In the scramble to dampen rising poll numbers for Jack Layton and the NDP, Stephen Harper has sounded alarms for Ontario voters to avoid a repeat of the dreaded "Bob Rae legacy." Being neither an Ontarian nor a particular fan of Bob Rae I won't attempt to defend his record in government. From a distance it would appear mistakes were made, and the corporate owned press has relentlessly advertised them. (We need to remember that the corporate press will always view governance by a "left" party as a mistake no matter what they did.)
But when we look at the longer history of provincial governments and their records I think past NDP provincial governments in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba and even Ontario, compare very favorably with their Conservative counterparts.
As precursors of the federal Conservatives the legacies of Mike Harris in Ontario and Grant Devine, are particularly revealing. They illustrate the predictable character of a Harper majority. Like Harper, Devine and Harris were driven by a mix of right-wing "free market" ideology and deep hostility to community priorities and organized labour. Harris with his savage welfare cuts and attacks on teachers' rights and the public school systems would easily outscore Bob Rae on a measure of most destructive government policies.
Like Harper, Grant Devine's Saskatchewan regime had the contradiction of cutting social programs, like a school based universal dental plan, while recklessly overspending his budget. Divine left Saskatchewan with a staggering debt of $14 billion after two terms in office. Once they were swept to defeat in 1991 government members, including Cabinet ministers, were prosecuted and jailed for widespread misappropriation of public funds.
Harper's government has already shown total disregard for rules of Parliament and the obligations of public financial accountability. His cabinet includes key players from the Mike Harris regime like Jim Flaherty and Tony Clement. I do think there are lessons and warnings from the experience of provincial governments. But the legacy of Bob Rae should be the lesser of our worries.
For all the contempt, manipulation and abuse over the last five years under Harper's government it is reasonable to assume that he has been restrained somewhat by minority status. He would likely agree with that observation. If he gets a majority, like Mike Harris and Grant Devine enjoyed, he will predictably adopt their style and practices.
Psst, pass it on.....make sure to vote today and tell all your friends.
If just 10% more people had voted last election, Harper would never have been elected!
This is by far the most important election of our lives!
Hi Don,
Let's start by first saying we are on different sides of the political spectrum.
I do, however, agree with you that NDP provincial goverments have worked out in other provinces (though I don't live there and would not be the most informed person to make a judgment in all honesty). However, I think it is an important point to make that provincial parties are separate entities from their federal counterparts despite running under the same banners.
I am a 25-year old living and working in Toronto. I was in elementary and high school during the Mike Harris era. The only thing that caused my experience to be worse during the period was the Teachers' Union decision to go on work-to-rule campaigns because they didn't appreciate the government's policies.
I also do not think it is fair to say that Mike Harris "with his savage welfare cuts and attacks on teachers' rights and the public school systems would easily outscore Bob Rae on a measure of most destructive government policies" - the reason Mike Harris had to make these cuts is because the province was in financial turmoil following the NDP's reckless spending initiatives. I would be worried that tens of billions of new spending in the current NDP federal platform could also set the country on the wrong track.
The real point I wanted to get across in this comment, however, is that it appears implied that a Harper majority would mirror a Harris majority and that Harper would disregard everything else and do exactly what he wants in power, as Harris did. During the election campaign, Mike Harris ran on a platform of cutting spending. Voters voted him into power based on this agenda. Mike Harris got into power, and made the cuts. Those who didn't vote for Mike Harris were upset. Mike Harris did what he said he would do. I do not believe should Harper win a majority he would abuse his power, I think that would destroy the Conservative Party in Canada for the next decade and that is surely not what he wants.
Popped by to revive the Big Lies, did you, 2011electioncomment?
Mike Harris was no promise-keeper. As one example, he said "not a nickel out of our classrooms", while taking a billion out of public education - half from Toronto alone.
He was no budget-balancer either, leaving behind a deficit during a period of continuous economic expansion equal to the one Rae produced while fighting a massive global recession beyond his control.
The problem with trotting out the Bob Rae in Ontario card is that you have other NDP governments which were immensely successful at budget balancing and at the same time increasing prosperity without cutting social programs. It's like saying that I will never vote Liberal because of what Gordon Campbell did in BC or never vote Conservative because of what Ralph Klein did in Alberta.
I agree with you SayBlade! I always have an issue with somebody who holds a "won't vote X" blind view, you should always listen to the platform and campaign on and judge it at its merit.
Before I respond to Lard Tunderin Jeezus, who is implying I am a liar, I'd like to point out that in my short 7-year voting lifetime I have voted Conservative, Liberal, and Green (for Elizabeth May in a byelection in my riding.
I think even Bob Rae has admitted the flaws in his own prior policies, so I don't think it is necessary to dwell on them here or now except to say that it's pretty clear they failed.
Let's start with the fact that Harris ran on cutting spending. I'm pretty sure that the quote you mentioned was in regard to health care by the way, not classrooms. However, let me make a point that just because you try to eliminate excess waste in the education system doesn't mean that you are taking money out of classrooms or out of quality of education. Harris took power when I was something like 8 years old. He eliminated OAC-I am happy that as the first year of the double cohort I was able to finish schooling a year early and start making income to pay off my student debts. I know many others who were able to take a year off school entirely and travel, though unfortunately I wasn't able to. We now have standardized curriculum and testing in Ontario-this helps ensure equality of opportunity in the province, something I personall believe in strongly. He introduced teacher testing, to ensure that teachers are in fact qualified to be in the classroom. I personally agree with all of these policies and think my education was better for it despite problems associated from being involved in the the transitory period.
I think one problem is that as soon as you mention the word "cut", a lot of people are going to hear nothing else and vehemently oppose. Teachers' unions didn't like less power for them, less power for boards, teacher testing, and therefore forced teachers to take it out on students' extra-curricular programs despite a lot of teachers not wanting to be involved (don't take this out of context because I'm not anti-union, unions play an important role in representing the views of their constituency and in uniting and protecting worker rights, especially historically). The problem is that it seems like when people are so opposed to an idea they villify by any means necessary. I think you just always have to have an open mind.
If only your own mind was open enough to have actually considered the facts I presented, instead of just dismissing them because you're "pretty sure" you don't need to...