steveintoronto
Superstar
Chretien didn't run on that, he ran beside it. And he got re-elected by a deal with the electorate, something we're unlikely to see again in this and many nations: Reformation of finances and the economy, with one of the most effective FinMins ever nationally: Paul Martin. But Martin is a classic case of a brilliant supporting player, and totally unable to command the CEO position. Chretien was a bully, a crook, a conniving back-stabber, and one of the most effective PMs this nation has ever had.Chretien really benefited from the sympathy support.
I don't think so, I don't get that vibe from the man. He seems decent, but just not leadership material. He was struggling to make his points into sentences when I watched the interview with him.Brown will likely try the same thing if anyone comes even close to commenting on his speech, we will pull out the Disability card.
Of course, we're crossing federal and provincial politics, and now municipal, since we're discussing Tory. I beg to differ, and so does the record. It wasn't the Muslim fear issue (albeit the Sharia Law thing upped the ante) it was the impracticality of giving any and every worshipper the choice of their own school system, when the real answer is, and always has been, to do as the UN has ruled, and that's take religion out of the school system. Of course, no provincial party will touch that in Ontario, there's too many votes to lose. The irony is that Quebec, almost 90% Catholic, runs a non-denominational system, based on the French (en France) one where it's been non-denominational since the Revolution.In 2007 the Liberals played the Tory school funding thing to perfection.
I think best you provide a reference and context for that. I disagree. Some may have, but that wasn't what swayed the electorate.The whisper campaign was the you can't give Muslims there own school because they would breed terrorists.
Edit to Add: I take issue with the following for obvious reasons, history is always written in the view of the writer, but it does buttress the view of BurlOak:
[...]
The choice that resonated best with voters and campaign personnel was to provide funding for faith-based institutions provided they met two key conditions: their curriculum had to be approved by the province; and they had to be part of the provincial school system and be associated with a public or separate school board.
We created the platform document and presented it to a full caucus meeting along with all of the other campaign policies. Overall, the reaction was positive. We prepared for the campaign launch.
However, a comment from an older man in a focus group held in Peterborough stuck in my mind as we organized our campaign. After listening to a description of our faith-based policy, he said, “Let me get this straight, what they are proposing is to pay Muslim kids to make bombs in the basement of the schools. Is that correct?” As the moderator of focus groups, my role is not to answer questions, only to ask questions. I said nothing, but I recall my stomach turning at the comment.
During the summer months leading up to the anticipated October election, our candidates started to report negative reactions they were receiving to our policy. Published polls during that period showed the electorate was divided. The results seemed to vary widely from one polling firm to the next. Some polls showed opposition to the policy as high as 65 per cent and support at 32 per cent, while other polls showed support at 48 per cent and opposition at 44 per cent. Our internal polling showed 55 per cent opposition and 45 per cent support. At the same time, both public polls and our internal polls showed a statistical tie in voter intentions between ourselves and the Liberals, at 38 per cent each.
We decided in late July that we needed to release further details about the faith-based school funding policy to address the concerns of some of our candidates.
On July 23, Tory and Frank Klees, our opposition education critic, announced that if we were elected, former premier Bill Davis would lead a commission to research and provide recommendations for the inclusion of faith-based schools in Ontario’s public school system. This would include identifying best practices in other provinces. The announcement, however, did little to reduce the angst of our candidates.
The campaign officially started on Sept. 10, and our school funding proposal instantly became the No. 1 issue. McGuinty and the Liberals seized advantage of the situation. Each day for most of the first two weeks, McGuinty visited a public school to extol the virtues of the public system and to draw (negative) attention to our policy. He understood the racist undertones behind the opposition of many of those opposed to faith-based school funding, the kind of feelings that had been expressed openly by the man from the Peterborough focus group, and he aggressively drove that point home every day.[...]
Written by:
By John Laschinger
Sat., July 30, 2016
John Laschinger was a young IBM salesman in 1971 when he met then Ontario premier Bill Davis. Shortly after, Laschinger joined the Big Blue Machine preparing the way for the Progressive Conservatives’ majority that October. Since then, Laschinger has built a reputation as a mastermind of the political campaign, having managed 50 of them at every level of government and for nearly every party. In Campaign Confessions, Laschinger’s insights from 45 years in the war rooms, he titles one chapter “Importance of Party Discipline,” topping it with a quote by late U.S. president Ronald Reagan: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican” (advice Donald Trump hasn’t heeded). An excerpt from that section recalls the 2007 Ontario provincial campaign and “the devastating impact that lack of party discipline can have on electoral success.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/07/30/when-lack-of-faith-lost-john-tory-an-election.html
I trust BurlOak is no fan of Kelly Leitch and Kouvalis? Second Edit: Getting well beyond the remit of this string, but the UK is vexed with the "Peterborough argument" at this very time. Whether I agree with the weight put to the argument or not, it has some basis in events unfolding in the UK's "charter" schools. I digress from further comment on that unless other posters run with it. Ironically, it was UK Conservatives who pushed the "religious funding for schools" and passed legislation enabling it, only to have it 'blow up' in their own feces....err....faces.
Last edited: