Hudak has a number of problems, the largest being trust. People don't trust him. In particular, women don't trust him. In a new poll, Nanos Research concluded that only 1 in 4 men trust Hudak, and even less, only 1 in 5, women trust Hudak.
Let me say this, the Hudak PCs are running a somewhat respectable campaign. By conservative standards, that means they haven't screwed up too badly yet. They have managed this mostly by keeping their candidates on a very short leash. But short of acting like a dog owner at obedience school, the PCs have offered very little to voters in the way of policy. Their platform, titled Changebook, offers no radical changes, and begs the question, "Why vote for you?" Mind you, that's not what I got out of it. What I got out of it was more along the lines of: "Why did I read that, and can I please have the last hour of my life back?"
It seems like the PCs are trying to run a very low key campaign, which is quite surprising since they already have a very low key leader. Ask around Ontario and almost everyone will know who Dalton McGuinty is. Ask those same people about Tim Hudak, and you get, "Tim who?" Now that is almost to be expected when you consider that McGuinty has been Premier for 8 years, and Ontario Liberal Leader since 1996. But still, the PCs did virtually nothing to get themselves or their leader noticed over the last few years.
Essentially, the PC party did absolutely no pre-election work. They spent a couple hours writing the rag they call a platform (or so it seems). They haven't spend any time or money getting to know Ontario voters. And despite all of this, they still expect to form government, simply because they think it's their turn. But that's not how politics work. The hard work needs to be done. They need to show voters that they are going to take charge of the situation. Voters won't go looking for them to find out why they should vote conservative, they have to find the voters and convince them. They aren't doing this.
The PCs are a party that did no hard pre-election work, have a leader that no body knows, and have a platform with virtually nothing beneficial in it. On top of that, they're now trying to sell the idea that we can't trust our long time Premier. Its like a new kid on the playground is trying to convince everyone that they shouldn't play with their old friend Dalton. No one is going to listen to the new kid, and worse, no one is going to be his friend.
Come on, Hudak. Open your eyes. Ontarians don't trust you because they don't know you, your party hasn't done the work, and you don't have enough of a platform.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
My take on Senate reform
We need the Senate, but not as it is now. The current Senate is far too inefective, inefficient, and undemocratic. I don't agree with Stephen Harper much, but I do agree with him when he says the Senate needs to change. What makes something democratic? The will of the people. That said, the Senate needs to be elected, effective, and accountable.
To start, Senate elections should be federally regulated by Elections Canada. It isn't up to the provinces to elect people to a federal body. Senate elections should be on a fixed term, say every 6 years. This will provide stability in Parliament. Next, the election should be by proportional representation. If a party gets a 20% of the vote, they get 20% of the seats. There should of course be limitations placed on this to protect the Senate from radical parties. So maybe a party only starts winning seats if they secure over 5% of the vote. The way this will work is each party that is running in the Senate election will put forward a list of the candidates in order of presedence. As voters, we will look at the list for our geographic area, whether it be a province or a region, and decide which candidates or party we support. If a party get 20% of the vote, and there are 105 Senators, the first 21 people on the list for that Party win seats.
The seats should continue to be geographically dispersed as well. It wont be easy to appease the provinces in this area. Perhaps a formula would need to be created that takes population and land mass into account. Something that will award seats fairly without making certain provinces *cough*cough* cranky. If this means increasing the size of the Senate, then so be it. We could also get away from awarding the seats by province. I don't think we need to get as specific as the federal ridings for House of Commons elections, but lets take Ontario for example: South Western Ontario, GTA, Central Ontario, Eastern Ontario, Northern Ontario. That's more specific than provincial, but less specific than riding.
Next, the Senate needs to be as powerful as the House. The governing party should still be the party that wins the House of Commons (which should also be election by proportional representation, but that's a different blog post!), and of course the budget bill should originate from the House, but the Senate should have the power to introduce and debate and other bills they see fit. And they should exercise this power. The Senate should sit as often as the House, and it should be able to amend House legislation without getting the stink eye from the House.
It's time we turn Parliament into the truly democratic, bi-camaral, institution its supposed to be. Elect and strengthen an accountable and democratic Senate.
To start, Senate elections should be federally regulated by Elections Canada. It isn't up to the provinces to elect people to a federal body. Senate elections should be on a fixed term, say every 6 years. This will provide stability in Parliament. Next, the election should be by proportional representation. If a party gets a 20% of the vote, they get 20% of the seats. There should of course be limitations placed on this to protect the Senate from radical parties. So maybe a party only starts winning seats if they secure over 5% of the vote. The way this will work is each party that is running in the Senate election will put forward a list of the candidates in order of presedence. As voters, we will look at the list for our geographic area, whether it be a province or a region, and decide which candidates or party we support. If a party get 20% of the vote, and there are 105 Senators, the first 21 people on the list for that Party win seats.
The seats should continue to be geographically dispersed as well. It wont be easy to appease the provinces in this area. Perhaps a formula would need to be created that takes population and land mass into account. Something that will award seats fairly without making certain provinces *cough*cough* cranky. If this means increasing the size of the Senate, then so be it. We could also get away from awarding the seats by province. I don't think we need to get as specific as the federal ridings for House of Commons elections, but lets take Ontario for example: South Western Ontario, GTA, Central Ontario, Eastern Ontario, Northern Ontario. That's more specific than provincial, but less specific than riding.
Next, the Senate needs to be as powerful as the House. The governing party should still be the party that wins the House of Commons (which should also be election by proportional representation, but that's a different blog post!), and of course the budget bill should originate from the House, but the Senate should have the power to introduce and debate and other bills they see fit. And they should exercise this power. The Senate should sit as often as the House, and it should be able to amend House legislation without getting the stink eye from the House.
It's time we turn Parliament into the truly democratic, bi-camaral, institution its supposed to be. Elect and strengthen an accountable and democratic Senate.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Reasonable caps for reasonable prices?
Usage based billing. It is a term that most Canadians had probably never even heard of until quite recently. I had, but that is because I handle most of the technological aspects of my family, and my family is a Rogers customer.
We switched to Rogers almost 5 years ago, and even then a bandwidth cap was imposed on us. We subscribe to highspeed lite, which at the time of purchase carried a 25GB cap. If my mom and dad were living by themselves this cap would be no problem. 25GB per month would certainly be enough for them. But they dont live by themselves. I have an older sister (now married), an older brother (now married), and two younger sisters. While it is true that my older brother and sister dont live at home anymore, and I am only at home for 5 months of the year, 25GB for 4-7 people just doesn't cut it. On a good day, when I am not home, there are four people in my house. 3 laptops and a wifi enabled Wii. 25GB. The CRTC estimates that a normal user will use at least 15GB per month. See the problem. And now Rogers has lowered the cap on this package to only 15GB.
Most people reading this are probably thinking, well why dont you just get a better package, and the answer to this comes down to price. This plan already costs $35.99 per month. Combine that with TV, home phone, long distance, and cell phones. My family simply cannot afford a more expensive plan.
I have taken the liberty of comparing the pricing between some of Canada's largest ISPs:
The prices for these caps are completely outrageous. Small ISPs currently offer unlimited bandwidth for $30-$50. Their speeds are often slower, they are only available in certain areas, service time lags, and customer service isn't always the best. But that is the trade off for reasonably priced internet.
The CRTC recently made a decision that would force the small ISPs to limit their bandwidth, and worse, practically gave the big ISPs the authority to choose the limits! This would destroy the competition, stifle innovation, and cut off access to the internet for thousands, if not millions, of Canadians. Luckily, the government and all opposition parties agree with the small ISPs and the vast majority of consumers when they say that this CRTC decision just makes no sense.
I do understand the need for limits in some cases, however, the caps currently in place are completely ridiculous. They do not fair nicely with their global competitors, but they dont have to because together they have a near monopoly. This isn't fair to the small ISPs, but mostly it isn't fair to the consumer.
The fact of the matter is this: reasonable caps for reasonable prices. Give me 200GB for $50. Will I use 200GB? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining.
We switched to Rogers almost 5 years ago, and even then a bandwidth cap was imposed on us. We subscribe to highspeed lite, which at the time of purchase carried a 25GB cap. If my mom and dad were living by themselves this cap would be no problem. 25GB per month would certainly be enough for them. But they dont live by themselves. I have an older sister (now married), an older brother (now married), and two younger sisters. While it is true that my older brother and sister dont live at home anymore, and I am only at home for 5 months of the year, 25GB for 4-7 people just doesn't cut it. On a good day, when I am not home, there are four people in my house. 3 laptops and a wifi enabled Wii. 25GB. The CRTC estimates that a normal user will use at least 15GB per month. See the problem. And now Rogers has lowered the cap on this package to only 15GB.
Most people reading this are probably thinking, well why dont you just get a better package, and the answer to this comes down to price. This plan already costs $35.99 per month. Combine that with TV, home phone, long distance, and cell phones. My family simply cannot afford a more expensive plan.
I have taken the liberty of comparing the pricing between some of Canada's largest ISPs:
Rogers | Bell | Cogeco | Shaw | |
Less than 10GB | 2GB – $27.99 | 2GB - $31.95 | ||
10GB-25GB | 15GB – $35.99 | 25GB – $41.95 | 10GB - $36.95 | 15GB – $35.00 |
25GB-40GB | n/a | n/a | 30GB - $42.95 | n/a |
40GB-60GB | 60GB – $46.99 | 50GB – $51.95 | 60GB – $56.95 | 60GB – $47.00 |
60GB-80GB | 80GB - $59-99 | 75GB – $61.95 | n/a | n/a |
80GB+ | 125GB – $69.99 | n/a | 125GB - $81.95 | 175GB - $107.00 |
175GB – $99.99 | n/a | n/a | 350GB - $150.00 |
The prices for these caps are completely outrageous. Small ISPs currently offer unlimited bandwidth for $30-$50. Their speeds are often slower, they are only available in certain areas, service time lags, and customer service isn't always the best. But that is the trade off for reasonably priced internet.
The CRTC recently made a decision that would force the small ISPs to limit their bandwidth, and worse, practically gave the big ISPs the authority to choose the limits! This would destroy the competition, stifle innovation, and cut off access to the internet for thousands, if not millions, of Canadians. Luckily, the government and all opposition parties agree with the small ISPs and the vast majority of consumers when they say that this CRTC decision just makes no sense.
I do understand the need for limits in some cases, however, the caps currently in place are completely ridiculous. They do not fair nicely with their global competitors, but they dont have to because together they have a near monopoly. This isn't fair to the small ISPs, but mostly it isn't fair to the consumer.
The fact of the matter is this: reasonable caps for reasonable prices. Give me 200GB for $50. Will I use 200GB? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)