Following Politics Too Closely Takes Its Toll

I imagine that many people who follow politics closely do so in the belief that it is one of the few arenas that offers the possibility of change on a wide scale. Enlightened public policy, backed by the appropriate fiscal measures, can help bring about greater social and economic equity, thereby contributing to a more balanced and compassionate world. Unfortunately, perhaps inevitably, that hope is almost always dashed. Consequently, many of us fall victim to a deep cynicism about human nature.

In the current Ontario election campaign, there is much about which to be cynical. Three parties, all deeply flawed, all vying for our vote. There is the prospect of voting for a government long past its best-before date, the Liberals, whose leader, Kathleen Wynne, has thus far been unable to lay to rest the ghost of Dalton McGuinty. Next, Tim Hudak, leading the Progressive Conservatives, seeks to resurrect the ghost of Mike Harris, accompanied by an egregious contempt for the electorate's intelligence, reflected in his facile use of a fictitious number, one million, for the number of jobs he will create by cutting 100,000 of them.

At one time, solace might have been found in the New Democratic Party. Sadly that time is no more.

Its leader, Andrea Horwath, now inhabits an unenviable category. Having abandoned traditional progressive principles, like a pinball caroming off various bumpers, she emerges as one wholly undone by a lust for power.

Having forced this election by rejecting a very progressive budget on the pretext that the Liberals cannot be trusted, she is floundering badly as she tries desperately to reinvent herself and her party as conscientious custodians of the public purse, promising, for example, to create a new Savings Ministry, cut $600 million per annum by eliminating waste, and lower small business taxes.

Few are fooled by her chameleon-like performance. Carol Goar's piece in today's Star, says it all: Ontario NDP sheds role as champion of the poor: Andrea Horwath campaigns for lean government, forsaking the poor, hungry and homeless.

Horwath, says Goar, is so preoccupied with winning middle-class votes, assuring the business community she would be a responsible economic manager and saving tax dollars that she has scarcely said a word about poverty, homelessness, hunger, low wages or stingy social programs.

She continues her indictment:

She triggered the election by rejecting the most progressive provincial budget in decades, one that would have raised the minimum wage, increased the Ontario Child Benefit, improved welfare rates, and provided more support to people with disabilities. She parted ways with the Ontario Federation of Labour and Unifor, the province’s largest private-sector union. And she left MPPs such Cheri DiNovo, a longtime advocate of the vulnerable and marginalized, without a social justice platform to stand on.

No vision. Not a scintilla of progressive policy. Only the perspective of an uninspired and uninspiring bookkeeper.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here, is what Dante said was inscribed on the entrance to hell. These days, it could equally apply to those who have thrown in their lot with the Ontario NDP.

The Ontario Budget: Andrea Horwath's Dilemma

Being the leader of an opposition party in Ontario just got a lot more difficult for one person yesterday. No, I'm not referring to young Tim (not ready for prime-time politics) Hudak, whose response to the Ontario's austerity budget was both swift and predictable:

“It fails to address the job crisis or runaway spending … and we can’t support it,” Hudak said, but he stopped well short of threatening to dethrone the minority Liberals.

The translation of young Tim's response? The cuts weren't deep enough, and taxes weren't lowered to create jobs, hardly a surprise given the Tory leader's simplistic world view and faith in magical thinking.

No, the real problem is for NDP leader Andrea Horwath who has deferred judgment on the budget in order to poll Ontario residents to see whether they believe Finance Minister Dwight Duncan’s budget is so unpalatable that they would be prepared to see the minority government fall.

“We are going to be having a very serious discussion with Ontarians as to how far short it falls,” she said.

On the one hand, political realities being what they are, Horwath's party cannot afford to seem too cozy with the public sector unions who will bear the main brunt of this budget through wage freezes and pension reductions. On the other hand, of course, the NDP cannot afford to abandon its support of working people, no matter how reviled by other working people certain segments are.

For Horvath to opt to support the budget on the morsel tossed to her by McGuinty, the freezing of further reductions in the corporate tax rate until 2017-18, would seem too small to earn her approval. How can that freeze balance out what essentially is the abrogation of public sector bargaining rights for the next two years?

Will she approve the budget after consultations with the public, the outcome of which is predictable? (Ontarians have told us they are not happy with the budget, but do not want another election over it.) Will she stand on principle and defeat the budget?

But wait, there is a third, though hardly honourable option.

I may be dead wrong here (it wouldn't be the first time) but Horwath, after a suitable period has elapsed, could announce that she will not be supporting the budget but, taking a page out of the playbook of the federal Liberals, ensure that two members are not in the Legislature on the day of the vote, thereby ensuring its passage.

It is a maneuver I neither advocate nor favour. It was that same repeated practice by the Liberal Party in the House of Commons that convinced me that they really stand for nothing except the bald desire for a return to power.

While the outcome will be fascinating to watch, I do not envy Andrea Horwath the choices that await her.

Political Partisanship Masquerading As Political Analysis

With the Ontario provincial election pending, more and more opinion pieces will find their way into both national and local papers. I certainly welcome a broad range of views to read and react to. However, it strikes me as the epitome of dishonesty for a columnist to pretend he or she is writing a political analysis when in fact the purpose is to advocate for a specific party or candidate.

Such is the case with Andrew Dreschel's column in today's Hamilton Spectator. Entitled Ontario could face coalition government, the article, by invoking the prospect of a coalition, transparently attempts to invoke the same kind of reactionary fear that Stephen Harper so effectively exploited on his road to a majority government. While I encourage everyone to read the piece, here are a couple of snippets that illustrate Dreschel's larger purpose:

Hudak might end up leading a minority government.

If so, the idea of an alternative governing coalition or at least an alliance between the Liberals and New Democrats may very well be in the cards.

He then goes on to remind the reader of the alliance that took place between Liberal David Petersen and then NDP leader Bob Rae that ultimately led to the disastrous Ontario NDP government, suggesting that Dalton McGuinty and Andrea Horvath could find sufficient common ground to partner:

As with Peterson, McGuinty’s generally seen as progressive — if you take the word to mean left of centre.

The sowing of fear has begun.

Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.