Partisan Problems: Hudak's Latest Hypocrisy

"Why didn't you just say no?" asked Hudak, in his own eerie echo of Mulroney's line.

I don't imagine many pundits noticed this (and fewer probably care) but it piqued my interests, so here goes.

Then-Minister Kathleen Wynne, along with the whole of former Premier Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Cabinet, signed off on his decision to relocate the gas plants.

Frankly, we have no idea how the discussion around the table went - what we have exposure to is the end product, not the discussion that led up to it.  Maybe Wynne did say no, maybe she didn't - at the end of the day, though, majority ruled on the Premier's decision and the deal was done.

Hudak seems to be suggesting Wynne should have refused, resigned, broke Party ranks and stood by her ethics - or, framed a different way, she should have broken ranks and ignored Party discipline.

Like, say, Dave Brister did.

Dave Brister was the guy who publicly spoke up against Hudak's right-to-work policy as wrong-headed.  For publicly disagreeing with the Party line, Brister was unceremoniously dumped by Hudak.

In a media release, Hudak called Brister's comments "unacceptable to the Ontario PC Party."

Brister's comments were unacceptable solely because they broke ranks with Hudak's message.  What he was saying clearly wasn't the problem - after all, the PCs backed down on Right-To-Work in response to the same kind of message Brister brought forward - it was the fact that he, one of their people had said it that was the issue.

That wasn't the first time Hudak has put Party interests above public interests.  When Peter Shurman decided he wanted to run where he now lives - not in his former riding of Thornhill but in Niagara Falls - Hudak explicitly told him he couldn't.  

Why not?  Shurman had a lock on Thornhill that Hudak didn't want to lose.  It didn't matter that his Shurman no longer lived there and was willing to run where he did - it was the seat, not the constituents, that Hudak considered first.

That didn't work out so well for the PC's public image - instead of accepting responsibility for his choices, as leaders do, Hudak fired Shurman, too.

Hudak has played the same sort of game over his on/off dance with Doug Ford.  He doesn't want to alienate Ford's massive base, but he doesn't want to be seen as too close to the toxic politician himself.  

In these matters, it's not Hudak's conscience that drives him - it's that numbers game he's so fond of.

If Hudak had been Premier and made the gas plant call - which, by his own admission, he would have - and one of his Ministers spoke up publicly against the move, he would have turfed them.  More to the point - seeing how focused he has consistently been on his Party's interests, we can pretty much expect similar scenarios to crop up should he become Premier.

Think infrastructure developments like hospitals, schools or roads in friendly ridings when they're needed elsewhere - say, the North.  Think outsourced contracts to Party-friendly consultants without open competition.  Think fights picked with stakeholder groups he knows will never vote for him, because he knows it will mobilize his base.

Hudak has made it clear that, when he's the boss, dissension is not tolerated.

Which is exactly the attitude Ontarian s (and even partisans) are fed up with.

This is no passing thing - look at what's happening with the Federal Parties, or any Party for that matter. Elected Officials that exercise their judgement are punished.

They have no hope of becoming Ministers, Leaders or Premier - that door is only open for those who toe the Party line, no matter how wacky that line is.

Nobody cares about this, of course, and it's impossible for the Liberals to make this argument without being branded as weak or whiners.

But it's true none the less.

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.

Shurmanated

Paul Bliss ‏@blissblogs28m

The resignation of MPP Peter Shurman leaves a big hole for the Progressive Conservatives. He was one of their best communicators. #ONpoli

Expand

But four senior Conservative sources said the leader was worried the Liberals would win Thornill without Shurman and pleaded with the popular incumbent to remain there, event hough Hudak knew he was living in Niagara by then.

I don't fully blame Shurman for his whole housing scandal.  He could have disagreed with his leader and chosen to run in Niagara regardless - but then he would have been disagreeing with his leader in a big way; there are consequences to independent thought in hyper-partisan politics.  

He wanted to be an MPP and make a difference, maybe have a shot at a Cabinet seat one day - and the only way to do that was to appease his leader.  I disagree with his claims for housing and gas, but again; his boss had told him to represent a riding he didn't live in and as such, he did have costs related to the commute.

Could the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario have covered these costs, as they were adamant that Shurman continue to represent Thornhill?  We've seen how that plays out in the Senate Scandals with Mike Duffy - not an ideal solution for any Party, or leader.

Hudak made a call to disregard the intent of the rules so that he could keep a seat and, like any employee who feels imposed upon, Shurman found ways to compensate himself for the trouble.  

Ignore the scale, and it's really no different than an overworked/poorly managed office employee who feels justified in printing out their kid's school papers on company paper because they feel they put in more effort than they're compensate for.

But then I don't entirely blame Hudak, either.  After all, he very well could have lost Thornhill if Shurman hadn't run and in politics, winning seats is everything.  We've seen how ethical people who hold to their ethics get treated in politics - they get trampled on.

Hudak's been weighed down by a heavy chain during his entire tenor as leadership - Ontario's not warming up to his style.  His politics are angry, and largely appeal to angry people.  It's a competitive business, though, and success is determined by outcome, not the process that gets you there.  

You have to win to implement your agenda, but to win, you need need bums in seats.  Policy choices, messaging, tour schedules, attack ads, who you pick fights with - all the stuff that goes into the sausage that is politics is determined by what should land you a win.  

Of course, when it becomes about winning, not achieving, you've lost.  It doesn't matter if you get the seats and form government, as Stephen Harper has done - the things you stood for, the ethics you once held dear end up detritus on the path to a hollow victory.  

Shurman, Duffy, Rob Ford, even Hudak with his desperate bluster are canaries in our political coal mine, telling us that something is wrong with the system.

Maybe it's time we stop band-aiding in or ignoring the cracks in the system and actively try to heal it.

After all, that which fails to evolve doesn't move forward, nor does the system move backwards to accommodate - what doesn't adapt, dies.

Ford Quality: Snobelen Nails It

The real lesson of the J&J response to crisis was the championship of the company's principles, to serve people and communities, over the immediate financial concerns.  J&J, at least in that moment, were clear about their priorities.

People are generally a cynical lot - and not without good reason.  When people say "all politicians are all the same, they're just in it for themselves" or "corporations care about nothing but lining the pockets of their CEOs" they have plenty of examples to turn to prove the point.  In fact, there seem to be new examples almost weekly.

What we don't hear a lot of are stories of people and institutions who are prepared to stick to their mission statement (i.e. respect the taxpayer's dollar, run an open and accountable government) in general practice.

It doesn't means stories like that don't exist - in fact, there are some companies out there who seem to be walking the walk both through crises and times of smooth sailing.  Integrity doesn't make for a sexy story, though, so the media isn't selling it and if they were, odds are we wouldn't buy it.

Therein lies the great social paradox - there's not a lot of public reward in doing the right thing.  If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, sure, but if you aren't used to living your principles on a daily basis it can be difficult to switch gears under the blinding light of public scrutiny.

What's the answer?  It's by embodying what Simon Sinek describes as the essence of great leadership:

"Quality means doing it right when no one is looking."

  - Henry Ford

There's no need to fear getting caught when you're always doing what you know to be right.  Seeing a record of integrity, when accidents happen - as they invariably do - people will be willing to forgive you.

The Social Cost of PCPO Shenanigans

In an interview, Mr. Shurman said he bought the house in Niagara becasue he needs somewhere to retire.  Asked why he decided to use it to charge the government for expenses, Mr. Shurman said he could not pay for two residences without assistance.

"Frankly, on the basis of... how we're paid at the legislature, I can't afford two houses," he said in an interview.  "I make $112,500 a year.  Some people think that's a lot of money.  To do what I have to do, or any MPP has to do, it's not very much at all."

Where to begin?

I should probably start by saying that I rather like Peter Shurman - he's tough-minded but generally fair.  Despite the fact that we're on opposite sides of the political fence and I'm really of no value to him, he has on more than one occasion dedicated some of his time to communicating with me over a couple of issues.  He really is a dedicated constituency man, though he's equally good at being a partisan shill (part of the "what any MPP has to do" he refers to).

It also occurs to me that, as chatter grows about a race to replace Tim Hudak as leader, Shurman is a name that has periodically come up; he's a solid public speaker with a booming voice and, as indicated by my affection, could probably be presented as a more appealing face for non-traditional Conservative votes.  I wouldn't be surprised if the surfacing of this story is connected to someone trying to mitigate his threat as a leadership rival down the road.

With that out of the way - why on earth should the public be subsidizing a retirement home for an MPP?  Isn't that what sound financial planning is for?  Shurman's energetic, to be sure, but he's not a young man.  The MPP gig is not his first career, either.  Has he not been planning for retirement his whole professional career, buying RRSPs and whatnot?  He should have planned for retirement self-sustainability; that's what Conservatives are telling everyone else to do.  

What about "live within your means?" I can't afford a retirement home; I can't even afford annual overseas vacations.  So, I don't take them.  For a growing number of people across Ontario, the focus is on second-hand cars, smaller homes, cheaper products and fewer perks, which is exactly how the Tories would have it.  It's ludicrous for a Conservative MPP to be complaining about what their salary doesn't let them cover - if he needs more money, he should take on a second job, or a third job, like so many other Ontarians do.  Selling Avon or cleaning parks provide no conflict of interest with his political employment.  Or maybe he should get out of politics for a job that pays more adequately for the sort of lifestyle he wants for himself and his wife; there's good money in consulting and lord knows, GR firms always find rooms for well-connected former politicians.

Me, I'm a liberal - I think our economic system is out of whack and I agree with Shurman that what MPPs make isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.  I think it's problematic to expect so many other Ontarians, especially young ones, to work more jobs for less to make ends meet.  I have a real problem with expecting youth to "cut their teeth" on unpaid internships to earn the right to make money.  That's a cop-out by the people pulling in millions every year and investing those dollars in second homes in Barbados.  Somehow, something's gotta give.

Unemployment and underemployment is a severe problem in Ontario's economy, one that the sorts of policy ideas being fronted by the Hudak Tories (including Shurman) simply aren't going to fix.  The current Liberal slate of policies aren't fully up to the task, either.  What's needed to solve this deepening crisis is some genuine debate, compromise and creative, shared solutions.

Shurman's idea of an Ontario-based Kickstarter is an example of the sorts of ideas we should be looking at.  If our politicians spent more time working collaboratively on defining solutions instead of attempting to pull the rug out from under each other (both across the aisle and within their own Party) we'd probably see more such innovative ideas - heck, they might even come to fruition.

I have some sympathy for Shurman; it's hard not to, he's a likable kind of guy.  I have a lot more sympathy for the many, many Ontarians who don't have the luxury of dipping into publicly-funded allowances to finance their dream lifestyle.  This is the kind of thing that drives them bonkers and leads to declarations that "all politicians are the same" - entitled to their entitlements, which are paid for by us.

On the odd chance that Shurman is mulling a leadership run, I would recommend that he balance the cognitive dissonance of his position; either people are entitled to public support for quality-of-life or they aren't.  The only way to truly demonstrate one's leadership potential is to practice what you preach - i.e. lead by example.