Dave Brister and the Right To Participate

Dave Brister @DaveBristerPC

Follow

2 of 2 - I was asked to recant my opposition to RTW legislation in exchange for retaining my position & I refused to do so.

Dave Brister is a perfect example of what's wrong with our political system.

He won the PCPO nomination in Essex (or was handed it, which would be another example of what's wrong).  He remained steadfastly in support of his leader - just not all that leader's positions.  In the name of transparency, integrity and open debate about the issues, he expressed his opinions about a given issue on Twitter.

And then the leader he had publicly stated support for sacked him.  And now Ontario has one more cynical citizen who has logically come to the conclusion that there is no place for the individual in Ontario politics.

Make all the arguments you want about Party loyalty and not giving fodder to other Parties.  You'd be absolutely right to do so - but is that a good thing?  When did it become about tribal interests instead of finding the best possible solutions?

In theory, Tim Hudak is all in favour of individual agency: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" kind of thing.  This is in no small part why he's anti-union and anti-regulation; don't muzzle people's agency, his reasoning goes, and they'll do right by themselves and others.

So committed is he to gaining power to reinforce this agency that he's willing to sacrifice or subdue his own people to get it.

He turned a blind eye to the disgraceful treatment of Norm Sterling by his own people.  

He encouraged Peter Shurman to run in a riding he didn't live in for strategic partisan reasons - then turfed him when that turned sour.

He plays a will-he-or-won't-he game with the Fords regardless of what they do not because of what they stand for, but the votes they may have to offer.

Tim Hudak is a crass political operator, but he's by no means the only one.  Every Party at every level has them.  In fact, it's these cynical folk who tend to rise to the top and stay there; they're competitive, aggressive and shrewd, which means they do what it takes to win.  

Those who don't can't compete.  That's just how survival of the fittest works.  

But governance isn't about survival of the fittest - it's about the strength of the whole, which depends on both the strength of each individual within the whole and their ability to participate.

It's all good to talk about right to work, but how realistic is that when leaders are so quick to take away someone's right to participate?

Which, of course, is why Dave Brister is right.  The policy approach Hudak favours won't create new jobs, it'll result in lower wages and less equity for those who don't have power and access already.  

Those who already have position and resources will work harder to push down any competition.

You need look no further than politics (and Hudak's leadership in particular) to prove the point.

Ontario's PCs Need To Pull Together

MPPs Frank Klees and Randy Hillier are touting a review as a democratic way of clearing the air and allowing Hudak to get on with the task at hand — defeating the minority Liberal government in an election expected by next spring.

Everybody in provincial politics likes to use the "the best indicator of future performance is past performance" line.  So, let's look at the past performance of these two MPPs:

 

Frank Klees is an MPP with a history of looking out for Number One. He's run for leadership before and was no fan of John Tory.

Randy Hillier orchestrated the ousting of Norm Sterling, who had been one of the longest-serving and most respected MPPs in the House.  Hillier did this to get his buddy Jack Maclaren into the Legislature.  Hillier is also interested in the Party Leadership.

It's pretty clear what these gents are up to - they want Hudak gone to make space for their own perceived benefit.  They are aggressively, competitively, even opportunistically promoting any openings that serve their interests.

Of course, Hudak should really be in favour of this approach - after all, it's the one he's been promoting with his anti-Union stance; people should be free of the encumbrance of collective bargaining, which is really what Political Parties are all about.  Hillier and Klees are the epitome of what the Hudak Tories say they believe in.

This being politics and all, what the internal fighting amounts to is blood in the water for the other two established Parties, for a gaggle of stakeholder groups and, of course, for media looking for juicy stories.  When everybody gets focused on political cannibalism, what loses focus are substantial issues (of which there are many) and shared solutions (desperately needed on fronts ranging from transit infrastructure to justice).  Political planners fretting over what positions to take can focus on attacking opponents rather than the more challenging task of stretching their cognitive selves to reach the higher-hanging policy fruit.

You'd think Hudak (and folk like Hillier and Klees) would have learned their lesson from Mike Harris, who I hear tell is among the current Leader of the Opposition's advisers:

Former premier Mike Harris allowed his cabinet ministers to audition for his job, arguing he wanted people around him with ambition.

The internal arm-wrestling became so fierce, though, that in August 2001 the then-premier was forced to warn the over-eager leadership hopefuls that there would be two more cabinet shuffles and that they could be demoted if they didn’t cut it out.

 Of course, super-confident people don't subscribe to reality-based politics, but I digress.

For one, I wish that the Hudaks, Hilliers and Kleeses of the world would listen to folk like Peter Shurman, who I most often disagree with but have a great deal of respect for and John Yakabuski, who once honoured my grandfather in the Legislature.  Every difference of opinion doesn't have to result in a pushing match; there is much to be gained through conversation, understanding and compromise.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound,  I really want the PCs to be in the strongest position possible and focused on creative policy solutions; I want a competition of ideas between all Parties with an eye towards what's best for Ontario, rather than what serves partisan interests.  Strength through diversity, etc.

I still find it hard to believe Hudak will ever be Premier; I've got my own thoughts on what I'd like to see happen at Queen's Park.  This isn't about me, though, any more than it's about Hudak or his dissenting MPPs, or phantom menaces like Nick Kouvalis.  

It's about leadership.

If Ontario's Political Parties and those who aspire to control them focus on cynically stabbing each other in the back, fostering grudges and feigning outrage at the kinds of shenanigans which have become business-as-usual across Canadian politics, then they have no place telling Private or Not-For-Profit sectors to pull together and collaborate over shared solutions.

That's a recipe for stagnation.  Which is where we've been for far too long.

If any of us are serious about progressing beyond our political deadlock, especially as we start to lag behind competitor jurisdictions in areas like The Knowledge Economy, we have to take to heart the notion that forward together means leaving no one behind.  

Including your competition.

I hope every individual PC takes this message to heart and start thinking about why they're involved in the first place.  If you can't keep your own house in order, it doesn't give people a lot of confidence about what you can do with theirs.

The Hudak Tories: The Anti-Party Party

This is not what MPP MacLeod said, though one would think that if she truly believes in the underlying theme, one could apply it in different contexts:

 

“For the past several months, Ontario voters and MPPs have been used as pawns in this partisan dispute between Ontario's Political Parties,” MacLeod said.

 

(Words replaced are in bold and italics)

 

The Ontairo PC Party is against Unions - organizations that provide a collective voice to a labour constituency, but with the corollary of some internal message discipline.

 

MacLeod and Tim Hudak are really against the idea that individual agents (like teachers, or MPPs) are obliged to hand over portions of accumulated funds to a central agency who might spend it in ways that their constituencies don't approve.  Like, say, attack ads.

 

They dislike this whole concept so much, they want to pass a Bill that protects individual agents from bucking the mandates of their central organization. 

 

I'd be real interest to hear what Norm Sterling has to say about this.