This is going to be a hard fought, down and dirty by-election. That’s what I keep hearing from people. The vicious, attack anything type of politics is precisely the part of politics I dislike. It’s corrosive. It stifles real debate, and turns off potential voters.
Partisanship is a tricky thing – it’s necessary for organizing in the political arena (particularly in our electoral system) and moving towards progress, but it can also turn rational-thinking people into irrational hacks. I say that as someone who is a partisan. As a social democrat the majority of my views line up with Ontario’s and Canada’s social democratic party.
I was thinking recently about my level of partisanship and how far that extends. I’m pleased with the current leadership and so I’m willing to work as part of a team. Conversely, I am entirely displeased with Ontario’s Liberal government.
So I was trying to imagine being a Liberal partisan – what would that be like to feel the need to stick up for this government? What arguments could I conjure up to promote a government that’s been oftentimes negligent, and at other times willing to boldly cross the line with public funds purely out of self-interest? How do you promote that government? More likely, I would stoop to partisan hackery and attack my opponent instead of promoting my own party or candidate. (On a personal level, it’s more likely that I wouldn’t fight for a party or government I didn’t actually believe in, but that’s just me…).
The gas plant
This topic of partisanship has been on my mind lately in light of revelations about the gas plant cancellation/”seat saver” by the Liberals in the last election. To legitimately campaign for this government, one must go beyond the opportunism and negligence of this government and live in a world where self-interest is more important than the public interest.
I’m an idealist, but to live in the real world you need to allow yourself some ability to forgive mistakes and transgressions. I can do so hoping that we can learn from these mistakes and do better. I can’t for the life of me, though, imagine how I could easily forgive this kind of a transgression and remain partisan. I personally have a very strong ability to forgive; but one can only forgive when forgiveness is being sought. Gallingly, there haven’t been apologies or statements of regret – just matter-of-fact statements about how this decision was made.
If you haven’t followed this story, here is the rundown: Liberal government enters into a guaranteed contract to build a gas power plant in Mississauga with private company; residents upset; construction of gas plant begins; election campaign not going well – polls show Liberals may lose 4 seats around power plant, already under construction; Liberal campaign – not government – decide on plant cancellation shortly before election day; Liberals win seats and minority government; construction continues for some time after cancellation announcement; lawsuits filed; government costs of cancellation announced to be at least $190 million dollars; Liberal cabinet ministers admit to this – no apology sought.
It’s a disgusting waste of money. It is money that could have reduced our deficit, or been spent on helping people. It could have reversed the cuts to the badly needed Community Start-up and Maintenance Allowance, or raised desperately low social assistance rates.
What’s worse is that by pulling a move like this, and not paying a consequence for it or even seeking forgiveness, public trust in the political system erodes ever further. The brush of self-interest, incompetence, negligence, paints everyone in the political arena in a poor light. On this topic, Rex Murphy said of the public dealing with this fiasco: “They resign themselves to the sleaziness and corruption of the game. They learn to quietly despise politics. At that point, in a democracy, all are losers.”
These Liberals. Lack of compassion for our poorest, waste of money through sheer negligence, laying out hundreds of millions of public funds to win seats. It’s a very cynical place to be in to fight to reelect this kind of an administration. You would have to convince a public that they shouldn’t even want any better. That’s tough. The next logical step, then, is to chop others down, too.
Liberal Spies and Attacks on Catherine
In this post I’m criticizing the actions of the Liberal government, but I won’t be making anti-Liberal candidate statements. One of the most difficult things in politics is setting aside personal relationships. I know Karen Scian and Eric Davis and I like them both. While I don’t know Raj Sharma, I’m sure he’s a nice person and qualified public servant.
Being a Kitchener resident I don’t know all of the details about Karen’s work on Waterloo Council, but I will say that as a person, I’m a big fan. I think she’s an individual who really cares about her community, she’s friendly and engaging, and really connects with people. The same can be said about Eric – I’ve enjoyed my interactions with him, and believe him to be well intentioned. Simply, they’re good people. I just don’t see how the party they are hoping to run for could amass this kind of a record and be rewarded for it.
With the importance of this by-election and the difficult spot the Liberals are in, I do expect that things could get nasty. I don’t expect this from the candidates – I think all are respectful individuals – but on the sidelines the daggers will be out. The NDP hasn’t even held its nomination meeting and yet there are already people rallying in the background to discredit Catherine.
In her column on Fife, Luisa D’Amato noted that a Liberal spy had slipped her a piece of paper with past quotes from Fife on the Premier. A local poster suggested on a social media site that people follow Fife’s nomination page so that they can “find out when and where Catherine will be i [sic] the coming weeks so that we are able to get the Real Story about who Ms. Fife really is…”
As D’Amato noted, “Fife will be a huge threat to the Liberals in this byelection.” She’s an impressive individual, who many consider the strongest candidate in the race. She’s running for a party with the most popular provincial leader. As such she will have a target on her back throughout the race, and the challenge will be cleaning up the muck as the hackery begins so that voters will be exposed to ideas, records, and individuals instead of spin.
The attacks are very likely to happen. It’s the typical, negative, cynical politics we’re accustomed to. The past provincial election saw all kinds of smears, spin, and trolling on social media to the point that real engagement was stifled. Let’s demand better.
On Catherine
As a candidate for MPP, Catherine has an embarrassment of experience. She’s the sitting chair of the Waterloo Region District School Board, where she oversaw the creation of 1,600 child-care spaces in schools, with no additional cost to taxpayers. She was the President of the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association, VP of the Canadian Public School Boards Association, a board member with a number of local organizations such as Reception House, has been awarded for her social activism, and has worked to encourage local women to enter politics.
As a WRDSB trustee since 2003, Catherine has been a leader in our community for many years. She’s confident, competent, and highly professional, and with her commitment to research and informed policy decisions, will be a welcomed addition to an arena that can often be more sizzle than substance. She will make an excellent MPP for K-W.
By virtue of being a decision maker in the community, one is bound to upset people along the way. It’s the nature of public service. It’s not necessarily because a person isn’t listening to the public. The public has many perspectives and competing interests and it’s up to an elected official to make the best decision based on public input and evidence.
So is Catherine Fife “a politician who demonstrated she does not care what voters think and lacks accountability to them”, as James Howe writes, or a Chair who “has steered school trustees through some rough water”, as Luisa D’Amato writes? Voters in Kitchener-Waterloo will have an opportunity to decide, but I do hope that this debate will be about facts and not spin.
Closing
It will surely be an interesting campaign. Many say that the riding was a Liz Witmer riding, Liz being a red Tory as opposed to the hard-right, union-busting, right-to-work, chain-gang promoting Ontario PC Party under Tim Hudak. The Liberals will be choosing between three very good candidates, but with this gas plant fiasco (not to mention Ornge, eHealth, etc.) and the Liberals hanging low in the polls, it will be a struggle for them to win this. The NDP, with the most popular provincial leader in Andrea Horwath, success in negotiating a fairer budget this year, and an excellent candidate in Catherine Fife, can legitimately win this.
It’ll be a very interesting by-election indeed. But please – let’s keep it civil, and have a mature campaign about ideas.
July 25, 2012 at 8:49 am
Thanks for making your views known Cameron.
As the Liberal partisan that you indirectly mention at the end of the first section, I do believe that my party is the best choice to serve the interests on the people of Ontario. I’m surprised by the bracketed comment since I believe it is a negative attack on me. Odd given your preference for civil discourse. As a personal friend, an apology would be appreciated.
You try to put yourself on the high road by saying you won’t say anything negative about Liberal candidates and by inference try to place me in the gutter because I have put the spotlight on shortcomings in Catherine Fife’s record. I do not engage in gutter politics of personal smears and spreading unfounded rumours. Yes, I’m prepared to fight hard but I base my arguments on facts. Just as the government is not perfect neither am I, but I make every effort to avoid gutter politics.
Candidates are an important part of the choice that voters face. You demonstrate that by spending so much time selling Catherine Fife. Voters also deserve other perspectives on her record. When so many parents and school board partners need to work so hard and so long to make their voices heard on the board’s plans for an extended day, there is a case to be made for looking at the record of the elected head of the board of trustees.
Oh and Catherine can’t take any credit for those 1600 child care spaces. The care those children are receiving and thousands of others across the province of Ontario are a Liberal government achievement as part of its creation of full day kindergarten.
A move by the just the type of long term solution that is critical to reducing poverty and crime.
But only two public school boards believed they must run all of the before and after school care themselves. One held extensive consultations with its stakeholders after trustees became aware of concerns. And one, the Waterloo Region District School Board, did not.
July 25, 2012 at 4:30 pm
James,
Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply. I actually don’t think an apology is necessary as I think you’re reading too much into it – in no way was I indirectly mentioning you. I was talking hypothetically about being a Liberal partisan in general. While you are a Liberal partisan, I haven’t a clue why you would think I was attacking you specifically or how you made that connection. I was earnestly stating that it would be difficult position to be in to overlook that kind of an action (relating to the gas plant seat saver).
Indeed, I did quote you in your piece about the by-election, but you’ll notice I didn’t do so in my section on attacks because it certainly is important to look at an individual’s record. If I thought it wasn’t important, I wouldn’t have linked to your post because I would have been avoiding having people reading it. Instead, the link is there, because I think it is important that people are able to judge for themselves. The point of my piece is that the election should be civil and look at facts and ideas. I’m hoping that we can avoid the kind of whisper, misinformation, dirty trick, smear campaigns we’ve unfortunately grown accustomed to.
July 26, 2012 at 10:30 pm
“So I was trying to imagine being a Liberal partisan – what would that be like to feel the need to stick up for this government? What arguments could I conjure up to promote a government that’s been oftentimes negligent, and at other times willing to boldly cross the line with public funds purely out of self-interest? How do you promote that government? More likely, I would stoop to partisan hackery and attack my opponent instead of promoting my own party or candidate. (On a personal level, it’s more likely that I wouldn’t fight for a party or government I didn’t actually believe in, but that’s just me…).”
You really can’t imagine why given my post and the reaction of NDP supporters to it that I thought you were referring to me? Especially when you go to lengths to say you would not criticize Karen Scian or Eric Davis?
Even if not directly about me, you infer that any Liberal supporters must have questionable ethics and can only stoop to gutter politics to support the government.
Not exactly what I’d describe as an example of civility in politics.
July 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm
That’s right, I did not say I would criticize either – I don’t have anything negative to say about them. As I’ve said, I think questioning someone’s record or their ideas is fair game – so long as it’s done in an honest way that doesn’t distort facts.
I’m not inferring that you have questionable ethics. I’m saying that this liberal government does. My point is that as a partisan, it would be difficult to stick up for that. Is it not? Or do you approve of the use of 190 million dollars spent to save 4 seats? Not exactly being an example of ‘good government’, my assumption is no.
This is exactly the point that I was making about needing an ability to forgive in politics because there will always be mistakes made or decisions made that don’t gel with your views. In this particular case, I was imagining feeling the need to defend that decision. My assumption isn’t that you, or another Liberal partisan, would have questionable ethics. Instead, your ethics would likely make it difficult to stick up for that. So instead of using the government’s questionable record, the easier thing would be to go on the attack. Would it not? Again, this isn’t an attack on you, but my analysis of what often happens/what is likely to happen when a government is running on a questionable record. You can join in that game, take the more difficult route of defending that record, or not participate.
July 28, 2012 at 6:57 am
You’ve proving my point Cameron. You’re using highly partisan rhetoric while calling for civility.
And despite your claims to the contrary, you are questioning my ethics and those of every other Liberal supporter. And I still see you as inferring that I and others must be in the gutter to support the government when I, for one, make an effort to avoid the gutter.
You may not be able to see it through your perspective as an NDP candidate’s but there is plenty of great reasons to support Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal government. If the NDP ever forms a government in Ontario again, you’ll realize that no government is perfect and things happen because people make mistakes and some are weak and make bad choices. Whether they can say so publicly or not, the vast majority who are trying to do the right thing may disapprove at times.
So you can pull out examples of government failures but I prefer to see that as a learning opportunity and a chance to make things right. That is why I can support the government warts and all.
The government’s track record is dominated by positive accomplishments such as full day kindergarten, the Ontario Child Benefit and the Green Belt around the GTA. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. I have no hesitation saying the best choice for the people of Kitchener-Waterloo is a Liberal MPP.
July 30, 2012 at 8:54 am
Again, I don’t think it’s highly partisan to talk about a government failure (one that is clearly a failure, yet the government will not admit to it being so). As I stated in my post, it’s necessary to have an ability to forgive to continue support as a partisan. In this case, were it an NDP government, I believe that I would find this one difficult to sluff off. You feel the positives outweigh the negatives. I don’t. It’s a personal decision. We’ll have to disagree on this one.
James, I’m not naïve enough to think that an NDP government would be perfect and wouldn’t make mistakes. What bothers me most about the gas plant fiasco is that to this government it’s not even considered a mistake – there’s no admission of error, no apology. Just a matter-of-fact statement that this highly partisan decision was made by the campaign. I’m also able to see that there are some very good things that this government has done, however, in my opinion, the track record isn’t positive enough to warrant re-election.
July 26, 2012 at 2:58 am
Thank you Cameron for posting this as it articulates the thoughts of many members of the community who are more passive about their reading and tweeting. I typically do not vote along party lines and have voted for all three major parties in the last 30 years, depending on the candidate. However, I don’t doubt that accusations will soon fly that I am simply a partisan poster.
I am reluctant to engage in the political discussion on Twitter because it has already gotten nasty and I have stopped following the #kitwat hashtag as there seems to be more bullying and passive aggressive tweets. When it comes time to cast my vote, I will be also considering how members of each candidate’s campaign team have conducted themselves in the public sphere. So far, I have been pretty disappointed.
July 26, 2012 at 9:02 am
A. Eller,
Thanks so much for leaving this comment. As a person who is partisan it can be so easy to get wrapped up in the heat of things, but what you’re describing is precisely the problem – people who want to engage casually, and actually have a real debate get shut out because of the bickering.
This post was pre-emptive because I saw how during the past provincial election, particularly on social media, debate was stifled by smears and misinformation. During that election the NDP launched a website, stopthesmears.ca, which took the smears on social media and gave all of the information, so that we could share that out instead of bickering back and forth. Still, I was disappointed by how little engagement there was on Twitter during the election because of what you’re describing. There was one Liberal staffer who I ended up reporting as spam because of frequent smear tweets directed at me. That kind of thing doesn’t really win any votes, but it might keep the other person’s voters away. A cynical way to win an election.
As a candidate, you only have so much control over how each member of your team conducts themselves – mistakes are made. But I’m glad to hear that you’ll be demanding a higher standard. As more people do, civility in politics will become more important. And that’ll be a good thing.
July 26, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Politics is crazy, irrational, nuts, and fun. It is the way people settle their differences….
This is a classic definition of it all, from a mentor of mine, Doug Puddicombe, campaign manager for Dr Bruce Halliday MP – Oxford 1972-1993. Only it doesn’t take into account the negativity that is involved. Cam, I applaud your willingness to state what is needed, and am quick to forgive when even you break your own idealism and go negative from time to time – you’re not too bad at it! I think your comments are generally quite thoughtful, and careful to be respectful.
If one wants to campaign against the Liberals here, the best approach is to highlight the significant assets your candidate is bringing to the contest. She is bright, experienced, respected, level-headed, honest. Could you ask for more? The significant question the NDP has to answer, in my opinion, is ‘can we afford them?’
In reading your constitution, and in seeing your caucus performance at Queen’s Park this session, my concern is that you’ve more spending in mind, and want to talk significantly about that. Tim Hudak’s problem is that any evidence of his progressive and compassionate side (which does exist by the way) is sideswiped by his own team’s rabidity towards red-meat right wink issues, which you scintillatingly captured in your own commentary above. No one in Ontario doubt Tim will be another Mike Harris – in fact many in the Ontario PC Party pine for simply that and more. The Liberals haven’t a good track record of balancing spending with income, and are clearly adrift. But they do appear more compassionate than Tories do.
That leaves Catherine and Andrea to define just how they will be more fiscally responsible than the Premier.
So, what’s your compelling case on that front? Go ahead, make me believe!
See you on the hustings….
July 27, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the comment. Sometimes governments and politicians make very poor choices and that needs to be pointed out. Above all I believe in running for something and not simply against something, but an honest analysis of a record is required – so long as it’s honest and not simply spin and smear. And thanks for the compliment!
As for your suggestion about it being about economics, you’re bang on. “The economy, stupid,” was James Carville’s strategy for Clinton in ’92 and it’s something that New Democrats have to always keep in mind. The myth of New Democrats as poor stewards of the economy persists despite examples to the contrary, while the Liberals and Conservatives typically get a pass. I don’t think that anyone would describe our economy in Ontario as being in a strong state, yet the NDP haven’t had the reins of government here for 17 years. Perhaps it’s time that we do.
For Ontario to do well we need all Ontarians to do well, and it’s time that we had a government that focused more on economic equality, as inequality continues to spiral. As for the deficit New Democrats are often described as “tax and spend” which sounds a lot better to me than the “cut tax and spend” that we’ve seen from PC and Liberal governments. It’s not only about spending and I think the PC and Liberal focus on spending alone is irresponsible. I’m sure you’re aware that across Canada NDP governments have a better record of staying out of deficit and have lower deficit spending than PC and Liberal governments.
But, as you say, it will be up to Andrea and Catherine to define how they will be more fiscally responsible, and I’m sure they will.
Thanks again for your comments!
July 27, 2012 at 12:01 am
Hi Cameron!
Excellent post (well, except for the parts I disagree about). I am totally in agreement with you about the partisan nature of politics. The part I can’t get over is that both NDPer and Liberal (I assume Conservatives and Greens, too, but don’t have personal experience with it) deeply involved party members–those on executive boards, those commenting everywhere–either don’t realize what they are doing to the public perception of politics, or just don’t care in their zeal to get that zinger out on the other guy. You are unquestionably my favourite NDPer, because I do recognize you don’t do that–not the zinger kind anyway. I’m afraid to tell you that you are the ONLY NDPer I actually know who doesn’t do that.
While I’m a Liberal with an interest in federal politics, I do live here, I do have at least as much interest in provincial politics as an “average” Ontarian (yes, I hate that, too) and I can think of lots of things Dalton McGuinty and his team have done that I like. Do I like them all? Of course not. However, you want to talk about the gas plants. Fair enough. Back when the decision was made to go ahead with them, it is my understanding this decision was made based on evidence, studies, the good things we all say we want to base decisions on. However, there is also that pesky reality of political decisions. If there weren’t we’d just have StatsCan run the government, have no need for MPs or MPPs, etc. Now, I fault the Liberals for not realizing the unpopularity of that evidence-based decision would not die down. Also, between the time of originally giving the go-ahead, and last summer, certain things changed that made the evidence not so clear cut anyway. Things like we don’t need them, because we’ve been good little Ontarians and actually reduced our demand. I don’t really know where I got this understanding of mine, but I strongly suspect a great deal of it was obtained when Anita and I were researching energy before we finally gave up and had that energy debate to try to get more clarity on an incredibly complex file. Read, more complex than I was expecting. Part of it may have come from the Ontario Liberals, too, but I don’t think that much.
Yes, it was terribly self-interested of them to “save their seats”, and it was. But here’s the thing. Do you now want politicians to go ahead with something that is no longer required, while at the same time ignoring the wishes of constituents? You say yourself “The public has many perspectives and competing interests and it’s up to an elected official to make the best decision based on public input and evidence.” Should they not do that if it means they gain an advantage?
Sorry, I know this was way too long. I don’t have a blog because I spend so much time commenting on others’
Thanks for reading it.
July 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Hi Jenn,
Thanks for your comments and compliments! Not only are you a respectful Liberal as described above, you also see the light on proportional representation. Something I can definitely get behind! You’re right that dippers aren’t more perfect, and I think it’s a culture change we need throughout politics. I must say though that when it comes to dirty politics, I was proud to be running for the NDP in the last election. Tim Hudak with his “wheel of tax” and the “taxman” campaign? Yikes. I also felt that the stopthesmears.ca campaign was an excellent response to Liberal smears on social media – simply giving the truth and explaining why things were untrue rather than resorting to other smears. Imperfect yes, but I do believe the NDP did a good job of keeping things positive in the last campaign, and I know locally we worked hard at that. It ain’t easy to not respond to dirty politics, but it’s important to do, and I know and appreciate that you get that as well.
As for the gas plant, you’re right about the complexity of decision making and that sometimes the best decisions are the ones that contradict what you thought earlier. It’s rare yet amazing when politicians will admit to that! In this case, the decision to cancel the plant would have been less egregious had the argument been that the electricity was not necessary, however, that’s not the case. The plant wasn’t cancelled due to decreased demand – in fact, the plant will still be built, but this time in the Sarnia area (conveniently out of Liberal territory). In this case the argument cannot be made that the decision was based on evidence (us not needing them) and the timing of the cancellation reveals blatant self-interest (particularly with the Energy Minister stating that it was a campaign decision and not a Ministry decision). As far as poor government decisions go, I’m afraid this one walks and quacks like a duck.
Thanks for your comments and don’t apologize for writing too much – it’s my natural state!
July 30, 2012 at 10:05 am
You’re ignoring my points as to why I am upset. I don’t care if you stick to the facts and criticize the government. But I’m still offended by this smear on everyone who supports the Liberals which I take personally because I know I ruffled NDP feathers and this post is clearly a response.
Here’s where you cross the line Cameron:
“More likely, I would stoop to partisan hackery and attack my opponent instead of promoting my own party or candidate. (On a personal level, it’s more likely that I wouldn’t fight for a party or government I didn’t actually believe in, but that’s just me…).”
It’s in stark contrast to how you end: “But please – let’s keep it civil, and have a mature campaign about ideas.”
My point is that if you want civility. If you want to do politics differently. You can point out what you believe are shortcomings of the government. But walk the talk, stick to ideas and lose the trash talking.
When you don’t start off by talking about ideas, how am I supposed to take your conclusion seriously?
July 30, 2012 at 11:31 am
James,
Cameron invited his readers over to your blog to read your perspective. He’s acted with nothing but good faith towards you, though he has made his criticisms of the current government (none of which were directed at you personally). Rather than taking his invitation for his readers to explore different perspectives as an indication that you’ve “ruffled some feathers”, why don’t you take the extra traffic and the opportunity for others to hear your point of view?
Over the next few months, each party and its people will have the opportunity to make their case to the voters. Instead of spending our time online splitting hairs that don’t exist, why don’t we shift those energies to door knocking, phone calling, and making a positive case to the voters of Kitchener-Waterloo?
See you on the campaign trail!
- Peter
July 30, 2012 at 12:05 pm
James, I think you’re reading too much into this. I don’t think it’s a ‘smear’, nor do I see this as ‘trash talking’. Here’s my point: I think it would be tough to be overly “pro” a government that’s got some fiascos and scandals hot in the media – the gas plant and Ornge. As such, I’m anticipating that partisans will be more inclined to attack than defend. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m saying it’s “more likely”, which is why I ask for it to be civil, mature, and about ideas. If you think I’m wrong then I invite you and everyone else involved in this campaign to surprise me and remain positive throughout the campaign. That’s all I’m asking, and in that case, I will gladly be wrong. Again, I wasn’t saying that you or anyone else is a partisan hack – I’m saying that I expect it to happen, because it’s easier and has become more commonplace in politics, but I’m inviting something more positive.
August 1, 2012 at 11:35 am
James, seriously? This blog post was forwarded via email to me by a friend who follows the local community and it is making the rounds because of how silly the responses are. The righteous indignation seems misplaced and I can see that people would be upset if the post is speaking truth to the matter. If people haven’t stooped to partisan hackery and attacked opponents, then there should be nothing to get upset about. It’s not clear why accusations are being thrown around that this post is a “smear”, after reading through the comments, it looks like you’re just smearing yourself.