Ontario Election 2007

Why I Won't Vote for John Tory

By Ben Bull
Published October 10, 2007

Coming into this provincial election I was pretty neutral in terms of my party allegiance.

The Liberals have put forward some pretty useful initiatives this past term, most impressive of which is the Places to Grow legislation which shows that they at least have a reasonable understanding of the importance and priority of checking urban sprawl. Less impressive is their back tracking on the dismantling of coal fired plants and their tax pledge reversal.

The platform for the NDP shows some reasonable commitment to cities (50% funding for the TTC is a good start) and a good starting point for tackling poverty ($10 an hour minimum wage).

I haven't paid much attention to the Greens, however I will, and I have yet to be unimpressed by any of their policy initiatives to date.

That just leaves the Tories. I have not looked much beyond the Faith based schools funding position, put forth by the Conservatives. In fact, I have virtually no idea what comprises the rest of their policies.

The reason for this is that I have resented, from the outset, the hijacking of this provincial campaign by this single, relatively unimportant issue. The NDP have recently observed that many of the most important issues facing our province - poverty, the economy, the environment - have been largely ignored by the media during the campaign.

They're right. But don't blame the media. The media, after all, is just looking for the best story. Where we have debate, conflict and the potential to incite a reaction we have a good story.

The person to blame is John Tory. By jumping out of the gate with a firm commitment to fund all faith based schools he set the tone, and the content, for this campaign.

Everybody knows that the current education system is unfair. Catholics have no more right to funding than any other faith - clearly this is a situation which at some point needs to be dealt with.

But this is not the issue of our time. The issues of our time are poverty - especially child poverty - the environment, with all its inter-related components such as clean energy, integrated transit, waste management and so on, and support for our cities - the engines of our economy.

It's a shame we couldn't find the time to chat about these issues. Alas, thanks to John Tory and the Conservatives, for this election at least, the opportunity has come and gone.

Ben Bull lives in downtown Toronto. He's been working on a book of short stories for about 10 years now and hopes to be finished tomorrow. He also has a movie blog.

22 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 10:48:19

Hey Ben, Take a look at the interviews. The reason that the issue of faith funded schools was raised is because JT was questioned at every opportunity by DM about it. I believe that it was a Liberal strategist who pointed out the issue to DM after recognizing it as a weak spot in the PC platform. Surprisingly enough, if this legislation was brought into parliament during the current liberal mandate, it most likely would've passed by a sizable margin.

DM successfully hijacked the PC campaign by hamstringing them with the faith based school issue, changing the focus of the electoral race from the current mandate's lack of integrity to something relatively minor. I'd encourage you to base an opinion on reading party platforms as posted on their respective websites. I don't know if you watched the debate, but I found the respective body languages of the candidates rather interesting. Also, I'm not sure if you heard yesterday, DM was hosting a radio show yesterday where, like all the other party leaders including the Greens, party leaders have accepted calls from the general public regarding their party's policies. DM chose instead to have various supporters from Greg Sorbara to some nurse call in and build his ego. A complete disappointment and blatant disrespect to the public who still have many questions. Also, I'm not sure if you've noticed but DM has only hung out in a bubble during this campaign never allowing people with an opinion other than his receive any considerable amount of attention. Of course, this is smart because then people never seen anything negative about him but it's playing politics - something that if you look at his gov't's policy timing has characterized the last four years. Not to mention, sometimes I feel like slapping the smirk off of his face.

All this just reinforces my opinion that DM is disconnected from society as a whole...meaning he's not someone I want running my province.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 10:50:49

Like I heard someone say yesterday, I guess it's going to take another 4 years of the crap piling up in the barn before Ontarians are able to get the cajones to votes someone into power to take out the trash. How sad!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 11:00:51

Like I heard someone say yesterday, I guess it's going to take another 4 years of the crap piling up in the barn before Ontarians are able to get the cajones to votes someone into power to take out the trash. How sad!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 12:02:45

Frank, what would a Conservative have to do in order for you to stop defending them? Eat babies? That kind of blind faith destroys your credibility.

I mean of course, Dalton is going to take unfair advantage of this and he certainly did, like any polititian would, but let's be a little bit objective here and call a spade a spade.

John Tory was wrong.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 13:52:38

Ted that's a rather insane comment. I'm not that much of a conservative supporter but I'd call myself an alternative supporter. Any other vote is a waste. Anyone with half a brain can tell that JT is merely a blue liberal or a red conservative depending on your viewpoint. Defend what? I didn't defend, merely presented facts not included in the article. I didn't say he was right, in fact, if it came to a referendum I would vote against public funding for private schools...

Calling a spade a spade? OK here goes... Dalton McGuinty is a liar and enjoys playing politician; John Tory is a business man attempting to enter the political arena (as unwise as that might be); Howard Hampton is a sore loser who can't tell you where the money for his programs will come from; Frank DeJong runs a quack party with a platform that lacks substance on what matters to most fiscally responsible Ontarians... Did I miss anyone?

If you're saying JT was wrong about whether or not private educational institutions should be funded, perhaps you can explain how funding one faith based school is right? All or nothing, my friend. Ideally, nothing.

And by the way, I wasn't defending anyone. In fact, I merely provided an alternate viewpoint. Of course, in doing so, it's necessary to be subjective...I suppose that's why it's called a viewpoint. Of course, your comment is the most objective statement I've heard.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 13:57:18

As far as blind faith goes...I've read each party's platform as posted on their websites, I've read their statements on their websites and followed the news reports about their respective campaign trails, I listened to the leaders debate on the radio and watched the recorded debate later that evening, I read columns on the G&M, National Post and Canada.com websites, I've listened to each leader's allotted hour on talk radio on CFRB...

What've you done?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 16:54:39

Frank, you need help.

Playing the devil's advocate is fine, but you have to know when to stop, and I think (being subjective here) that was a long time ago.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Genghis (anonymous) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 18:29:02

"The NDP have recently observed that many of the most important issues facing our province - poverty, the economy, the environment - have been largely ignored by the media during the campaign"

Thats why the NDP( besides falling into power by as the accidental politician) will never get elected again.

Provincial Governments cannot.. and do not reduce "poverty," or affect the economy.They can make the ground fertile for individuals to pull themselves out of poverty( as I did).The alternate is simply a diet of government cheese.

Besides handing out cash to people for a meal, Provinces will not reduce poverty.

Besides handing out cash to businesses to subsidize employment, Provinces cannot help the economy.Global economics dictate the local economies.Ford,GM, and DCX is losing manufacturing and market share because they cannot sell the products.

Unless Howie can force Canadians to buy in Canada, made in Canada,serviced in Canada and magically have Poverty stricken families suddenly ...well off,he is a dufus for thinking any Premier can aleviate these things.

As far as the Environment, what exactly does that mean besides a buzz word?

Here is a thought..BAN ALL BOTTLED WATER FOR A START!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By beancounter (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 23:20:36

Ted, you were asking about eating babies? And Frank… you were asking if you missed anyone? Yes, you have: the Family Coalition Party, the only party that believes babies need to be protected, even if they have not been born yet.

I agree with Ben that urban sprawl, adequate funding for cities, poverty, the economy and the environment are very important issues. They are important to me, and I suspect they are to many of the readers of Raise the Hammer. However, even these crucial issues pale into insignificance beside the most basic of human rights, the right to life.

Most of us want to give all of our citizens a healthier, cleaner, more inviting, exciting and vibrant environment to live in. But none of these benefits can be enjoyed by the millions of individuals whose lives were snuffed out prematurely since Roe vs. Wade in the U. S. and similar rulings in Canada and many other countries.

The FCP wants to extend the right for all human beings to enjoy the best quality of life they can, from conception to natural death. Now that’s being fair. Now that’s being just.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By beancounter (registered) | Posted October 10, 2007 at 23:51:39

Ted, you were asking about eating babies? And Frank… you were asking if you missed anyone? Yes, you have: the Family Coalition Party, the only party that believes babies need to be protected, even if they have not been born yet.

I agree with Ben that urban sprawl, adequate funding for cities, poverty, the economy and the environment are very important issues. They are important to me, and I suspect they are to many of the readers of Raise the Hammer. However, even these crucial issues pale into insignificance beside the most basic of human rights, the right to life.

Most of us want to give all of our citizens a healthier, cleaner, more inviting, exciting and vibrant environment to live in. But none of these benefits can be enjoyed by the millions of individuals whose lives were snuffed out prematurely since Roe vs. Wade in the U. S. and similar rulings in Canada and many other countries.

The FCP wants to extend the right for all human beings to enjoy the best quality of life they can, from conception to natural death. Now that’s being fair. Now that’s being just.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 11, 2007 at 09:07:58

Hey beancounter. I can't vote for a party that doesn't take the initiative to get my vote. I never received any literature from them and when I looked at my FCP party candidate's webpage, it didn't impress me at all. I'm also struggling to find any economical side to the FCP platform. As such, the FCP vote, at least for me, would've been merely a protest vote...something I couldn't afford doing in this election.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 11, 2007 at 09:11:23

Ted, being objective is something I don't think any of your posts on this website have ever done... your comment left me incredibly unimpressed and thoroughly disgusted. If you would like, do the same extent of research I've done and then get back to me. I read an article here that presented things from one viewpoint and I presented things from the other viewpoint. If you happen to disagree (being subjective) then that's ok. But don't attack my character or my methods without knowing what they are.

Toodaloo.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By beancounter (registered) | Posted October 11, 2007 at 20:43:57

Frank, here is the link to the economic policies of the Family Coalition Party:

http://www.familycoalitionparty.com/poli...

(Looks like you need to cut & paste)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A voter (anonymous) | Posted October 12, 2007 at 01:40:11

Ontarians voted for the least awful future for themselves & Ontario. Since only about 50% of voters chose to cast a ballot, it shows something about the quality of choices available, & how completely out of touch both DM & JT are.

Someone on the CHCH T.V.'s coverage blamed JT's 'focus groups' for his lack of understanding that this issue wouldn't fly. DM's focus groups must also be out to lunch, but on less volatile issues. (like removing homemade baked goods from charity bake sales,lest we be poisoned by our neighbours, ditto unpasteurised cheeses.)

Hmmm? "Family Coalition Party".. The current Federal 'Tory Party has it's roots in the FCP, & the old Reform Party. Is it possible that the Provincial 'Tory Party does too? The faith based education platform seems to be uncomfortably close (at least for many people)to those kinds of politics. I have a pretty conventional family, so we do I find the FCP so unappealing?

DM does advocate killing puppies, (Bill 132) so I guess that's a start..?

Leadership is one thing, but poking your nose into people's personal freedom & lives is another. Being intrusive & dragging the electorate around by the hair isn't leadership.
Both DM & JT have show that they are more comfortable with in these negative aspects of power than they are at actually leading their respective parties.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A voter (anonymous) | Posted October 12, 2007 at 01:52:33

JT is not currently being pushed by DM or the media at every opportunity, & he & his education critic both claim that they will see full funding for faith based schools through to the bitter end until it passes in the Ont. legislature. !!

8 more years of DM? Oh My! :-(

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted October 12, 2007 at 10:19:20

A voter...least awful??? We don't know if the others will be awful. Never tried them out. Also, the Provincial PC party is the most liberal the PC party has ever been. Barely any correlation to the Federal PC party or the old Reform party and the FCP. Also, you obviously didnt do a whole lot of research on the faith funding issue. If I'm not mistaken the proposal was to make funding available to faith based institutions provided they use accredited teachers and curriculum. Most private schools wouldn't even do that simply because they don't want to be forced to teach things they don't want to be taught. Accusations of segragation and causing children to become cliquey is totally unfounded and plain old lies and fearmongering on the part of DM.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob (registered) | Posted December 24, 2007 at 15:47:01

Hi:) well guys i can see you are all very knowledable on these issues and i was wondering if i could get some help:D you see, i've got a civics project and im analyzing n article abt JT.. and its abt delegates voting on whether he should stay leader or not, im jus confused as to why everyone hatez JT...so...if one of you could respond and give me detailed information that would be soo great:D:D THANK YOU

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob (registered) | Posted December 24, 2007 at 15:51:04

HI:D it's me again:) jus so you know, the article was from The Toronto Star, December 3, 2007

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob (registered) | Posted December 24, 2007 at 19:18:24

hi:( it's bob again. I'm very sad to come back onto this webpage, thinking i got so many responses, to find that none of you replied. Can't you help a student out? I don't know these things and i could use some help. You all reply to one another and yell and debate about these issues and not even ONE of you are willing to help me out :(:'(... Please, it's not everyday when one turns to another and asks for they're help. Don't let me down:(

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob (registered) | Posted December 26, 2007 at 18:16:13

HEYYY!!!:@:@

2 DAYS! 2 DAYSSS!! and STILL no response!! You call yourselves ADULTS??? I call you a bunch of UNGRATEFUL, POLITICAL, NERDS!

i am NEVER.. NEVERR! asking an adult for help again, because they arent even willing to give it to someone who clearly NEEDS IT!

FOLLOW JT TO HELL

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted December 26, 2007 at 20:48:27

Dude, a lot of people are with their families during the holidays and not in front of their computers. Additionally, you might get a better response if you ask specific questions instead of just saying "Tell me everything you know". Give people some incentive to respond to you...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bob (registered) | Posted December 27, 2007 at 11:40:39

ok well i dont need any of your help anymore anywayz, i read the first few paragraohs of the web page and it gave me all the info i needed so thankz for nothing

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds