Showing posts with label Loyalist College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Loyalist College. Show all posts

Thursday, 21 April 2011

Sand in the Shorts: Seniors Behaving Badly

This column appeared in Saturday's (April 23rd, 2011) Intelligencer


On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.


All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.


While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.


Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.


As if this wasn't enough in the category of strange machinations on the part of CARP, though, they then decided to spring an ambush on the candidates in the form of a “rapid fire” question and answer session to conclude the evening. This would involve local CARP board member Mary Robertson throwing questions at the candidates with responses limited to “yes” or “no”. Daryl Kramp and Peter Tinsley both objected to this, stating they couldn't give a simplistic answer for potentially complex issues. This should have been a “no brainer”, as the saying goes, because if politics were about simple answers, the issues faced at each election, and between elections, wouldn't need such thorough debate.


Ms. Robertson, when asked if she thought Kramp and Tinsley's objection to the format was reasonable, answered, “not really”, stating that the candidates also could have just said pass if they couldn't answer in the required manner. This, though, would have given the advantage to the candidates for parties with little chance of election. If the odds of victory are slim, one can promise the moon without fear of being called upon to fulfill that commitment.


She also mentioned the format was accepted the night before at a similar meeting in Quinte-Northumberland riding, and that it was well received by the crowd there. While I am sure the crowd at Loyalist would have liked the format, the matter of it's previous acceptance by candidates of another riding is irrelevant. If she wanted the format in so badly, it should have been in the proposal.





This and that: With just over a week left in the election, there are hints starting to appear in some polls that disaster may be nigh for the Liberals. With a new poll putting the NDP in the lead in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc, there is a question if some “blue-dog” (centre/centre-right) Grit voters may move their vote to the Conservatives. The blog “Sort of Political” suggests this may lead to a gain of 9 new seats for the Tories in La Belle Province. Regardless, a re-engagement of Quebec voters in the House by way of a rejection of the Bloc Quebecois can only be seen as good news for Canada.

Sunday, 10 April 2011

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

Thoughts (which could become columns) on the first two weeks of the election:

  • The coalition issue is one that hasn't completely gone away for the Liberals, and it won't, and it shouldn't. In our parliamentary system, there is nothing legally stopping Michael Ignatieff governing at the head of a formal or ad hoc coalition if the opportunity arises. Why he expects us to take his word when he wouldn't suggest we take any other politician's is beyond me. Especially when he was so equivocal in the months leading up to the election when it came to this matter.
  • Iggy says he wants to have a 'fly-off' to decide what Canada's next fighter will be. His platform says the fighters aren't necessarily going to be replaced immediately regardless (shades of Chretien's helicopter cancellation – still waiting for those, twenty years later, thanks to the Liberals). Question is, how can you have a fly-off when there are only 2 fifth-generation fighters in the world, and one of them, the F-22, is not for sale. There is no other contender. As to the numbers being thrown around by the opposition, the numbers from the Department of National Defence are, quite frankly, more credible. The parliamentary budget office priced the planes over 30 years to get it's higher estimate, amongst other matters (the DND numbers are over 20 years – the extra 10 years significantly increase the costs, as these will be the most expensive maintenance-wise – as aircraft get older, the ratio of maintenance hours to operational hours grows), which, along with costing critiques from other sources, leads me to be quite sceptical of the basis for the higher numbers.
  • The Green Party has no place in the debates amongst the party leaders. They have no MP’s, and the major raison d'etre of the party seems to be getting Liz May elected. This as she runs in her third different riding in the last three elections. And of course there's her tendency to endorse Liberal party leaders as Prime Minister. When she and her party get serious, and the party ceases to be a one issue noisemaker, we'll talk. It should be said that the Bloc shouldn't be there either – listening to Gilles Duceppe, while occasionally amusing, is a waste of what little space cheapskate networks will devote to the debates in the first place.
  • How can Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, and Leona Dombrowsky look Ontarians in the face and say their government has done a good job. Government spending has exploded, meaning even with increasing revenue in the middle of the last decade Ontario ran massive deficits, and these got worse as the economy tanked in 2008-10. Now we are celebrating a deficit of 'only' $16+ billion dollars, we are a 'have not' province, the 'Sunshine List' is exploding... In terms of fiscal management, the McGuinty government since 2003 has been an unmitigated disaster.
  • Saw my first robin this spring. It was frozen solid.
  • In a day and age where discrimination is supposed to be illegal, how does Loyalist College get away with having new student housing which is unaccessable for those in wheelchairs? And what about the Picton courthouse? The front door doesn't open wide enough to allow a wheelchair through, and the very heavy door itself has no power assist.
  • Toronto Maple Leafs fans are out, after grimly holding on to a slim chance their team might make the playoffs. While there may be some hope for next year, folks, the only good thing about this run is it means the Bruins won't get another top 5 pick courtesy the Phil Kessel trade.
  • When I think of the late, great Liz Taylor (who apparently hated being referred to as Liz), I will think of an actress who dominated the scenes she was in. Are there any actresses today who can dominate a screen in that same way?
  • Best tv show you've likely never watched: Justified. The boss and I download and watch it. Timothy Oliphant is great as Kentucky-bred US Marshal Raylan Givens. Great supporting cast as well, featuring Nick Searcy as Chief Deputy Art Mullen, and Walton Goggins as Boyd Crowder, who grew up with Raylan, but is not as concerned with obedience to the law, so to speak.