More on Harper and the environment
http://www.thestar.com/article/260167
Harper still off-base on environment
September 25, 2007
James Travers
Ottawa
Consultants, CEOs and, yes, Conservatives insist that you can’t manage what you don’t measure. But when it comes to climate change, Stephen Harper isn’t keen to measure what he prefers others to manage.
At the United Nations yesterday, as in Australia two weeks ago, the Prime Minister skirted hard facts in repositioning Canada from near bottom of the polluter pack to top of the heap of energy giants whose love of green extends beyond the Yankee dollar. That compliments his Canada Day claim that, in every way that matters, Conservatives are putting this country back on the world stage. Heck, it might even be tolerated as harmless hyperbole if so many scary measurements weren’t being reported even as Harper promotes the hee-haw notion of laissez-faire climate-change management.
For starters, it’s pretty darned certain that Arctic sea ice is going the way of cubes in a cocktail glass. And because the ecumenical National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy says so, it’s known that the Harper government is systematically exaggerating expectations for its latest, grudging, green plan.
If candour were to slow spin, the Prime Minister would admit that far from being back, Canada is backsliding in the international theatre where the climate drama is playing. Almost as disturbing, this country is keeping bad company.
With notable variation but shared purpose, Canada is advancing with the U.S. and Australia a post-Kyoto protocol that is more inclusive and accommodating by being less demanding. More than a rubbery response to a concrete threat, that relaxed approach to safeguarding humanity’s nest contrasts with the iron fist these countries are shaking at the far less existential danger of global terrorism.
Pity the former prime minister who has to autobiographically explain why compelling evidence of an environmental death spiral was ignored while the government was otherwise engaged in a war on a tactic that, no matter how vile, has no lasting power to knock confident democracies off course. It will be even harder to persuade grandchildren that their health wasn’t worthy of economic sacrifice or as important as protecting the ruling party’s resource-rich base.
Just catching up with consensus would make those apologies unnecessary. A poll published hours before Harper’s New York speech again shows government lags behind voters on climate change. Unlike Liberals who mostly limited their effort to signing Kyoto and Tories who hope new rhetoric will erase memories of climate-change skepticism, Canadians are serious about protecting the planet.
Climate change now looms larger than health care or Afghanistan. More disquieting still for politicians juggling competing interests and prospects, the issue is no longer abstract, it’s personal. Among the interesting findings of the Harris/Decima polls is that an overwhelming majority, 68 per cent, report experiencing the effects of climate change.
Politicians put themselves at risk by shirking responsibility when public concerns become personal worries. Harper took that chance in New York by casting his government in a supporting role, leaving the lead to technological advances and market forces.
No doubt both are essential. But this prime minister, burdened as he is with a spotty record and inclined toward the easy way forward, needs to prove before the next election that he’s willing to measure and to manage what Canadians agree is most important.
Likeable Leaders – but where’s Frank?
http://www.thestar.com/article/258364
Voices: Likeable leader
September 19, 2007
We asked you which provincial leader do you think is the most likeable: Dalton McGuinty, Howard Hampton or John Tory. Here’s what you had to say.
I don’t find any of them likeable. Most politicians are pathologically lying grand-standers with delusions of statesmanhood. However, I’m not voting for who I like – liking a politician is not/should not be a requirement to agreeing with a party’s platform.
Matt Keefer, Peterborough, Ont.
Dalton McGuinty and likeable in the same sentence make an oxymoron. The man is unbalanced and unpleasantly smug. Both Tory and Hampton are likeable and decent men.
John Chuckman, Toronto
I’d definitely go with Howard Hampton, because the other two parties consistently screw things up anyway. The NDP cares about the environment and the people and advocate way more than the other two parties.
Janice Ashby, Toronto
John Tory is by far the most likeable leader. He stands for his principles and does not have the history of broken promises and doublespeak that are the legacy of the current premier. Howard Hampton is a close second. Although I do not agree with his policies, he is a very respectable and honest man.
Jerrold Landau, Toronto
I’m offended you have not included Frank de Jong. I like Frank de Jong and what the Greens stand for.
Jacquie Fraser, Etobicoke
I am absolutely appalled that the survey did not include the leader of the green party. I cannot believe that at a critical time such as now with continuous scientific evidence about global warming that the one party that stands up for the little guy that has no voice (animals, trees, planet earth), you have somehow seemed to have forgotten to include his name.
Ali Nazifi, Toronto
While many may feel that John Tory is an aloof man of privilege, I have met him and found him to be anything but. He is friendly, personable and most importantly, believable. Howard Hampton is probably the last man I’d vote for, but I give high marks for his honesty, passion and determination – he is what he appears to be. As for Dalton McGuinty – from the first moment I ever heard him speak, I found him evasive and hard to believe.
Jon Fraser, Toronto
I happen to like Frank DeJong of the Green Party best. From what little I’ve seen and heard from him, he seems to walk his talk, and isn’t full of it. Why is his name not on the list?
Linda Sepp, Toronto
Wrong question. Asking who the most likeable leader is reduces our democracy to a popularity contest between personality cults. We should be asking each other what kind of Ontario we want and which team of politicians (if any) can best actualize our collective vision.
Simon A. Dougherty, Scarborough
I was disappointed by your question as it does not give us the choice of the leaders of, say, the Green party or a better choice of ‘none.’ To be honest, McGuinty and Tory gave themselves a pay raise last holiday season while Hampton has no concept of economics in light of his party stance on raising the minimum wage, just to name a fault of each of them.
Jason Bayda, Vaughan
I don’t find any of them likeable. I’m having a hard time deciding which one will get my vote.
Carolyn Hood, Toronto
Actually I prefer Frank DeJong on the likeable leader scale. Therefore, I decline to participate in your “likeable” poll.
John Dewar, Keswick, Ont.
I think an old adage applies here, better the devil you know. Let’s face it, Howard Hampton is a nice guy but his party hasn’t learned form the Rae regime and they will never govern this province. Mr. Tory continues to associate with the dregs of the Harris government of renown (those who weren’t drafted to work for Harper) and he has nothing positive to say about anything. All-in-all, McGuinty’s term has not been that bad. There was a lot to fix and I think we should stay the course.
Will Reid, Scarborough
Dalton McGuinty seems like the most normal of the bunch. Howard Hampton is always yelling and carping and not suggesting anything. John Tory seems aloof and self-aggrandizing and pompous. McGuinty strikes me as the kind of guy who would mow your lawn when he’s out doing his own.
Angus Steele, Toronto
I don’t find any of them likeable; what’s that got to do with whether one of them will make an able and effective leader?
Chris Cosby, Scarborough
It’s sad that likeability is evidently being considered as a factor in whether or not someone can run a province. I’d rather someone who can make the tough — and necessary — decisions, than someone who can smile brightly and provide a glib sound bite for the camera. Voters should look past this sort of thing and vote on platform, policy, reliability, and perhaps character. But likeability? No.
Carla Antonelli, Toronto
Dalton McGuinty – he is an honest man. While there are claims of broken promises, Dalton strives to make Ontario a very competitive province in the global economy. Especially in education for our young people.
Krishna Singh, Scarborough
Howard Hampton is the most likeable leader in the current election. He speaks out for working families who have to spend a lot of their hard-earned minimum wages in order for their children to attend our “free” education system. All Canadian children should be able to attend school without their parents having to find money for school supplies. They should have easier access to post-secondary education too. They are our future.
Howard Raper, Brechin, Ont.
Howard Hampton is the most likeable because he is standing up for working families.
Emily Shelton, Toronto
Personally I find none of the leaders to be the most likeable. Lack of personality coupled with a distinct lack of credibility makes for a less than exciting choice. And why not include the leader of the Green Party as one of your choices?
Rob Jewitt, Cobourg
Politicians can simply groom themselves to appear “likeable” to further their own personal agenda. To rate politicians on their likeability merely measures their potential to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. Recent history as shown that likeability is not necessarily indicative of the best candidate. Were we really using our common sense when we elected Mike Harris?
David Boyle, Toronto
Dalton McGuinty is the most likeable; he truly comes across as an average professional you might meet at a little league game or in line at the movies. That said, he still looks uncomfortable in his own skin, and doesn’t project a strong innate sense that he’s a leader.
Dennis Jordan, Milton, Ont.
I would answer Frank de Jong, but he’s not on the list. Why is the media consistently omitting the Green Party leaders from debates and polls?
Jason Paquette, Toronto
I’m not sure what The Star’s criteria is for “likeable”, but if I were picking the party with the best policies and grasp of Ontario’s problems, I would hands down choose Howard Hampton. John Tory’s idea of funding private religious schools is preposterous. Dalton’s hypercritical stance on supporting the Catholic board is unethical.
Tor Sandberg, Toronto
Howard Hampton is most likeable because he’s a real person. John Tory is too smooth by half, and Dalton McGuinty comes across as a robot.
Gary Carper, Toronto
Are those three my only options? Then I will politely pass.
Alexa van Hoof, Scarborough
Would it really be that hard for you to include Frank de Jong in the poll? For shame Toronto Star.
Paul Richardson, North York
Why isn’t Frank de Jong of the Green Party included on this list? Again, we see media bias in political reporting, even in the guise of a poll.
Mary-Margaret Jones, Toronto
Why does The Star insist on not including Frank de Jong as a leader when the Greens are only a hair behind the NDP in the polls? If Frank got coverage that could also change.
Cameron Topp, Hamilton
Great article frrom the Star on the GPO
http://www.thestar.com/article/258091
The televised leaders’ debate – the pivotal point in any election – takes place tomorrow night, but Frank de Jong won’t be there.
De Jong is the leader of the provincial Greens, who are nudging double digits in the polls. While organizationally challenged and underfinanced, the Greens have moved from being a joke party to “a player on the political landscape,” in de Jong’s own words.
But de Jong did not get an invitation from the networks to participate in the leaders’ debate because, among other things, his party does not have a seat in the Legislature.
That’s a pity, because de Jong and the Greens actually have some interesting things to say.
The Green platform was released last week, and the media focus was on the relatively trivial promise to add six new statutory holidays to the calendar. But the platform includes many more substantive planks, including:
A major “tax shift” away from income (personal or corporate) and toward consumption, including a carbon tax. The health tax would be repealed and a carbon tax of 2 per cent would be levied on oil, natural gas and coal.
An overhaul of property assessment to tax buildings at a lower rate than the land on which they sit.
A sharp hike in electricity rates to reflect the “true, unsubsidized cost” of generation.
Abolition of funding for all faith-based schools, including Catholic.
Restoration of school boards’ power to levy taxes, up to 5 per cent of their budgets.
Abolition of standardized testing and the College of Teachers (the disciplinary body for the profession).
A lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16.
A ceiling on “excessive overtime” to spread the workload.
This is a decidedly eclectic mix of policies. Some planks could be called left-wing, while others are far-right, including the tax shift, which is an idea espoused by the libertarian Cato Institute in the United States. And some are just plain self-serving, including the education planks, which seem tailored to de Jong’s day job as a public school teacher.
The major environmental groups have given the Greens the cold shoulder because they see their platform as eschewing government regulations for more “market-oriented” policies – an accusation that de Jong does not deny.
“We endorse the invisible green hand,” he says. “We know regulations won’t work. The market always trumps regulations one way or the other.”
But it is the “mainstream” parties that are most incensed by the Greens’ rise in the polls – which is arguably coming at the expense of all three of them. They think that voters are moving toward the Greens because they are attracted by the label without really knowing what’s in the party platform.
De Jong rejects the implication that Green voters are ignorant of what his party stands for. “We say it as loud and clear as we possibly can,” he says.
I’ll close with an anecdote that validates de Jong’s view: In a recent election, an NDP candidate I know made a point of knocking on all the doors in the riding with Green signs and telling the residents what was in the platform of the party they were supporting. The answer was invariably: “Yes, we know, and we like it.”
In other words, the Greens, with their unique combination of environmentalism and libertarianism, may have tapped into a vein of the voting population that is being served by no other party.
Ian Urquhart’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: iurquha@thestar.ca
Great Poll by the Toronto Star
Rate the ads: Greens on education
30 second radio ad….make sure to see the results of the poll afterwards….very encouraging…
Is it just me or is the press being a bit nicer to us this time around…
…well except for the Leaders’ debate, of course
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/257103
Greens in a good spot after first week of race
Sep 16, 2007 04:30 AM
Thomas Walkom
With just one week of the formal Ontario election campaign out of the way, most sensible people aren’t yet paying attention to the claims of rival political parties. But if I had to pick a winner for the week, it would be Frank de Jong’s Greens.
This is not because the Greens will sweep the province on Oct.10. They will not. They may not see a single candidate elected. But media and public are beginning to take them more seriously. For a party on the margin, this is great step forward.
True, de Jong has been barred again from the televised leaders debate. That privilege is still reserved for the big three – Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, Conservative chieftain John Tory and New Democratic Party Leader Howard Hampton.
But not all are taking their cues from the networks. Last week, CBC Radio’s Metro Morning interviewed what it called the four main party leaders – Hampton, McGuinty, Tory and de Jong.
Meanwhile, major newspapers are according the Greens real coverage, something that big media does not do for other minor parties like the Communists or Family Coalition.
On Thursday, for example, Hampton and Tory both released important parts of their platforms. The Conservative leader spoke of spending $1.3 billion to clean up emissions from the Nanticoke coal plant on Lake Erie. The NDP reiterated its promise to boost the minimum wage immediately to $10 an hour. Yet neither story merited a mention on the Star’s front page. By contrast, de Jong’s promise to legislate six new statutory holidays did.
The Star is not alone. Factiva, the Dow Jones media database that includes all stories published in major and mid-size Ontario newspapers, recorded 58 hits for de Jong and the Greens last week. During the first week of the 2003 Ontario election, the equivalent number was eight.
By comparison, the NDP’s Hampton scored 154 Factiva hits this past week, compared to 229 during week one of the 2003 campaign.
All of this may be ephemeral. The Greens were running at about 6 per cent in public opinion polls before the 2003 election. But when the day of decision came, they garnered a mere 2.8 per cent of the actual vote.
Still, de Jong does possess an advantage that he did not have four years ago. This time, the province isn’t gripped – at least not yet – by a throw-out-the-bums mood. Faced with a choice between a Liberal leader who seems conservative and a Conservative leader who seems liberal, it is more laid-back.
Normally, the NDP would benefit from this what-me-worry attitude. Ontarians tend to swing to third parties when they think the stakes are not too high.
But many voters still remember the Bob Rae NDP government of the early `90s with distaste (that became evident last year when Rae failed in his bid to win the federal Liberal leadership). For such voters, the danger of supporting the New Democrats is that they might win.
The Greens, on the other hand, appear to present a no-risk option, particularly for those who aren’t too concerned by de Jong’s market-oriented and somewhat draconian platform (he wants to boost electricity rates dramatically in order to conserve energy).
While new, the Greens are now familiar enough to be respectable. And since they are so unlikely to win power, they appear to offer voters a costless way to thumb their noses at the political establishment.
Which, for a fourth party, is not a bad place to be.
Things are looking good. GPO at 8%
McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds
KAREN HOWLETT Globe and Mail August 20, 2007
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070820.wontario20/BNStory/National/home
TORONTO – The Ontario Liberals are losing support to both the New Democrats
and the Green Party, according to a new poll that shows Premier Dalton
McGuinty forming a minority government with less than 60 days to go before
the election.
The survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail, shows the Liberals with the
backing of 40 per cent of the electorate, giving them a modest five-point
lead over the Progressive Conservatives. The gap between the two parties has
narrowed considerably since the 2003 election, when the Liberals swept to
power with 47 per cent of the votes.
“Clearly, some of its support has bled to the left,” said Tim Woolstencroft
of the Strategic Counsel, which conducted the survey.
The Liberal Party has lost ground in all regions of the province, with its
biggest decline outside the Greater Toronto Area, according to the survey.
The numbers are most dramatic in northern and eastern Ontario, where support
for the Liberals has dropped 10 percentage points to 38 per cent, leaving
them trailing the Tories in these regions.
Overall support for the Tories has remained unchanged at 35 per cent since
the last election, revealing that the party under leader John Tory has yet
to catch on fire with voters, the survey says. In the 905 region – former
Conservative premier Mike Harris’s political stronghold – support for the
party dipped two percentage points to 41 per cent.
However, Mr. Tory, a former business executive who became leader in 2004,
has successfully wooed one-time Liberal supporters in northern and eastern
Ontario. Support for the Conservatives has climbed to 40 per cent from 34
per cent in 2003.
Ontario’s Liberals can blame their waning fortunes on a notable shift to the
second-tier parties. Support for the NDP has risen to 18 per cent from 15
per cent in 2003, the survey shows. The NDP under Howard Hampton is making
its biggest gains in the Toronto area, where its support has climbed to 25
per cent from 18 per cent.
The Green Party is also emerging as a player for the first time in the
province as Ontarians become increasingly concerned about global warming and
climate change. The party enjoys support from 8 per cent of the voters, up
from just 3 per cent in the last election. Support for the party is
particularly strong in southwest Ontario, where it has jumped to 11 per cent
from 3 per cent. However, Mr. Woolstencroft cautioned that about half of the
support for the Green Party could vanish by election day because many
undecided Ontarians tend to initially “park” their votes with the party.
The poll of 750 Ontarians was conducted from Aug. 9 to Aug. 14 and is
considered accurate to within 3.6 percentage points, 95 per cent of the
time.
Mark Winfield, assistant professor of environmental studies at York
University, said the Liberals are vulnerable to losing support to both the
Greens and the NDP over their handling of the province’s electricity system.
Mr. McGuinty promised in 2003 to close the province’s pollution-spewing,
coal-fired electricity plants by 2007, but he has backtracked twice on that
pledge and pushed the date back to 2014. He has also said the province will
spend billions of dollars building new nuclear plants, which both the NDP
and Green Party oppose.
“The environmental file is a real area of vulnerability for the government,”
Prof. Winfield said. “There is the question of coal phase-out and the
question of the overall direction, including nuclear.”
The campaign for the Oct. 10 election does not officially kick off until the
writ is dropped on Sept. 10. But it is already under way, with Mr. Tory and
Mr. Hampton both attacking the Liberals’ track record of broken promises.
The Liberals swept into office in 2003 on a pledge of no new taxes, only to
have Mr. McGuinty go back on his word by imposing a $2.4-billion health tax.
For his part, Mr. McGuinty is campaigning on his record. His website boasts
about the fact that his government has reduced class sizes, created more
jobs, improved benefits for children living in poverty and put more police
on the streets.
