I am on vacation today, which is good, since I need to take my wife to the OB/GYN for the latest ultrasound. Thankfully, all is well. I am also glad to be off today, since it gives me some time to recuperate after a grueling night of watching election coverage. By now, I'm sure everyone knows that the governing Liberals under Dalton McGuinty, won a second majority government. Though I don't have cable TV, I did manage to tune in, using my RCA rabbit ears, to the free CTV broadcast (which was so-so, as they spent more time cutting people off to show the CTV and election logo and summarize the results) where for about the initial ten minutes, it looked like a neck and neck race until the Liberals took off with it, and less than half-an-hour later, it was predicted that they would win. I still stay tuned to watch some of the close riding races (my riding was not close at all, but I didn't expect a different outcome since our local conservative candidate sucked in his campaigning strategy - I still voted for him anyway, since there was not a chance in hell that I was about to vote Liberal or NDP (the Family Coalition party was a distant alternative, but the candidate was still in college, so I didn't think he was very qualified).
I have to say that despite what has been reported in the news and what not, I don't believe John Tory hanged himself in this election, with the school funding issue as his convenient noose . While I may disagree with Tory on that one issue (I not only believe that the government should not fund other faith-based schools, but I am rabidly opposed to the current funding of Roman Catholic schools - it absolutely does not make any sense why RC schools are currently funded by the provincial government). Anyway, I believe what did Tory in is the apathy of the Ontario voters. I don't think the general electorate gave a rat's ass about who they wanted as Premier and who they wanted as the governing party. If you look at the record-low turnout for the election, you can see that people just didn't care. McGuinty will spin it as such that he was the clear choice and people voted for more of the same. But just like the many broken promises McGuinty has delivered, after a while, people seem to see all politicians the same - promise breakers, who may be idealistic before taking power, but are tyrants upon seizing control of the legislature. Perhaps some of this affected Tory as people saw him as flip-flopping on the schools issue, but I think it has more to do with the fact that people voted just to keep things the same. People naturally don't like change, unless there is something that directly impacts them. Also, people view the Liberals as a middle-ground, so while not perfect, the perception is that they are better than the right-of-centre party and the left-of-centre party.
If you also look at the MMP (mixed member proportion) referendum, you can see some parallels. It was widely defeated (and I'm glad it was, since it's not the solution in election reform - I don't like first-past-the-post either, but I dislike MMP even more. It was conceded by many that a big reason why MMP failed is because people were not sure what it was. My wife read all of the literature and still had a hard time with it. I admit, it is confusing for most non-followers of politics. So people just stayed on the safe side and voted for the existing system as it is (which has its own inherent problems).
I really respect the fact that this morning, of all the party leaders, only John Tory was gracious enough to afford TV and radio interviews, probably after a long night with little sleep. That's just how the guy works. He lost the Toronto mayoral election in 2003 or so, and even in losing, he made deliberate efforts to help his oppoents (including the winner) pay off their campaign debts. Some people say that John Tory is not electable because he's too nice of a guy. Others will say that he is too principled and not sleazy enough to schmooze with the political power brokers. Others will also say that he is not as socially conservative to woo the ultra right wingers like me. I don't agree with any of the above points. I think that John Tory did nothing wrong to lose the election last night. Rather, it came down to voters who just didn't care anymore about raising the bar and voting in someone with integrity and character. Complacency is the deal of the day and sadly, that is nothing new in Ontario.
Showing posts with label john tory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john tory. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The 2007 Ontario Electorate: Lemmings Personnified
What else can I call many of these apathetic voters who, despite a long history of broken promises, fiscal mismanagement, and...well, lies to the public by Dalton McGuinty and the governing provincial Liberals, are planning to vote him back into power in a few weeks time (at least according to recent polls). Do people care about good leadership anymore? Does a person's word count for much anymore? OK, so you may think all politicians are slimy, and I am not going to vigorously debate you on this point, but surely common sense must prevail and you'd have to objectively look at McGuinty's leadership (or lack thereof) record? It is no secret to anyone that I am going to be voting for John Tory and the Progressive Conservatives, but I will be so bold as to say that even the NDP leader, Howard Hampton, a really left-leaning uber-liberal, with whom I disagree on most issues, would be a far suitable Premier than Mr. McGuinty. I've watched Hampton for more than a decade now on debates and interviews, and at the very least, he has sincere passion and truly believes in his principles, despite what others say. That is probably why he has been NDP leader so long, because he will stick to his message and his socialist ideals, and not stoop to vote buying right before an election. Of course, I hope that the NDP does not take power, but I don't think there's ever a chance of that, given the consistently third place ratings of the party in elections. Still, my point stands that ANY of the other leaders (even fringe Green Party candidate Frank De Jong) would be a better Premier than McGuinty.
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Due to an event at my son's school (his first school open house since he has been a student - all of two weeks thus far), I was unable to watch the leaders' debate live; however, due to the wonders of modern day technology, I was able to view it in its entirety via video streaming on the internet (I don't have cable, so there was no option to record it on TV) thanks to the good ol' CBC. While it is not my intention to go over the debate, I want to touch on a couple of points, and then expand it to my editorial comments.
Well, what can I say? No surprise that McGuinty was on the attack throughout the debate. Anyone who thinks that McGuinty won the debate was not watching very carefully. McGuinty dodged questions by his usual strategy of providing an answer to a question that not even remotely addresses the topic in the original question. The one point which Tory and Hampton sliced him up quite nicely, was on the issue of is countless broken promises, not the least of which was his bring forth of the health tax, the biggest increase in Ontario's history, when during the last election, he said he wouldn't. Now, in subsequent ads and in print and radio responses and even on this debate, he said he realized after he got into power that he faced a tough choice as he inherited an almost six billion dollar deficit from the previous Conservative government and Mike Harris. However, it is evident that he knew about this months before he took power, since there are reports that were provided to him, even during the election campaign of 2003. So when he made that promise not to raise taxes, he knew that he would be dealing with a deficit that would require money from somewhere.
McGuinty also promised more doctors/nurses available and shorter wait times at the hospital four years ago. Well, I can tell you as a guy who has visited the emergency room multiple times before 2003, and many times after 2003 (due to my having a son now, who gets sick once in a while), the emergency room waits are markedly worse than before. I thought it was just me, so I asked friends and colleagues (a number of which are not conservatives like me) about their experience, and they also indicate that emergency room waits have increased. Also, have you tried to find a family doctor lately? It's pretty difficult. Tory proposes a controversial pay-per-use private clinic, and I support him on such initiatives. True, universal health care is a great thing, and I'm glad that we have it, unlike the U.S. However, with it being a public system, we should expect long waits (it's like free internet - you can't expect the highest quality). Just like anything else, I don't see why it can't be that people who can afford to get faster or better service, simply pays for it. Example: you will see a certain clientele eat at McDonald's, and you will see another certain clientele eat at fancy restaurants. No one is complaining about the disparity between the rich and the poor (or the wealthy and the middle class). Some people can afford to buy Porsche 911s, others put all their life savings toward a 1986 Hyndai Pony. That's just the way it is. Some people can afford to have others cook and clean and tend to their gardens; others can't even afford the cost of potting a simple plant. So if people who have the cash or the means to pay for faster service for their health care needs, why are people so up-in-arms over this? I would say it is better this way, as it will alleviate some of the congestion in the emergency rooms. Some will argue that such private clinics and hospitals will pull talented doctors away, but again, is this so unusual? Within all professions there are value/economy priced companies, and then there are the pay-through-your-nose priced companies. People should have a choice as to how to spend the money that they have or don't have. I'm all for a privatized health care system that works alongside a public universal system.
For education, McGuinty's big feather-in-the-cap (according to him) is that there have been no teacher's strikes for four years. So what? You have a tax-and-spend liberal like McGuinty who will appease most special interest groups, and of course you're not going to get any strikes. Many people in Ontario (especially teachers and nurses) did not like Mike Harris, but at the very least, he was one of those guys who did what he said he would do. He ended up pissing off a lot of people in the process, but if you are talking about making hard decisions to cut
spending and expenses in order to balance the books, that's what he had to do (remember, Harris inherited a massive deficit from the previous NDP - ultra liberal - tax and spend government). During McGuinty's time, class sizes have actually increased and there are more split classes than there were in Harris' time - this can all be independently verified. McGuinty also says he supports a full-fledged public school system, yet he is a staunch supporter of publicly funded Catholic schools (which I am 100% dead-set against) and I believe his own kids went to publicly funded Catholic schools. John Tory supports the public school system too, but as a guy who has considerably more common sense, he has called on McGuinty to either scrap public funding for Catholic schools, or publicly fund ALL faith-based religious schools, not just Catholic ones. From an equal treatment of citizens perspective, this makes lots of sense. But for whatever reason, McGuinty will continue to rally behind a public school system that also makes provision for Catholics for funding, but no one else (of course, this is because he is a Roman Catholic - whatever happened to separation of church and state???). I've never understood, even as a kid, why the province funds Catholic schools, so the sooner that this can go away, the better. I'm with John Tory on this one!
McGuinty also broke promises to shut down coal-fire plants, as well as provide assistance and support for autistic children (he ended up going to court to fight them after he broke his promise to them - once again, at election time- that he would provide support for them). McGuinty, as a feel good measure, attempted to put together a committee (ugh!) to look into support and funding for autistic children, in particular, but last I checked, no report was forthcoming.
John Tory, in his campaign (the website, by the way is http://www.ontariopc.com), as well as on the debate, has consistently focused on the sad fact that Ontario is now lagging badly in many aspects of job creation, economic growth and being viewed as a leader, as compared to other provinces. Much of this can be attributed to McGuinty, as Ontario was not in this position four years ago. As much as I disagree with McGuinty, at least he is not doing the ultimate killer for the economy, which is to be Hampton's single focus: raising the minimum wage. I am not an economist, but you don't need to be one to get at least a sense of why that would be not very good, given the shape of today's economy.
He did Toronto a huge disservice by telling its mayor, David Miller, that he had no money to give the city, and as a result, Toronto had to start cutting services, including public transit, libraries and pools and such (this, of course, was not entirely the province's fault, since Miller has also done a poor job of managing Toronto's books, and has made a point of ridiculous spending patterns, sending councillors, on the public dime, to lavish retreats and training facilities - but this is not about Miller, so I'll stoop here). However, JUST BEFORE AN ELECTION, McGuinty magically announces that he has a 1.2 BILLION dollar surplus for the 2006 year alone, and he will be doing some spending with it. Of course, he pulled the wool over Miller's eyes, but that's another story. He then started to disperse some money, right before the election to several organizations - apparently, these are "gifts" with no strings attached. One million dollars went to some cricket club (McGuinty claims there were no political party attachments here, but if you look at this demographically, cricket is enjoyed by East Indians and Pakistanis and others from that region, and it can be demonstrated that the East Indian/Pakistani community are heavy liberal supporters (don't believe me - look at how heavy-Indian areas like Brampton, and certain parts of British Columbia vote).
McGuinty also says he supports public transit, but he said that last time as well (and right before an election). Interestingly, McGuinty's current campaign platform (if you haven't read it, you can get it on the http://www.onterioliberal.ca website) does have provision for transit funding, but it mentions Toronto exclusively, even though there are transit systems in other centres such as London and Ottawa. McGuinty's plan for funding transit goes up to 2040 before it's actually fully paid for. Sounds like some short term gain (votes) in exchange for some long-term pain (deficit). McGuinty claims that the gas tax that he introduced (another damn tax that consumers have to pay) was purported set up in order to fund public transit. In truth, the gas tax was collected and put in a general revenue bucket, only a fraction of which was used for public transit. So McGuinty isn't really telling the whole truth here - yes, he's collecting the gas tax, but are the proceeds of this tax being used specifically to fund public transit and improve roads? I've noticed the quality of many roads in Ontario to be utterly crap in the past couple of years.
Crime and punishment - here's where McGuinty's true colours of being an observer, not a leader, really stand out. Remember the Belleville Indian blockade earlier this year? The provincial government did nothing about it. In truth McGuinty does not want to look like a non-liberal, by actually enforcing laws to protect citizens. He also doesn't want to be viewed as being unsympathetic to the Indian population, but instead, he let it get out of a hand with the rogue leader of the protestors group looking more like a leader than the Premier of Ontario. Speaking of crime, have you looked at crime statistics lately? At least in Toronto, where crime seems to have risen and has only been kept in check somewhat with the excellent work that past police chief Julian Fantino and current chief Bill Blair have done? I find it amazing to read of so many crimes being committed by those who are either on bail or have had previous criminal records or were on probation. The penalties for those who skip bail are more like a slap on the wrist. And as Tory has stated, McGuinty keeps records on beans harvested and fishing licenses issues, but has no record on how many commit crimes while on bail (the police have this info though), how many deals with criminals are done with the government, etc.
McGuinty loves to blame Mike Harris for any of his shortcomings, but even Howard Hampton and a number of socialist commentators have remarked, he has had four years to do so something about it. What has he done in the past four years?
I remember watching McGuinty when he squared off against Mike Harris and Howard Hampton back in 1999 on a televison debate, but also on the campaign trail. He was very wooden, and just like he is today, has a really annoying way of presenting himself, using dramatic pauses when they are not needed, slowing his speech to try to emphasize points, and looking serious in order to gain him some credibility. Obviously, people saw through all that, and saw that he had no personality and could barely defend his position. In 2003, McGuinty, with an obviously improved team of speech and body language coaches used a bit more humour, etc. This is good to the electorate, but the problem was, he basically wasn't really being himself. Those who watched him in 1999 and before that would know that he's a more introverted, introspective type of person. My brother, whose friend works in the Liberal Party, has told him that McGuinty is actually a pretty nice guy, but he's nothing like his in on TV, where he has to project some sort of politician personality. In order to win votes, he changed his personality like a Dr. Jeckyll / Mr. Hyde type of deal. He's done that with breaking promises. He's done that with funding and giving in to special interest groups. Unlike Tory and Hampton, McGuinty does not possess a genuine passion in his platform, and does not seem sincere when he talks.
He is now proposing around 300 new promises this election campaign. Do you really think this guy deserves a second chance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)