On Monday, John Tory announced that he would put his proposal to extend public funding to private, faith-based schools to a free vote in the legislature.
How would you interpret Mr. Tory's announcement of a free vote on the religious schools question?
Liberal Jacqueline Alderton: Weak Judgment from a Weak Leader
John Tory took a bad policy and made it even worse. Now he’s saying that he wants to plunge Ontario into years of turmoil and chaos. That would plunge us into the kind of divisiveness that takes a generation to heal. Is that what anyone wants?
Tory is acting like that annoying sales person who keeps showing you various types of the same product that you don't want with the hope that you might buy it.
We’re not buying.
He tries to package this as ‘listening’ to voters, but really it’s clear that his candidates were revolting and he had nowhere to go.
But what did he really change? He’s still going to implement the plan, still going to do the pilot projects, and only then is he going to have a free-vote.
How does this make any sense? Does anyone believe the money would be taken away once it’s given to the pilot schools?
I think the real free vote will be October 10th when people have the chance to finally put this issue to rest and get on with the real issues facing Ontario.
PC Joan Tintor: JT is bringing listening back
The Toronto Sun’s Christina Blizzard has described this as “the most unusual election I've covered.” So yesterday’s events were, in a way, fitting. John Tory said that “MPPs will be allowed a free vote, so they are at liberty to vote their conscience and represent the wishes of their constituents. In this significant way, the public can be more involved in the decision making. They have expressed strong concerns, and I have heard them.”
I interpret this as (1) a demonstration of having listened, and (2) an attempt to get the voters to focus on the other 99% of the issues that have gone ignored, issues such as finding a family doctor (what we were originally going to blog about today, funnily enough), struggling to keep up with the cost of living, safe communities, and restoring trust in elected leaders.
Yesterday, one Toronto radio talk show host spoke about how faith funding has come to dominate the campaign, to the exclusion of larger issues. He is right. Why, even other education issues have been ignored. For example, I have yet to see a news story examining why McGuinty was unable to keep his promises to implement so-called turnaround teams and teaching mentors, and his failure to allow public school choice.
As expected, the schadenfreude-soaked Liberals are eagerly lobbing their rhetoric of reversal. This is an interesting tack for the Liberals to take, given that their leader thinks elections are about telling the voters exactly what you’re going to do, then doing the opposite after the votes have been counted.
It is often forgotten that Dalton McGuinty did have the means to seek the public’s approval of his reversal on income taxes: he could have simply kept his promise to abide by the Taxpayer Protection Act, and submit the proposed tax hike to a referendum. He preferred to gamble that, three years hence, people would grow accustomed to his warts (my apologies to Lerner and Loewe).
Conventional wisdom might suggest that there is more risk in altering one’s position during an election campaign, than in breaking one’s promises afterward. But conventional wisdom has not been reinforced by much of what has happened in this campaign so far. Stay tuned.
New Democrat Jordan Berger: Time To Focus on Real Issues
As a supporter of the public school system, I was concerned about John Tory’s ill-defined commitment to extend funding to faith-based schools. That being said who besides Dalton McGuinty would deny the apparent contradiction that only Catholic schools are currently funded? Tory’s new proposal, to appoint a Commission and to hold a free vote on the matter, is a welcome clarification.
While I hardly agree with his general approach to public policy, I do think John Tory is a man of principle and it’s been painful to watch him try to square his beliefs with a hostile electorate. However, this whole episode does raise questions about his political maturity – especially given the controversy in the 1980s that surrounded the extension of funding to the Catholic system. John Tory has been widely portrayed as the whiz kid who made Bill Davis shine. I suspect the reality was that Tory was more dependent on the sage direction provided by Premier Davis than vice-versa.
With just over a week to go, it’s now time to focus on the real issues facing Ontario. On education, for example, why do parents continue to fundraise to buy necessary school supplies? If we can’t have a discussion of the flawed school funding formula during the election, when can we address the real needs of our school children? I sincerely hope that Tory’s “climb-down” will allow the parties to focus on meaningful issues.
The Green Party's Chris Tindal: Losing Faith
I'll need a few days to know for sure, but at the moment I can't help but feel it represents the death of my hope that this campaign would rise above the useless partisan wedge-issue fear-fest it's been.
Is John Tory's position on religious school funding divisive? Yes. Should he have raised it in the first place? I don't know. I disagree with almost every position the man's taken over the last few months, but at least he's not so politically cynical as the Liberals and NDP that he would spend a whole campaign pretending to "oppose the funding of religious schools" when really what they mean is "unless they're Catholic schools, because they're not as scary as those Muslims over there." Or, at least, that's what I keep hearing whenever they talk about it. (The Green position, that we should merge the Catholic board into the public board and create one publicly funded school system, is explained here.)
Regardless, the reality is that the Liberals have kept this issue on the agenda to the exclusion of all others because that's what's best for their party--what's best for the province be damned. Didn't someone say something about spending $40,000,000,000 on nuclear power? Should we maybe talk about that before we create deadly radioactive waste that will be around for a million years? Should we maybe talk about the tritium that will seep into our children's drinking water?
Didn't someone say something about a climate crisis? Should we maybe talk about what we'll do when the farms that produce our food can no longer grow as much (or anything) due to shifting weather patterns?
Didn't someone say something about a referendum? Should we maybe talk about this once-in-a-lifetime chance to make democracy better? Should we maybe talk about how MMP tends to create more positive, issues-based election campaigns?
Now that Tory's made this announcement, I fear that instead of allowing us to move on he's simply thrown more wood on the fire, ensuring that we'll never get around to the list of issues that matter more. For example, today's blog question was going to be about the doctor shortage. Sorry folks, we're not going to deal with that problem in this election. Please take a magazine and wait. The doctor will see you in four more years. Maybe.
"...who besides Dalton McGuinty would deny the apparent contradiction that only Catholic schools are currently funded?"
howard hampton.
of course, you wouldn't know that's the NDP stance on the issue, because it's not anywhere on their website. is it official NDP policy to omit all indefensible positions from publication, jordan? or is it simply shame?
which one compelled you in refusing to answer the question when it was posed in this blog series? go back and read it again. you don't even answer the question. you are incapable of answering basic policy questions on behalf of the party you represent. what are you even doing here?
the NDP has decided it's easier for them to distract voters from faulty policy than write a platform they're willing to talk about in totality. for all the good they might do, this makes their leadership worthless.
the only real leadership being shown in this election by frank de jong is being muzzled at every opportunity. you'll know it was real leadership in a few years when you finally get to hear some of the green party's ideas coming out of the mouths of your local NDP, liberal or conservative candidate.
leadership does matter, which is why jordan and others like him are so terrified we might get a taste of it.
posted by alexg on 03 October 2007 at 1:51 AM
Hi Alex,
Didn't mean to offend you so. I'm hardly terrified of the Greens though the Canadian leadership is, in my opinion, pretty loopy in comparison to their European counterparts. Truth is I'd love to see the Greens and other parties represented and that's why I happily voted for electoral reform in the advance poll.
You have a point, however. Howard has been quite clear that he does not intend to address the historical reality of Catholic school funding.
The important distinction for me is that Hampton has been talking about other "minor" issues like, for example, poverty, energy conservation, tax reform, social services, and ethics in government, rather than fixating like a dog with a bone on Tory's faith-based funding fiasco. The Liberals have so far used this diversion to ignore their record in power and I think that's a shame.
posted by Jordan Berger
on 04 October 2007 at 12:09 AM
Steve Paikin wrote a biography of former Premier John Robarts recently, and pointed out that Robarts ran campaigns without making reams of promises, instead simply offering Ontarians his sound judgment. Though that was a different era, it was a winning formula for Mr. Robarts for several elections.
Using judgment as a reference point, I wonder how things would go in an election today?
I have serious reservations about John Tory's judgment. He is very inconsistent and he seems to have real difficulty in learning from mistakes.
He was the guy who ran the 1993 PC federal campaign, featuring the egregious negative ads ridiculing Jean Chretien's facial disability. They had to be withdrawn, and the controversy helped spur Chretien's Liberals to a landslide win. When he entered provincial politics, Mr. Tory promised to bring a new level of civility to politics here; but he has run a negative campaign again, focussed on attacks on Mr McGuinty and his many broken promises.
His main point throughout has been that he himself is different-- a man of principle, whose promises matter, and who will not waver based on the polls. After reversing course on his centrepiece policy, he has been left to squirm, vainly trying to get people to believe that his shift represents "listening", an attribute of leadership, when he had spent the entire campaign to that point stressing that to him, constancy in the face of adversity was the true test of leadership.
Too late John. Your campaign is in tatters. You are an intelligent person and an articulate communicator, but your message is so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that no one can tell what is real about you and what is posturing and spin. You're done like Thanksgiving dinner.
It's arguable whether Mr McGuinty's record merits re-election. But his judgment certainly appears sounder than Mr. Tory's. On the schools issue, he has stated his position and has not wavered. He acknowledges he broke promises from the last campaign, but said he felt doing what was best for the province was more important than avoiding attacks from his political opponents. Some people don't like it, but enough do that he'll doubtless win.
Beyond this, he has been scrupulous to avoid personal attacks against his opponents-- when Mr. Tory did his somersault, Mr. McGuinty's reply was that he would leave it to the people of Ontario to assess Mr. Tory's judgment. Frankly, and being mindful of Premier Robarts' approach, this impresses me.
As for Mr. Hampton, his recent rant at the media just shows the frustrations of a hard campaign by a leader who has now run three of them without being taken very seriously. His rant doesn't matter, but unfortunately for him his party's positions don't seem to matter much either.
posted by Steve V on 06 October 2007 at 8:21 AM
Rather than lobby for a single education system, Mr Tory is attempting to plunge this Province into total educational chaos. I have asked him for some clarification on his "faith based" initiative, so far no reply. My question was, how did this initiative come into existence. Who or what groups suggested it as a possibility. Who would be included, how would a group qualify for funding. And if this were to become a reality would it be a great stretch to imagine groups lobbying for official language status.
Faith based education is a bad idea with nothing but disasterous consequences. If a religeous group wants faith based schools, great, let them fund it, but not with my tax dollars.
Your poorly thought out initiative have turned a Conservative voter into a liberal voter, Thank you Mr. Tory.
posted by greyfox on 06 October 2007 at 7:26 PM
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Subscribe to all Blogs
John Tory
It seems from the number of comments to this announcement on your blog of what John Tory says, people are much interested but I decided to give it a shot.
Firstly, Mr. Tory has just handed over the election to McGuinty by this inane campaign promise, and I imagine over in the Liberal camp they are laughing giddily as to where they will celebrate their win on election night.
Secondly, there couldn't be a more useless idea to present to voters when we are faced with higher property taxes, higher gas taxes, higher food costs, higher utilities and less income and jobs in Ontario. In the past several years in St. Catharines General, I had to pleasure of waiting 8 hours to actually speak to a doctor. In 2003, I returned home from a vacation injured and waited 2 days for surgery. Do you think I care about faith based school funding?
Thirdly, the government of Ontario meaning the Liberals are spending money like drunken sailors, and most of it is wasted in bureaucracy. You can take any Ministry and find hundreds of policy analysts, hired to do what? Analyze policy, which goes up the food chain, and no one does anything with the recommendations. The provincial government built two large buildings here and Niagara Falls to bring jobs here, only to swipt them back to Toronto. The Niagara Falls building is leased out so the govt., is a landlord now. There are no jobs here, no industry and no interests in revitalizing downtown St. Catharines.
In summary what the province of Ontario has to do, is to get into solar power industry and start partnering with private business to manufacure solar power panels here in Ontario. China is buying out US solar Power plants, and are pumping them out of their factories in China. Will we be buying them from the Chinese, or can we not make our own. Residential heating costs can be cut in half, and we can eliminate coal plants, and not have the need for nuclear if we act now. It would provide jobs, and we can save our resources. Its not only the Liberal Party but the Conservatives that have their priorities all wrong but also achaic, religion is not a priority, global warming and saving energy is a major one.
posted by Veronica on 02 October 2007 at 9:36 PM