Ontario PC leadership: returning to the era of mean
OPINION / The fiery, feisty & possibly feckless Tim Hudak
Marcus McCann / National / Monday, June 29, 2009
Share |

TOUGH LOVE. Will Ontario's new PC leader Tim Hudak strike a chord with voters by playing into our fears rather than our hopes?
Remember the vicious, mean-spirited time Mike Harris spent as premier of Ontario? Remember welfare-to-work? Remember the province's brinkmanship with teachers? Remember the amalgamation of cities and the offloading of services to them? Remember Harris de-listing from provincial health coverage for sex reassignment surgery — saving us just pennies on our tax bills?

The gunslingers of the 1990s are back following Saturday's Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership convention. What organizers and pundits hoped would be an exciting, nail-biting, slow-release single-transferrable-vote convention turned out to be a boring slog toward the inevitable. The question is, are progressives better or worse off now that the polarizing Tim Hudak is the leader of the official opposition?

This was billed as the comeback convention for the once-natural governing party of Canada's most populace province. PCs dominated Queen's Park over a 40-year period, winning more than a dozen back-to-back elections. More recently, they're remembered for the slash and burn politics of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves in the '90s.

The race was to be a three-way squeaker between SoCon Frank Klees, self-styled compassionate conservative Christine Elliott, and Harris acolyte Tim Hudak.

Randy Hillier, the gun-totin' hillbilly and former head of the Lanark Landowners Association (famous for his tractor protests) was the spoiler. He placed last on the first ballot, with Hudak slightly ahead of the other candidates.

The second and third ballots were no more interesting, with Hudak staying out front throughout.

As anyone who's been following the PC leadership race knows, the defining issue came to be the elimination of Ontario's human rights tribunals, which both Hudak and Bubba Hillier supported. Elliott called the issue "politically toxic" and compared it to former leader John Tory's faith-based school funding pledge.

So, there's that. It could be an albatross around Hudak's neck, or, if he manages to divert attention away from it between now and 2011 (and he will certainly try), it could be one more pledge on the post-election checklist. Scary thought, right?


Advertisement
Advertisement


On his very first day as leader, he took some time to union-bait, telling labour to "get a grip." A populist move, I suspect, and a sign that he's going to be way, way more aggressive than John Tory.

Add to that the fact that Hudak is actually a sitting MPP (John Tory was only briefly a member of provincial parliament) and we're going to see a lot more fireworks this fall.

I'm worried that Hudak's meanness is going to strike a chord with voters, the same way Harris' callous indifference did in 1995. Then, cash-strapped voters feeling the pinch of a recession voted for tough love. It's a common phenomenon that during times of economic uncertainty or foreign wars, we tend to vote based on our fears rather than our hopes. Hudak will almost certainly be playing to our fears and with no end to this financial mess, he could have found the ideal era for his nastiness. Yikes.

Probably the scariest moment of the weekend came with Frank Klees' concession speech. The second place finisher (who represents the religious nutters of the party) told supporters that Hudak wouldn't dare cut him off if he went over his allotted time because, "I think he might need me along the way."

I think he's right. All rightwing parties in Canada are beholden to religious and social conservatives, who represent between a third and a half of most memberships. The exception, of course, was the old Reform and Alliance parties, the great bulk of whose members were hardliners and zealots.

It's a potent combination: a slash-and-burn Harris cutout who must throw red meat to the creepy religious bigots in order to unify the party. And if Klees' comments are any indication, abolishing the human rights tribunals isn't enough — it's just a start.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Correction
It was McGuinty's Liberals who delisted eye exams from OHIP, not the Harris Conservatives. Liberal, Tory, same old story.
Jon, Toronto ON
06/29/09 12:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
On Meanness...
I don't think meanness is going to strike a chord. One of the reasons I think the Tories are headed in the wrong direction is that they think it's just like 1995, and it's nowhere near that. Like him or hate him, Harris was able to tap into a palpable and real anger on the part of the public. They were livid because welfare rates were skyrocketing (and it seemed like everyone was cheating the system), public accounts were crippled (and it seemed like they were getting less services), and the deficit was growing crazily (and it seemed like no one was noticing). We may be in a recession, but the public is largely calm about it. There is no common link in the public consciousness between current Government activity and the problems, and so I think the Tories will have a much harder time trying to bring about the kind of paradigm shift that 1995 represented. They don't come often in politics (although more often in Ontario), but when they do they're usually about a pent-up sense of public frustration, and I just don't think we're there. And no matter how much meanness they spew, I don't think they can get everyone else as angry...
Mark, Ottawa Ontario
06/29/09 1:05 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Eye tests
Hi John -- whoops, you're right on that one. Reference deleted. My apologies. And I've got no love lost for the incrementalist, fusspot, nanny-state McGuinty Liberals either. Though they may be the lesser of two weevils at the moment, since they do seem to be, let's say, lobbyable. But that's a topic for another column. Better to let Hudak have his moment in the sun for today. Cheers --
Marcus McCann, Ottawa ON
06/29/09 1:20 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
fiscal vs. social responsibility/compassion?
Are fiscal and social responsibility mutually exclusive?
Pete, Toronto on
06/29/09 2:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Conservative
Fiscal responsibility? No. Fiscal conservatism? Yes. Cuts to social programs hurt queers. If you look at which governments have been "fiscally responsible" over the years, NDP provincial governments have balanced their budgets more than any other party in Canadian history. You can provide adequate social programs and still be responsible.
Pol, Toronto Ontario
06/29/09 3:13 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Tory Beast 666
Well do I remember the days of the Harris dictatorship in Ontario - it was what drove me from that otherwise beautiful province. Any gay person who votes Tory is like a Jew voting National Socialist. It's political and social suicide! Resist the Blue Beast, stand against its conservatism, its lies, it oppression of the poor, its kowtowing to corporate big business. Tory times are hard times and don't ever forget it! Hudak is only scratching the surface of the evil a Tory government in Ontario will produce. P.S. I did vote for Danny Williams in the last two elections - but he is a PROGRESSIVE Conservative. Hudak is anything but progressive!
Kieran Earles, Mount Pearl Newfoundland
06/29/09 5:34 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Problematic
"Any gay person who votes Tory is like a Jew voting National Socialist." I find your comments to be very wrong on that comparison; you can't even compare the two. It is a strawman. I am gay and I consider myself a conservative. I believe in equal rights for all, but I am against special rights. I think governments should manage things better and more efficiently for the Canadians who elect them into office - but that is much easier said than done. I belong to parties I share views on some issues with, and I share opposite views on some of their other issues. This talk about oppression of the poor is just ridiculous. I have even been working on my own homelessness reduction strategy that I hope to present to provincial and municipal entities to review and look at. I feel we need to have compassion for those in such situations, and it is beneficial for society at large to help them rehabilitate and become productive members of society once again. We need to take strategies to do that, and there are many conservatives, liberals, and dippers who all agree with me on that. No one wakes up each morning maliciously plotting how to hurt the homeless more and more - that is ridiculous. Many of us care about that issue, it is a difficult one to address though, so perhaps you need to help rather than attack people on that issue. I hope my strategy will be able to help when ready. Did you know Kieran, that the Liberal Party of Canada was actually more big business with huge corporate and wealthy backers, while the Conservative Party of Canada is more grass roots with average income people supporting it. In all honesty though, all the parties cater to corporate interests when it comes to economic policy, Conservative, Liberal, New Democrats, etc… however, I just don't like all of this misinformation you are spreading about Tories. There seems to be a lot of misinformation on such issues among my fellow gays. But I must say, Danny Williams is an
Sheldon, Vancouver Birtish Columbia
06/29/09 6:25 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Correction of Correction
To John.....the first commentator - the article is talking about de-listing SEX Re-assignment Surgery - not eye exams. Although, your inability to discern this essential human rights - amongst other things the Conservatives have removed - does make a point about re-listing eye exams.
Richard, Toronto Ontaro
07/01/09 11:30 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Correction to Correction's Correction
The original article said the Harris Conservatives de-listed eye exams. In response to the first post, the author corrected the article, which is why it only mentions SRS now.
P, Toronto ON
07/01/09 7:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No impediment
Hudak's social conservatism and anti-union bias is no tremendous obstacle; all he requires is one verified cocksucking event and he'll be more than qualified to receive a leadership award from EGALE.
Alex MacLean, Toronto ON
07/04/09 12:37 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.