When Canadians Decided

Received this today in my email from SES Research. Looks like the Liberals had the right idea to leave the campaigning to the end...

The recent national survey of Canadians conducted by SES Research shows that a surprising 12% of voters made their decision in the voting booth while another 19% made it on the Saturday or Sunday preceding Election Day.

Canadian voters in the 2006 federal election were also asked to identify the main reason for the Conservative win. Almost one in two Canadian voters (46%) said that Stephen Harper was elected because it was time for a change. Another one in four Canadian voters (25%) said it was due to the fact that the Liberals needed a “time out.” Eleven percent said that the Conservatives had the best platform while 6% said Stephen Harper was the best federal leader.

“With three of ten voters making their voting decision in the last three days of the campaign – the election was really up for grabs. A minority of voters cast their ballot based on the Conservative platform (11%) and on Stephen Harper himself (6%). Change and the need for a Liberal ‘time out’ drove support in the federal election. Polling clearly shows that the Harper mandate is founded on change and punishing the Liberals.”

-Nik Nanos, President, SES Research


Methodology
Polling between February 4th and February 9th, 2006 (Random Telephone Survey of 1,000 eligible Canadians, MoE ± 3.1%, 19 times out of 20). Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.



Question: When did you make up your mind about who you were going to vote for? (Only respondents who voted in the last election, N=818, MoE + 3.5%. 19 times out of 20)


Before the campaign started 39%

Before the holidays 19%

The last weekend of the campaign 19%

In the voting station on Election Day 12%

During the leaders’ debate 9%

Unsure/No answer 2%


Question: In your opinion, which of the following statements best describes the main reason why Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won the recent federal election? [ReadandRotate] (Only respondents who voted in the last election, N=818, MoE + 3.5%. 19 times out of 20)



It was time for a change 46%

The Liberals needed a “time out” 25%

The Conservatives had the best platform 11%

None of the above 8%

Stephen Harper was the best federal leader 6%

Unsure/No answer 3%


The detailed tables with the methodology and regional subtabs are posted on our website at: http://www.sesresearch.com

Provincial Budget

Yesterday’s provincial budget analysis from all sides was strangely silent on an interesting piece of detail that has certainly captured the attention of public sector union workers.

The largest piece of spending in this year’s budget was a $6 billion set aside for pay increases for government workers.

In addition, a full $1 billion – more than $3000 per worker – has been ear-marked as a signing bonus for those who sign before their contracts expire.

If they can’t come to agreement, those funds go to pay down the provincial debt which is inching upward because of increased infrastructure investment costs.

Ninety percent of unionized government workers have contracts that expire at the end of March.

$6 billion may have been lost in the detail of new funding for children’s programs and skills training and apprenticeships for the booming construction sector, but you can bet your bottom dollar union leaders are trying to figure out how to spin this bonus in their favour.

Yesterday the opposition and duelling special interest group spent the day attacking this year’s budget for spending too much or spending too little or spending too late. Some decried the lack of tax cuts. Others said there was too little money for their pet causes. Others said the debt needed tackling.

The old adage certainly rings true in this case – a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

But interestingly there wasn’t much chatter on the commitment to increase public sector compensation.

Probably because it isn’t in the best interests of the NDP or the unions to dump on a plan that gives their members new cash in their pockets.

The business community, including the small business guys, just wants to make sure that the public sector unions aren’t going to go silly before the 2010 Games and leave a labour black mark on our hosting skills.

I wonder if three grand, plus a wage increase, will cover that?

Or is the province’s debt is going to get its own bonus as union leaders play hardball with a government riding the wave of a strong economy?

Other budget items of note include $421 million for children’s programs and services, increased grants for middle class homeowners, and $400 million to make sure that we’re training trades and other skilled workers.

The province has also increased the contingency fund to $850 million this year, ensuring that drops in commodity prices or an unexpected disaster like 2004’s fire season, don’t throw the good ship BC off course.

What are your thoughts on the budget? Post your comments.

(As seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

Health Care Leadership from Victoria

When was the last time you heard true vision from Canadian politicians? They usually fiddle around the ragged edges of our health care and education systems, but no one seems to have the guts to actually advocate for broad change.

They are just like the rest of us and fall back on trying to keep the least amount of people angry with them at any given time.

That might make for pleasant going in talk show land, but it does nothing for a country crying for decisive leadership.

In the words of Harry S. Truman, “Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

It is fun being a leader? Probably not. Does change threaten vested special interests. Absolutely. Do threatened people get angry and say nasty things? Sure.

Which brings us to the controversial Throne Speech given Thursday in Victoria as the BC Legislature met for its new sitting.

Gordon Campbell, like him or not, has shown some pretty decisive leadership on health care in our province with this speech.

While other provincial leaders pussy-foot around the real and systemic problems of our public system, Campbell and his team have substituted leadership for the habitual provincial government blame game.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Canadians spent a total of $142 billion for health care in 2005, up from $102.5 billion in 2001. 70% of this spending was in the pure public system and represented an increase of 7.7% over 2004.

So, all this money is going from our pockets to pay for the system. Ask yourself, are we getting better health care?

Across Canada, we’re waiting longer for surgery. It is difficult to find family doctors. Emergency rooms are overcrowded. This is not simply a BC problem or a Saskatchewan problem. Regardless of the stripe of political party in charge, Canadian provinces are struggling to fulfill the unclear principles of the Canada Health Act.

The BC Liberals have launched a “dialogue” program that will ask us: “What are the fundamental changes we must make to improve our health and to protect our precious public health-care system for the long term?”

If you listened to the NDP’s Carol James, the HEU’s Judy Darcy, and the various other bit players in the anti-anything crowd you would think the sky is falling on publicly-funded health care in BC.

Which makes me wonder if they actually listened to the speech or did they simply act with typical knee-jerk fashion because a leader has dared to question how we deliver public health care in BC?

What is the best way to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of income, have access to health care – for the long term?

Let’s have the discussion that Victoria’s leadership has offered. Because public health care in Canada isn’t going to fix itself.

(as seen today in 24 Hours)

To 'toon or not to 'toon?

The Western Standard is publishing THE cartoons this week. My thoughts are below. What are yours? Why?

As a Canadian when I see something that offends my views, I am perfectly within my rights to protest, wave placards, blog madly, boycott cheese, write letters, organize politically, creatively counter the arguments, launch my own newspaper, etc. There are thousands of peaceful outlets for my outrage.

I am not, however, permitted to firebomb property, murder, loot, and generally rampage around.

People haven't died because of some stick figures. They've died because fundamentalists in the Middle East haven't figured out how to peacefully get their point across.

For all our sakes, I hope they learn this soon because there is nothing wrong with shining a light on our own views and those of others.

And if you feel the need to kill someone for having a different opinion - even if it hurts your feelings - you might not be ready for the give and take of a modern, liberal democracy.

Last thought - Canadian Bible Literalists (aka Fundamentalist Christians) weren't seen firebombing Warren Kinsella's house when he insulted them by hauling out a dinosaur on national TV. How is this different?

So what was the BCTF REALLY fighting for?

You'll all remember the teacher's strike last fall that disrupted the lives of thousands of students and their families.

Today the BC Government released their audit of class commposition in BC - you can find the news release with links to background here.

Highlights:

"The report shows that, on a provincial level, there is an average of 17.7 students in kindergarten; 20.8 students in grades 1 through 3; 26.3 students in grades 4 through 7; and 25 students in grades 8 through 12. The report further shows:

· Eighty-six per cent of all classes have 30 or fewer students.
· Fifty-six per cent of all classes have 26 or fewer students.
· Twenty-two per cent of all classes have 20 or fewer students.
· One-third of classes have no students with special needs; only five per cent of classes have five or more students with special needs, and the vast majority of those have additional classroom supports.
· More than half of all classes have no ESL students; only 10 per cent have five or more ESL students.

The class-size data also determined that 15 school districts were not in compliance with provincial average class-size legislation in at least one category."

Hardly appears the disaster we were led to believe in September...

Awaiting the BCTF response.

Omni TV

Friday evening I'll be appearing with a Liberal type and an NDP type on Omni's The Standard.

I wonder if there will be anything interesting to discuss?

Tough Choices at City Hall

It’s been a busy two months at Vancouver’s City Hall, although you are forgiven if it has slipped your attention, given the Federal election, the holiday season and the extraordinarily bizarre turn of events in Ottawa this week.

While the new council may have started off with a bit of a rocky start, the NPA members have coalesced relatively well and appear to be pulling as team – a critical element when they hold a bare majority of council seats.

Fortunately for them, they’ve focussed on fulfilling a few key election promises which has served to reduce concern for what many saw as a rough and tumble first Council meeting in December.

One promise particularly close to my heart, and that I’ve covered in previous columns, was the cancellation of the proposed two-lane closure on the Burrard Street Bridge.

As a forced commuter – I can’t figure out how to take public transit, get the kids to two separate schools 30 blocks apart and not frustrate my boss’s regular office hours – I applaud the move. To make it up to the bike riders who had lobbied hard for the change, councillors did approve funds to upgrade the bicycle lanes on the bridge.

Emergency services and Translink bus users, also concerned about the initial closure decision made without consultation, have also voiced their approval.

Other decisions taken have included Suzanne Anton’s motion to reduce the amount of waste produced in the city, the return of $50 million to the sacrosanct Property Endowment Fund, Peter Ladner’s innovate proposal to create a wireless Vancouver, a review of volunteer city committees and commissions, and the elimination of the private concerts Councillors used to receive at the beginning of each sitting.

We all like music, but surely we don’t need to pay for Council entertainment on top of everything else.

But the winner for toughest decision for the new crew, but the one that also most clearly demonstrated that a new sheriff is in town?

The previous mayor and council had voted to sponsor travel for mayors from around the world who were attending the upcoming World Peace Forum in Vancouver, along with covering the costs for a hospitality reception (read: party) and other events.

The costing for the event was escalading rapidly from the initial $50,000 offered by the previous council. Without a clear budget, it had to go.

Not an easy choice, especially so early in the mandate. Most mayors would love to play host to their buddies from around the globe and pose for some photo ops. But given the budget increases staring the Council in the face and the inevitable tax increase we’re all going to be asked to pay, is a social gathering for mayors the best use of a six-figure amount?

Uh, no.

At the end of the day, this is why we vote for people – to make the tough decisions for us. And so far, the new Council is doing its job.

City budget consultations will be underway shortly. Make sure your voice is heard.

(as seen today in 24 Hours Daily)

What else is wrong with the Liberal Party?

If it wasn’t for the billions of wasted tax dollars, the millions stolen from taxpayers to subsidize party operations and the lack of concern for working people in our country, I’d almost feel sorry for the Federal Liberals.

On the heels of their electoral loss on the 23rd, news coverage this week was dominated by big-name Liberal after big-name Liberal gracefully declining the privilege of painting a big red “L” on their foreheads and facing a bitter electorate.

They all had lovely excuses, of course: family, balance, financial obligations.

But none of them stated the obvious. The Liberals are in deep, deep trouble and these elder statesmen had no interest in being the Kim Campbell for the Red set.

The Liberal party has enormous challenges facing it. It carries a huge debt – estimated between $20 and $30 million dollars – almost a dollar for every Canadian. It has a Gomery-sized hangover from the Chretien years and the party faced scandal after scandal in the dying days of their mandate.

Not to mention the pitched brother-vs-brother battle between Chretien and Martin that left excellent Liberal organizers on the side-lines after Martin’s crew took over riding associations and provincial organizations.

Just ask Sheila Copps and Herb Dhaliwal how they feel about the techniques employed by Paul Martin’s acolytes if you are looking for the mythical united Liberal team.

The party knows it can’t choose a leader who served as a Cabinet Minister anytime in the last 12 years of Liberal Government because of that lingering aroma of rot left in voter’s nostrils.

At the same time, organizers are finding leadership a tough sell to provincial leaders resting on their political laurels.

Does Bob Rae or Ken Dryden or Michael Ignatieff or, as I heard chuckled about in a downtown lunch spot yesterday, Hedy Fry, really have the royal jelly to rebuild a directionless and shaky Liberal team?

And then, yesterday Agusta-Westland, an aerospace manufacturer, announced yesterday that it is suing the government for a billion dollars, citing Liberal MPs interfered in the Sea-King replacement helicopter tender process.

I’m not allowed to make this stuff up, you know.

The Liberals must be relived that they waited until after voting day to file suit but one has to wonder if the big three of McKenna, Tobin and Manley had advance notice of the lawsuit. Especially since McKenna neatly resigned as US ambassador and then, suddenly, decided that Federal politics wasn’t his cup of tea.

Mostly, I suspect that the brand name front-runners thought about the challenge and the balance sheet, considered the other nasty Liberal secrets that will be exposed by the new government, weighed the cost to their personal and professional reputations and decided, wisely, to take a pass this time round the ring.

The question is: what else do they know that we don’t about the state of the Liberal Party of Canada?

As seen today in 24 Hours Daily.