female leader who could reflect the increased numbers of women in politics of all stripes wasn't invited to the debate?? How out-of touch was that??
At the same time, Canadians grow tired of the same old way of doing things. We are craving new ideas and a vision for the country. We grow cynical, and jaded as the same lines are trotted out again, and again- "Coalitions bad, majority good," "Harper doesn't care about health care," "Ignatieff isn't back for you," and so, on. We grow tired of the political scandals, and the way it appears that the default is to damage control first, and apologize last. And I'm tired of the negativity- don't tell me what the Harper Conservatives won't do, tell us what Ignatieff Liberals will do. The debate brought home to me that we can do better than the choices we have. We just have to demand it.
It was essentially four older men in a room, talking (or in Ignatieff's case sometimes lecturing) to each other. They didn't capture our imaginations with ideas, or catch each other up too much in a lie. And we can do better than that, because the fact is- the vision of four men in a room doesn't reflect Canada anymore; it hasn't for sometime now.
The Canada that I know, is full of dynamic, interesting people with creative ideas for addressing our country's problems. It's full of smart, engaging women who believe they can make a difference. Look for a moment at our riding; the four major parties are represented by women- Liberal Connie Laurin-Bowie, NDP: Pat Heroux, Conservatives- Lisa Raitt, and Green Party's Judi Remigio. The New Democratic Party alone, has 123 female candidates running across the country. And yet Green Party leader Elizabeth May the only female leader who could reflect the increased numbers of women in politics of all stripes wasn't invited to the debate?? How out-of touch was that??
At the same time, Canadians grow tired of the same old way of doing things. We are craving new ideas and a vision for the country. We grow cynical, and jaded as the same lines are trotted out again, and again- "Coalitions bad, majority good," "Harper doesn't care about health care," "Ignatieff isn't back for you," and so, on. We grow tired of the political scandals, and the way it appears that the default is to damage control first, and apologize last. And I'm tired of the negativity- don't tell me what the Harper Conservatives won't do, tell us what Ignatieff Liberals will do. The debate brought home to me that we can do better than the choices we have. We just have to demand it.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Why Elizabeth May Should be in the Debate
In a controversial decision made by the broadcast consortium responsible for the leaders debate The Green Party's Elizabeth May has been excluded once again. I think it's the wrong decision.
The Green Party don't have an MP in the House of Commons. But they do run candidates in all 308 ridings across the country. The Bloc Quebecios run candidates in only Quebec's 75 ridings, want to separate from Canada, and yet Gilles Duceppe is sitting at the table. Doesn't she deserve a seat at the table on that alone?
The media (and I include myself in that) have a responsibiltiy to see Canadians make an informed decision on voting day no matter what our own personal biases may be. Elizabeth May represents a valid point-of-view, with policies some Canadians believe in and do vote for; don't these people deserve a chance at being heard? The precedent has already been set, she was allowed to debate the last time out. What's the harm in having her debate this time?
We complain there are no women in politics. We ask ourselves why, and try to find different ways to encourage their participation. And yet when a well-spoken woman who happens to be a party leader comes along, representing a party that increases its popular vote every election she isn't allowed to debate her fellow leaders? There's something wrong with this picture. Let her debate. Let her make the Green Party's case before the people of Canada. It can only help democracy.
The Green Party don't have an MP in the House of Commons. But they do run candidates in all 308 ridings across the country. The Bloc Quebecios run candidates in only Quebec's 75 ridings, want to separate from Canada, and yet Gilles Duceppe is sitting at the table. Doesn't she deserve a seat at the table on that alone?
The media (and I include myself in that) have a responsibiltiy to see Canadians make an informed decision on voting day no matter what our own personal biases may be. Elizabeth May represents a valid point-of-view, with policies some Canadians believe in and do vote for; don't these people deserve a chance at being heard? The precedent has already been set, she was allowed to debate the last time out. What's the harm in having her debate this time?
We complain there are no women in politics. We ask ourselves why, and try to find different ways to encourage their participation. And yet when a well-spoken woman who happens to be a party leader comes along, representing a party that increases its popular vote every election she isn't allowed to debate her fellow leaders? There's something wrong with this picture. Let her debate. Let her make the Green Party's case before the people of Canada. It can only help democracy.
Monday, March 28, 2011
What about coalitions?
Here we are three days into an election campaign that nobody wants, and one that nobody will admit to causing. All parties are jumping on the idea of "coalition" as if it's a dirty word. Ignatieff is saying point-blank he isn't going to enter into one, and Harper is saying he's lying. Adding to the mix is the Bloc Québecois's Gilles Duceppe saying more or less that Harper's a hypocrite who would've entered into one with him, and Layton in 2004 to bring Martin down... and he has the letter to prove it.
I wonder though, what is so bad about a coalition? It seems to be a perfectly valid way of governing. Israel governs itself as a coalition. The United Kingdom- -the mother of all Parliamentary democracies is being governed right now by a coalition. In the United States, the Democratic President has to get along with Republican House to pass his agenda. everywhere governments have to get along with each other, so why not here?
This coalition idea has worked in the past. MacDonald had to work with Cartier. Pearson had to work with Diefenbaker, and Trudeau had to work with people to get his agenda passed too. Cooperation in this form is a proud Canadian tradition. In a way a coalition makes sense, is closer to what most Canadians believe- Liberal social beliefs with a Conservative way (smaller steps toward a larger vision) of getting there.
Whatever happens, the word is out there. Canadians are discussing the concept, and no accusations and arguments among the leaders is going take it out of the discussion. I think quite the opposite- if Harper and Ignatieff keep arguing about it, it could send voters running for a third or fourth choice. Let's change the channel and talk about something else.
I wonder though, what is so bad about a coalition? It seems to be a perfectly valid way of governing. Israel governs itself as a coalition. The United Kingdom- -the mother of all Parliamentary democracies is being governed right now by a coalition. In the United States, the Democratic President has to get along with Republican House to pass his agenda. everywhere governments have to get along with each other, so why not here?
This coalition idea has worked in the past. MacDonald had to work with Cartier. Pearson had to work with Diefenbaker, and Trudeau had to work with people to get his agenda passed too. Cooperation in this form is a proud Canadian tradition. In a way a coalition makes sense, is closer to what most Canadians believe- Liberal social beliefs with a Conservative way (smaller steps toward a larger vision) of getting there.
Whatever happens, the word is out there. Canadians are discussing the concept, and no accusations and arguments among the leaders is going take it out of the discussion. I think quite the opposite- if Harper and Ignatieff keep arguing about it, it could send voters running for a third or fourth choice. Let's change the channel and talk about something else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)