In 2005 there was some manner systemic problem within the NDP. Over and over again men won nominations over women in ridings the NDP was able to win. The end result is that the NDP elected 7 women. This is just over 1/5 of their caucus, slightly worse than the Liberals.
In fact, the Liberals ran a lot more women than the NDP. The Liberals had 25 women candidates versus the 22 the NDP ran.
At their convention last weekend the NDP have decided on an affirmative action process to get more women running. They want to have 40% of the races where they do not have an incumbent to have a women as a candidate. There are some real problems with this.
The 46 seats the NDP did not win last time are hardly their prime ground. As it stands, they had 15 women run in these ridings last time, 1/3 of them. They would only have needed to have run 3 more women in 2005 in those ridings to have the same numbers the convention policy decrees.
Winning the nomination in an unwinnable riding is much easier than in a winnable one. The NDP had three women in run the Okanagan in 2005. There was no chance that they were going to win. In Greater Victoria the NDP did not hold any seats and ran 4 women in the 7 seats. The three men all won, they ran in NDP friendly ridings. 2 of the women ran in ridings that the NDP might only win when they are in government and they lost.
The other half of the policy is the 10% for traditionally disadvantaged groups. That would be 5 more ridings. Can ridings stack their women and other issues? Would Jenny Stevens count towards both?
We have electoral boundary changes coming and this leads to some interesting changes. With 87 ridings there are 54 ridings that could not have an incumbent New Democrat running in them. Also, what happens to sitting NDP MLAs if they do not have a riding left after redistribution?
In the first draft of the EBC process, the commission rationalized the boundaries in the Victoria area and eliminated Rob Flemming's riding. He is an incumbent, but he looks like he may not have a riding to run. What happens with him? With the shift in boundaries, it is not clear where Maurine Karagianis, John Horgan and Doug Routley would run.
If we assume that 33 New Democrats will run for office again and they are exempt, this means there will be 54 seats where the policy applies. That means the NDP needs to run 22 women and 6 "other" in the non-incumbent ridings.
Here is my prediction of the result of this policy:
29 women NDP candidates
6 women will be elected
29 women Liberal candidates
13 women will be elected
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Stephen Harper
Stephen Harper has now passed 1 year and 186 days in office. In the new year he will he will pass John Thompson and Paul Martin for length of time in office. He will become Canada's 13th longest serving Prime Minister. This is actually quite an accomplishment given that he has a minority government and started his term with only a 21 seat advantage over the Liberals.
Also interesting is how long his government is managing to survive in office with a minority
In many respects, Harper has one of the weaker minority governments. He is further from majority than any government before in absolute terms. Interesting to note as well is that Harper is the only minority PM that has seen a significant change in the party standings in the parliament. He now is only 27 seats short of a majority and 31 ahead of the Liberals. Once the by-elections occur, this is likely to change to 28 short of a majority and 29 ahead of the Liberals.
Harper's ability to effectively govern with a minority is much like Trudeau in the 1972-1974 era. He certainly is not like Clark in 1979-80. All Clark needed to do was either get some Liberals to cross the floor or to bring the Credistes into government to have been safely in power, but he could not manage this.
Harper has managed to get three Liberals to cross the floor. He did lose Garth Turner, but that is not much of a loss as he is one gadfly one can not count on. His loss of Bill Casey is problematic, but it is hard to see what else could have been done.
I believe the fixed election date is an important reason why Harper is governing as if will be in power till the fall of 2009. He is not jockeying for short term political gain. He is not letting himself be driven by the polls.
Also interesting is how long his government is managing to survive in office with a minority
- Prime Minister Days in office Seats short Seats Ahead
- of majority of #2 party
- Pearson 1963 931 4 34
- Pearson 1965 894 2 33
- Harper 651 31 21
- Trudeau 1972 616 24 1
- Martin 592 20 36
- Diefenbaker 1962 308 17 17
- Diefenbaker 1957 283 22 7
- King 242 22 -15
- Clark 272 6 22
- Meighen 88 7 15
- Trudeau 1968 66 2 34
In many respects, Harper has one of the weaker minority governments. He is further from majority than any government before in absolute terms. Interesting to note as well is that Harper is the only minority PM that has seen a significant change in the party standings in the parliament. He now is only 27 seats short of a majority and 31 ahead of the Liberals. Once the by-elections occur, this is likely to change to 28 short of a majority and 29 ahead of the Liberals.
Harper's ability to effectively govern with a minority is much like Trudeau in the 1972-1974 era. He certainly is not like Clark in 1979-80. All Clark needed to do was either get some Liberals to cross the floor or to bring the Credistes into government to have been safely in power, but he could not manage this.
Harper has managed to get three Liberals to cross the floor. He did lose Garth Turner, but that is not much of a loss as he is one gadfly one can not count on. His loss of Bill Casey is problematic, but it is hard to see what else could have been done.
I believe the fixed election date is an important reason why Harper is governing as if will be in power till the fall of 2009. He is not jockeying for short term political gain. He is not letting himself be driven by the polls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)