The Daily Exchange: Third time's a charm?

"What happened here tonight?"

Ontario voted. They did not vote for change.

After a tepid campaign mainly defined by roller coaster poll results the Ontario Liberal Party has been able to secure a third mandate.

Premier Dalton McGuinty made the supposed derogatory label of "Premier Dad" work for him. With world markets crashing, Ontarians bought the message (as they did in the spring federally) that a steady hand is needed in turbulent economic times. Premier McGuinty's team was effective in pivoting their message that Mr. Hudak was not up for the job, and Ontarians bought it.

In 2003, Mr. McGuinty swept to power with 72 seats. In 2007, 71 seats. Today, he won 53 seats. Critics will argue that any seat count less than his impressive majorities in the last two elections is a defeat.  I beg to differ.

Mr. McGuinty and his team have made history and are positioning themselves in the same manner as the "big blue machine." Three terms for a Liberal government in Ontario is formidable. Mr. McGuinty has learned from former Premier Bill Davis. It was Davis who was able to rally the red Tory vote in Ontario, and it is Mr. McGuinty who was able to appeal to them. He appealed by running a steady, simple, non-offensive campaign - one that focused on his record of accomplishments and highlighted his ability to manage effectively. As I stated in my first post, it wasn't Daltonmania. But today it worked because that's his brand, Premier Dad.

Mr. Hudak's team was not able to overcome his inability to introduce himself effectively to the general public. From the day he was elected the PC leader in Ontario, he remained unknown to the electorate, as he tried to rebuild a party in shambles following the poor election result of 2007. For two years he has remained unknown, only garnering media attention when he repeated the words scandal and boondoggle.  His polling numbers for the past year were artificial, based on the displeasure of the Liberal government's record, not on Hudakmania. And Hudakmania never caught on. Neither did his change message.

Further, Hudak's team was faced with outside forces they could not control. First, as I have argued previously, the popularity of Mayor Ford (and the disastrous budget process which played out throughout this campaign) and the intervention of the Federal Conservative government, hurt him. Ontarians traditionally vote for the balance of power, not trifecta's of power. The insurmountable ad buy against team Hudak surely also played a role, it can easily be said they were outspent 7-1 by special interest groups. It makes a difference, just ask Micheal Ignatieff.

For Ms. Horwath, the orange crush went flat. She and her team may be pleased with their result and campaign; although I am sure behind the scenes, she is disappointed with the results. Despite running a traditional socialist agenda of raising corporate taxes and demonizing CEO salaries, she was able to connect with voters and build status as a contender. It is notable that in the last Provincial election, with then leader Howard Hampton, the NDP was marginalized and not taken seriously by the media.  Ms. Horwath has been able to bring her party into, at least, this century. But she could not rouse a Horwathmania vote either - except among reporters.

Premier McGuinty has made history. He has been one of the most underestimated politicians in Canada.  He has again proven his political acumen - and it should not be questioned again.

With his third election, it is what Mr. McGuinty and his team does now that will determine if his track record will be positive or negative. They have a lot of challenges to address. They were not elected based on a strong change mandate, rather on one of steady status quo. There is nothing super exciting in their platform, and they are about to face a double dip recession.

It is how they will deal with these issues, in a polarizing Queen's Park environment, which will tell if Mr. McGuinty will be remembered as the most successful Premier in history (the title of most successful Liberal Premier he has already won). What he is now is a historic third term winner.

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Guy Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

At the time of writing it's not clear whether Mr. McGuinty will emerge with minority or a slim majority.

Even now, however, four things are clear.

First, Tim Hudak did well. Extremely well. Almost as many Ontarians embraced his message of positive change as opted for the status quo.

In addressing his party and the province, Mr. Hudak was humble and modest, but he deserves to be proud. This is an incredible result for an Ontario party leader in his first election, a result on par (in popular vote and seat count) with the first elections of David Peterson and Dalton McGuinty -- both of whom went on to win solid majorities their next times out. Both momentum and history are on his side: Mr. Hudak will be the next Premier of Ontario.

Second, the pollsters and pundits who predicted that the Liberals would sail to a majority were wrong.  However one characterizes the result, it wasn't clear sailing. In fact, the race was closer than many pollsters and most confident Liberals predicted. I heard one pollster explain that the result was consistent with his findings, within the margin of error: That's true only to the extent that the PC result was higher than forecasted "by a margin of error" and the Liberal vote was lower than forecasted "by a margin of error."

Third, the imbalance in election spending laws creates real unfairness. The theory behind election spending limits is that wealth should not be allowed to dictate election outcomes. In Ontario, however, only politicians and parties are subject to spending limits. Wealthy businesses and trade unions can spend without limit. In this case, the union-backed Working Families Coalition was free to spend as much as it wished, and used that imbalance to launch a damaging but misleading advertising attack on Mr. Hudak.  The playing field must be levelled before the next election: politicians who face unrestricted spending by third parties must not be handcuffed in their ability to respond and to defend themselves.

Fourth, the Liberals must take to heart the lessons of the vote: not just the overwhelming majority who voted for change (whether blue or orange complexion), but the cleavage between the Liberals' urban/GTA base and Ontarians living in towns, rural communities and the North. Mr. McGuinty must serve as the Premier for all Ontarians, not just as Premier for the the minority (slightly more than one-third) who voted for him, and not just as Premier for the Greater Toronto Area.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

Ontario voters delivered a clear strong message tonight:

Dalton McGuinty – you’re on probation now, and we want to see some change.

In denying the Liberals the third majority they coveted and the Liberal campaign team was predicting, voters are sending a chastened McGuinty back to the premier’s office. Gone are the days of majority government and the veritable free ride such an arrangement gives the party in power.

Now, McGuinty is going to have to learn the practice of consensus politics, and be willing to co-operate with others to move Ontario forward.

For New Democrats, Thursday’s election results are a fabulous first step in the party’s revitalization here in Ontario. Under the strong and capable leadership of Andrea Horwath, the party has emerged from the shadow of the Bob Rae government of the early ‘90s, and re-established itself as a mainstream alternative to the two old-line parties.

In this election the NDP:

• Added seven MPPs to the caucus

• Added nine new MPPs

• Solidified its position as a strong voice for Northern Ontario, electing five Northern MPPs

• Established a strong presence in southwestern Ontario with wins in Essex and London Fanshawe

• Established a beachhead in the 905 thanks to Jagmeet Singh’s historic win in Bramalea-Gore-Malton

• Expanded its presence in Toronto with a win in Davenport

• Increased its share of the popular vote to 23%.

• Earned the balance of power in a minority Legislature.

In her post-election speech, Horwath reached out to the other parties, indicating a willingness to work with others to address the issues voters raised during the campaign. That includes jobs, the rising cost of living, and improving health care. 

Expect Horwath to request a quick calling back of the Legislature. MPPs need to review the province’s deteriorating economic and financial position, and get down to work addressing the serious challenges this situation will bring.

This is no time for a post-election as usual, where things go all quiet after the election, as the parties take a break as the new government readies itself to take over and so folks can get some well-deserved rest. McGuinty would be well advised to take the NDP leader up on her offer. Hudak would be too. We're facing some big issues, issues are bigger than political egos, bigger than the parties and bigger than politics. They deserve our elected officials’ attention and they deserve it now.

The Daily Exchange: Now it's all about getting out the vote

Today all the political parties will concentrate on getting out the vote, often referred to by its acronym, GOTV.

In part this involves phoning people and knocking on doors in an effort to ensure that every last supporter goes to the polling station and marks an ‘X’. Strong GOTV requires excellent logistics, meticulous planning and a strong volunteer base.

Without diminishing the importance of a good field organization and detailed preparation (for both are vital), I want to explain why getting out the vote is based on the campaign's prior communication effort.

The core activities of any campaign are persuasion and mobilization: persuading voters to support a candidate and then prompting supportive voters to cast ballots. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that if a campaign spends money or expends volunteer labour on a function unconnected to persuasion or mobilization, it is wasting resources.

The act of persuasion involves more than convincing the undecided. It also includes attracting accessible (soft) supporters of other candidates, and hardening the intention of one's own soft supporters.

And mobilization extends beyond the mechanical acts associated with getting out the vote. A necessary component is motivation and encouragement of supporters, that is, giving them reason and inspiration to vote.

Thus, campaign communication is as important to mobilization as it is to persuasion. Think of today's phone-banking and door-knocking as harvesting: reaping what was sown during four weeks of campaign communication, not to mention months of communication before that.

In reference to mobilization I said supporters need both reason and inspiration to vote. I used those words deliberately, because human beings operate on two levels, cognitive and emotive. Effective campaign communication must address both levels. It must reason with, or convince, the audience. And it must move the audience. It must cause people to feel something.

A campaign might deliver a convincing message, but that's only half the battle. Its messaging needs emotive content, too. Campaigns fail when they succeed in convincing but fail to move.

Our human brains are wired with both cognition and emotion. As psychology professor Drew Westen has written, “You can't win an election with half a brain.”

Each party requires strong field organization to get out the vote today. But the number of votes available to harvest is determined by the communication that has already occurred.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

Guy has done an excellent job breaking down the importance of voter persuasion, volunteer mobilization and getting out the vote. Getting these things right are crucial to a campaign's success.

In this campaign, the conventional wisdom is that the Liberals and PC Party have the get-out-the-vote advantage because they have lots of money that they have invested in sophisticated voter contact technologies. This, we are told, will mean they should harvest more votes than polls say they will, while New Democrats will harvest less. It's an interesting theory, but I'd argue that it fails to consider a force we see playing out in the campaign's final days: the NDP's re-energized grassroots.

Take a look at Andrea Horwath's most recent campaign rallies. Yesterday, while Tim Hudak was drawing a few dozen supporters to his campaign events, and while Dalton McGuinty was stacking a Tim Hortons with Liberal supporters to make it look like the public is swinging his way, Horwath was speaking to big and boisterous crowds. That includes 400 supporters in Guelph, and 500 at her final campaign stop in Scarborough.

These rallies, often positioned by media as indicators of public support, are in reality better barometers of how motivated the grassroots are. Judging what we've seen the last few days, I think it's accurate to say that New Democrat get-out-the-vote efforts will be stronger than they've been in two decades, that the Liberals will perform better than anyone expected at the campaign's outset, and the PC Party will be counting on paid call centres. I mean, how else do you explain the curious strategy of pulling volunteers off getting out the vote for a series of photo ops, as Hudak is doing today?

There are two things behind the resurgence of the NDP's grassroots.

The first is Horwath's positive campaign. In their hearts, New Democrats are hopeful and optimistic. They don't get excited by the negative, sandbox politics we've seen from the Liberal and PC camps this campaign. They are motivated by talk about what we can accomplish together, about how we can build a better Ontario, about how (dare I say it) government can and should put people first for a change. To her great credit, that's exactly the kind of campaign Horwath and her candidates have run. New Democrats are proud of that, and they will be out in full force today.

The second factor is the Jack Layton effect. I don't know what impact Jack's death will have on the electorate. But one thing I know for certain is that it is having a huge impact on NDP volunteers.

Today, moved by Jack's message that love is better than anger, hope is better than fear, that optimism is better than despair, thousands of New Democrats will fan out in communities across Ontario to try and elect an Andrea Horwath NDP government. Jack called on New Democrats to pick up his torch and help create a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. That's what you'll see NDP supporters doing in record numbers today. How will all this play out? We'll find out tonight. All indications are that it'll be a nail biter. So for heaven's sake, no matter who you support, get out and vote.

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

It all comes down to today. Since Oct. 11, 2007, all three of the parties have been preparing for this day. Two of them have undergone leadership reviews and an overhaul of their brand. The other, although in government, has a very different slate of candidates up for consideration.

I think I am safe to say I don't think any of the parties thought they would be in the position they are today, and if they did, then they should be very careful what they wished for.

Election day is the most important day for any campaign. Parties have been preparing for this day for years. All the ads, literature, non-stop, cross-provincial tours, rallies, media, door knocking, it all comes down to today, and who you can mobilize to get out the vote. Because the person who gets the most votes in a local riding wins. The party that has the most elected MPPs gets to form government. And that party's leader becomes the 24th (ongoing) or 25th (new) Premier of Ontario.

Polls are one way to gauge how the results will turn out. But as we have seen in spades in this election, polls are simply a snapshot in time until voters actually vote. Depending on what poll you read, and at what time during this campaign, each one of the parties leaders is mere hours away from sitting in that premier seat at 99 Wellesley Ave. W.

It is what parties do with what they learned during the past 30 plus days that matters most.

Local campaigns have been phoning, knocking on doors, polling, and unique to this election, online trolling, to find out who you support. And if you said it was them, then be prepared to be stalked all day today until you vote. It's that old GOTV: getting out the vote. They enlist thousands of volunteers across the Province, beg them to take the day off work, and have them do everything they can to get you to the polling stating to cast your ballot.

A good get-out-the-vote strategy can absolutely make all the difference. Stories have been told and re-told about volunteers driving people to polling stations, dragging people out in their pyjamas, or babysitting the kids while mom and dad vote. Because every vote does matter.

The Ontario Liberal, PC Party of Ontario, and NDP need to get out their vote today. As I argued yesterday, Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal party have nailed the ballot question. Point in their favour. Further, they are an experienced party who have the right technology and expertise to know where and when to get their votes. They also have thousands of volunteers across the province who are prepared and motivated to get every last vote out.

In the past, Liberals have had the issue of getting their voters to the polls as they were "soft" voters. In this election I do not see that being an issue — their supporters are motivated to get out and vote for fears of a minority government, and the message they have been selling speaks to this base. Further, as I have argued before, I believe a big swath of red Tory voters — the ones who voted for both Rob Ford and Prime Minister Harper — will be voting for Mr. McGuinty.

The Conservatives share every bit of the Liberals’ expertise and technology. And I would argue their voters are generally more apt to show up at the polling stations. However, their base in the past has surprised them — think John Tory. And I think this election they may be surprised again with supporters staying home because they do not believe Mr. Hudak is up for the job — he is no "Mike Harris."

The NDP will have the biggest issues pulling their vote. They simply do not have enough people or technology to (a) have their vote identified, or (b) to pull them. They will have to cross their fingers and hope the polls actually deliver seats, as it did federally in Quebec. And Quebec I think is the key to this argument — the "orange wave" of the Spring Federal campaign did not translate to a massive seat gain in Ontario.

In less than 24 hours Ontarians will know what their next provincial government will look like. It will be a demonstrably different parliament than the one that was dissolved just over a month ago, regardless of the outcome of the seat count. And it is going to be fascinating to political junkies like me, Jeff and Guy. Now I hope that you will go out and vote!

The Daily Exchange: It's time for the voters to speak

For Ontarians who have not yet voted (and tens of thousands already have cast ballots) tomorrow is election day.

Pollsters are making all sorts of projections, but the voters, and only the voters, will decide who forms Ontario's next government.

As each voter sits (or crouches) behind the voting screen, he or she should be thinking about the economy, about what an uncertain future holds, and ask: can we really afford four more years of Dalton McGuinty?

It's an obvious question. Saddled with higher taxes, higher electricity prices, and broken promises not to impose higher taxes, Ontarians should be asking whether they can afford another four years of this government.

The PC campaign, and the Tory advertising team led by Perry Miele, have focused on this critical issue. For voters who can't afford higher taxes, higher hydro rates, and higher prices, there's only one choice, and that's change in the direction of Tim Hudak. Voters who don't believe Mr. McGuinty will raise taxes again, or who don't care, might as well vote Liberal.

It's worth mentioning that some voters might be asking a different question before marking their Xs. The voters might ask whether the Liberals are still in touch with ordinary Ontarians -- whether the Liberals "get" what life is like for mainstream families. Do the Liberals "get" the impact of giant wind farms on communities and on property values? Do they "get" how high hydro rates are hurting seniors and others on fixed incomes? Do they "get" why some parents don't want their five-year-olds being taught about any sexuality, whether heterosexuality or homosexuality? Do they "get" why people were mad about the sneaky eco-tax?

In short, are the Liberals so out of touch that they don't get why people are frustrated and fed up?

Everywhere the Liberals are out of touch and people are fed up, Mr. Hudak is offering sensible, practical change that will make a difference for ordinary families. In my opinion, his most effective moments during the campaign occurred when he demonstrated the contrast between his approach and that of the incumbent.

Those are the questions I would ask -- indeed, those were the questions that I did ask before casting my vote.

Elections are decided by millions of voters and we'll never know what they were asking themselves as they casts their ballots. We won't know the questions on voters' minds, but tomorrow night we will learn how they answered.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

 

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

As Ontarians head to the polls tomorrow, their world looks much different than it did twelve, six, or even two months ago. 

The world economy is again on the brink of recession. Several European nations are neck deep in a sovereign debt crisis. The United States is facing a crisis of both debt and governance, and lashing out with protectionist policies. These circumstances have made Ontarians concerned about their own jobs. They have also dramatically reshaped our political landscape and, by extension, Thursday's ballot question.

A ballot question is an "if-then" construct. The question is built around a theme or issue and, if done right, leads voters to only one conclusion about whom to vote for. Perhaps the most famous ballot question was the one used by Reagan during his successful 1980 election: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Enough voters answered "no," and Jimmy Carter was sent packing.

You'll note that Reagan's ballot question had nothing to do with his own campaign promises or record. The best ones don't - they push voters to default decisions, rather than positive ones.

Every political party tries to frame the ballot question like Reagan did. The parties that do this successfully win elections; the parties that don't, don't.

Ballot questions are also circumstance-specific and time-sensitive. This is the third election for Ontarians in just 12 months, and we will see three different ballot questions.

Almost a year ago, municipal council incumbents across Ontario - most notably in Toronto - were swept out of office by voters responding to a ballot question of "do you want 4 more years of out of control municipal spending and taxes?" Six months ago, 73 Tory MPs surfed a blue tide far mightier than the vaunted "Orange Crush" into a majority federal government with a ballot question that asked voters whether they wanted (yet) another minority government.

In the lead-up to the Ontario provincial election, the Liberals attempted to use the gains made since 2003 to create a ballot question like, "Can Tim Hudak be trusted to keep/build on all-day kindergarten, our health care system, etc.?" At the same time, the PCs and the NDP developed strategies and messages to create ballot questions about "change"; “Changebook” (the PC platform) and “change that puts people first” (the NDP slogan) were tactics in pursuit of that goal. The trouble for them is that "change" is a largely positive, not default, position. This makes it a weak ballot question, and one prone to being affected by events. And that's what has happened.

Pre-campaign failures (e.g. an inability on the part of the PCs to build sufficient awareness of Tim Hudak), in-writ hiccups, and a deteriorating world economy have kicked the legs out from under the PC and NDP ballot questions. They have also allowed the Liberals to shift slightly and create a very strong ballot question of, "Can we afford to take a chance on unknown rookie Tim Hudak, or the instability of a minority government, during tough economic times?"

Recent polls suggest that McGuinty's increasing success at pushing this question will keep him in government, perhaps in historic, three-peat fashion.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

As voters get ready to mark their ballot, they need to ask themselves: 

Do I want for more years of more of the same, of families' concerns being pushed aside for short-sighted corporate tax giveaways and pay raises for CEOs, wasteful spending that won't do a thing to help Ontario weather the economic clouds on the horizon, or do I want a premier and government who will put my concerns and my best interests at the top of the agenda, for a change.

If voters want to keep the status quo, they have two choices. They can vote for Dalton McGuinty's Liberals. Voters can count on them to meet the challenges that lie ahead by rewarding their friends and well-connected insiders with billions of dollars in no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts that don't actually create jobs. If voters like this approach but also want chain gangs, they have the option of voting for Tim Hudak's PC Party.

In this election, voters can also make a positive choice. They can choose a different kind of politics. It's a choice that says we don't have to repeat the same old mistakes that don't work for families. It's a choice that says Ontario can do better, that we can make smarter choices, that we can put the needs of everyday families at the top of the agenda, that we can surmount the economic challenges that lie ahead and build a more prosperous, fair and generous province where no-one is left behind.

That choice is Andrea Horwath and the Ontario NDP.

Instead of handing out money-for-nothing corporate tax cuts that pad CEO salaries and don't grow our economy, we can create good jobs and grow the middle-class by rewarding job creators, buying Ontario, and processing our natural resources here in Ontario instead of shipping them away.

Instead of making it harder to pay the bills, we can make it easier by removing the HST from home heating and hydro, by starting to take the HST off gasoline, and by freezing college and university tuition, transit fares and child care fees. This will take the squeeze off families whose paycheques haven't kept up with the rising cost of living, something that's important during these gloomy times because when the people of Ontario are doing well, that helps our economy to do well too.

And instead of giving huge pay raises to public sector executives, and spending $1 million a day on fancy consultants, we can put the focus where families want it - on improving health care, education and other public services that everyday people depend on.

In short, this election is a choice between a status quo that doesn't work for families and won't help Ontario meet the economic challenges that lie ahead, and a strong, principled and capable Andrea Horwath NDP government that will bring change that puts people first.                          

The Daily Exchange: What ever happened to health care as an election issue?

Health care is a topic that politicians fear. It has consumed over half of the provincial budget, and Ontarians continue to rank it as a top priority.

In the next decade, our population of seniors will grow by 43%. Chronic diseases, such as asthma, diabetes and cancer are growing. There is a whole segment of the population – the “sandwich generation” – who are caring for their parents as well as their own children.

Yet, it is remarkable that in this campaign there has not been a serious discussion on the future of our health care system. I conclude it hasn't been a serious topic because nobody's talking seriously about it.

The Ontario Liberal party has arguably tried the hardest of the three parties. The Liberals' plan on investing in a healthy renovation tax credit ($1,500 annually) and homecare at least begins to address our aging population. However, when Ontario Liberals talk about health care, they focus on statistics and their past accomplishments - they clearly haven't put health in front window.

We hear Premier McGuinty talk about the Federal health accord. And yes, as an Ontarian, I want him at the table when re-negotiating health funding with the federal government. But there is a lack of a serious discussion about the projections of our health budget reaching 55 per cent, 65 per cent, or 80 per cent of the provincial budget in the next decade.

The Ontario Liberals have been able to co-opt most of the historic centres of opposition on health care (specifically, the nurses' union) by having a solid record in the past eight years. But having a solid record doesn’t address what you are going to do in the future – it just buys you trust in the short term.

Worse, when the PC Party of Ontario talks about health care, it only talks about it from the perspective of waste (elimination of Local Health Integration Networks, eHealth). The party's messaging is focused on what the system is doing wrong, and in no way does it address how it will “fix” it. Further, the waste the PCs talk about is a fraction of the overall health budget. Their failure to do appropriate level of staff work during past two years at Queens Park is now costing them in their level of health care policy and debate.

The Ontario NDP platform just makes no sense. In a nutshell, the NDP would basically nationalize the home care/long term care sectors and associates no cost to it. Further, the party's reckless plan would build very expensive beds (remember it takes years to build new facilities) which patients will no longer want to go to in ten years – seniors do not want to age in “facilities," they want to age at home. They clearly know it makes no sense, which is why they're focusing on a poorly-defined executive salaries cap, which sounds good until you realize it will also apply to doctors and cancer researchers.

Ontarians deserve better on the health care debate. We are facing huge challenges in the years ahead on health care, particularly in terms of cost control, but there has been a surprising reluctance on the part of all three parties to engage on it.

In some ways, this is great from a campaign tactic perspective, but may be something the winner will regret down the road.

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

When Erika said she was going to write about health care, I anticipated a rhetorical duel over the parties’ respective pronouncements and promises.

Instead, I agree with her thesis which (in my own words) I understand to be as follows: In this campaign we are not having a serious discussion about health funding, nor will we, as no politician is willing to confront the serious challenges facing our system.

By happy coincidence, the University of Toronto School of Public Policy & Governance, where I am a Fellow, is today co-sponsoring a roundtable discussion on the very topic of what will happen when the tax-transfer agreement expires in 2014. I believe there might still be a few tickets (they are free). In 1996, heath care consumed 31 per cent of the Ontario Government budget. The upward trend was obvious and many (including Mike Harris) warned that soon health spending would consume half the budget.

Despite politicians’ pious expressions of concern, nothing was done, until now  just as predicted  health spending consumes almost half the provincial budget (46 per cent). Economist Don Drummond projects that health spending will eventually consume 80 per cent of Ontario Government spending, crowding out other priorities such as education and law enforcement. Why would anyone believe that politicians (of all parties) who presided over the rapid rise from 31 per cent to 46 per cent will do anything to prevent an increase to 60 per cent, let alone 70 or 80?

One reason is that nobody is willing to pay the political price for fixing the system. The last PC government increased health care funding dramatically: from $17.8 billion to $26.1 billion. PC health spending went up and up and up ... And in an effort to spend those billions more effectively  that is, not to cut spending but to use the increased spending better  the PC government restructured the hospital system. This hospital restructuring now figures prominently in a massive union-funded ad campaign against Tim Hudak. (As I have previously noted, Mr. Hudak’s ability to respond is capped by spending limits, while unions running the attack ads can spend unlimited amounts.)

What’s the lesson of the Working Families Coalition ads? Spend more while restructuring the health care system and you will pay a huge political price. Little wonder that politicians just promise to spend more, period.

During the recent federal election campaign, the Conservatives promised to increase federal health transfers by 6 per cent annually. In fact, all parties jumped on the 6 per cent bandwagon. Never mind that during the last five years the average rate of increase in federal revenues has been less than one per cent per year, and revenue has recently been in decline.

In this campaign, the PCs are promising to increase health spending to record levels. They will certainly keep that promise if elected, just as Mike Harris easily kept his word after winning re-election in 1999 on a promise to spend record amounts on health care.

Keeping the promise to spend more on health care is easy. As evidence consider the last 25 Ontario Government budgets.

The Liberals promise to increase health spending by 3 per cent per year, leading to two questions: First, if he increases health spending by 3 per cent, and federal transfers increase by 6 per cent, what will Mr. McGuinty do with the rest of the money? Second, what’s the likelihood that the provincial government will actually limit health spending growth to half the increase in federal funding?

All parties pay lip service to reforming the system, but the claims are not credible. Take the NDP promise to reduce costs by extending government funding of prescription drugs. Right now the government pays about 40 per cent of drug costs (mostly for seniors and social assistance recipients), employer plans cover another 50 per cent, and the cash market covers the remainder. Does anyone believe that by assuming 100 per cent of the prescription drug market, the government will manage to reduce costs? That hasn’t happened in the parts of the health system that the government already funds at 100 per cent  nor in pretty much any other service under government control.

Spending more and more on health care: it’s the one promise that every political party can be trusted to keep.

Restructuring health care to make it more effective? Not in the sense of real restructuring. In health care, no good deed goes unpunished. Why would any politician take the risk?

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

Unlike my two colleagues, I actually believe there has been a good debate about health care in this campaign.

It hasn't been so much about health care delivery. This is because, despite Erika's attempts at spin, apart from the NDP's proposed clampdown on executive salaries, the policy differences between the three major parties' health care plans are, shall we say, less than dramatic.  

All promise new investment in health care, more doctors and nurses, and a focus on meeting the health care needs of an ageing population. All promise to focus on reforming the system and finding efficiencies to improve patient care and find savings. And no one is musing about turning things over to the private sector (though that is what Dalton McGuinty has already done with home care).

Where he have seen a good debate is on how we fund health care.

Voters in this election have two choices. 

The first, put forward by Dalton McGuinty and Tim Hudak, is that we should go ahead and give away $9 billion in no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts.

These are tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the people at the top, the corporate CEOs and executives who make more in three days than the rest of us make in a year.

We are told that these tax cuts will mean improved economic growth, greater prosperity and more money for the public services we need like health care.

What's the reality?

Corporations have used the billions in corporate tax cuts they've been handed in recent years to pad their already generous pay, not to create jobs and grow the economy. That's no help to sustaining health care.

And in big cities like Toronto, the gap between the rich and poor is growing, thanks in large part to corporate tax policy. The Toronto Community Foundation's Vital Signs report is out today. It finds that child poverty rates are up 40 per cent in one year. Middle-income neighbourhoods are projected to completely disappear by 2025. This growing gap has far-reaching impacts, including more pressure on health care. Again, this is not a good way to sustain health care.

Fortunately in this election, voters have another choice.

Andrea Horwath will roll back the blank cheques to businesses and replace them with targeted tax cuts to businesses that create jobs, plus investments that everyday families need, like better health care. I know there have been some hysterical arguments made in the last couple days by voices of the establishment, but it's worth noting to those who think the sky is falling that the NDP will keep Ontario's combined corporate tax rate below that of our closest competitor, to maintain our competitiveness.

Bottom line - Tax giveaways simply haven't worked. They aren't fair. They aren't smart. They don’t help us sustain services like health care. It's time to try something new.

The Daily Exchange: Can politicians learn to get along?

Why is co-operation a dirty word in politics?

 Sesame Street taught me that co-operation makes it happen. That working together is how you get things done. It’s how you make the world a better place.

But here in the strange world of Ontario politics, co-operation is a dirty word.  

For Tim Hudak, co-operation is a conspiracy. It’s a spectre. It’s sleazy backroom shenanigans. It’s something you accuse your opponents of doing because somehow, supposedly, this gives you some kind of a partisan edge.

For Dalton McGuinty, who’s on the receiving end of these charges, co-operation is a vile and heinous accusation.  It’s something you have to deny in the strongest possible terms. Co-operating is something you would never, ever, never ever do, not in a million-billion-trillion years, not if your life depended on it. Picking up your toys and going home is a far better option than trying to play nice with someone who -- gasp -- might not agree with you on every single thing.

It’s all very absurd.

The other day, I was talking to my five-year-old daughter about the election. After explaining to her how things worked, I asked her: If you were in charge of things, what’s the first thing you would do? Her answer? “Dad, I’d make it so people don’t shout or yell at each other so much. I’d get people to just talk to each other. Then they wouldn’t get so mad and they’d be more happy.” Smart kid.

Over the last four weeks, we have seen a fierce campaign. Inasmuch as the party leaders debated the issues, and focused on the choices before the voters, this has been a good thing. It’s how democracy works.

But with poll after poll after poll after poll suggesting no party will win a majority of  the seats in the Ontario Legislature, the reality is that MPPs are going to have to be a lot more willing to work together than they have in this election if anything’s going to get done.

 

It can be done. Some of the best work of the past legislative session was the result of MPPs working together. A good example is the all-party select committee on mental health and addiction. Liberal MPP Kevin Flynn, PC Party MPP Christine Elliott and New Democrat MPP France Gelinas put partisan differences aside. They brought a focus to bear on this hugely important issue. And they put forward sensible, achievable recommendations that are being put into action and making a positive difference.

In this election, I think voters need to ask themselves: Which of the three party leaders can you count on to put a stop to the sandbox politics, reach out to others, and make constructive consensus politics work for the people of Ontario.

Is it Dalton McGuinty, who this weekend attacked NDP Leader Andrea Horwath’s character, who launched more negative attack TV ads, who issued goodness-knows-how-many attack news releases, and who attacked the very idea of politicians working together, saying he’d rather quit than do that?

Is it Tim Hudak, whose supporters started the weekend by attacking the lack of focus on policy then proceeded to spend the weekend attacking a dreamed-up coalition?

Or is it Andrea Horwath, who has run a positive campaign, whose events focused on positive ideas (including her plan for her first 100 days as Premier), who is running positive TV ads and nothing but, who has refused to engage in sandbox politics, and who has graciously shrugged off all of her opponents’ attacks and expressed a willingness to work with others?

At stake now through October 6 is who wins the election. But starting October 7, the stakes become much higher. Then, it stops being about people attacking each other, and it starts to be about MPPs of all stripes attacking Ontario’s jobs challenge, attacking problems in health care, and attacking the high cost of everyday life.

These are issues bigger than parties. They are bigger than politics. If we’re going to surmount them and build a better Ontario, we need a Premier and government that doesn’t see co-operation as a fatal flaw but rather as Ontarians’ greatest strength.

 --Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

You’re right, Jeff.  We need greater cooperation in the Legislature.  The parties can do many things to make Queen’s Park work better for Ontarians.  I’ll return to that point in a moment.

In the meantime, as you correctly observe, voters are in the process of deciding the composition of the next Legislature. Most pollsters predict a close race; every Ontarian who has not yet voted should do so.

It’s worth noting that one pollster has broken with consensus to show a large Liberal lead. Of course, this pollster’s federal election prediction was way, way off. Then again, maybe this time he’s right when the whole world is wrong.

While we agree on the importance of co-operation, the effectiveness of the Legislature is determined by the voters’ choices. The federal experience is instructive here.

During minority parliament, the Conservatives and the NDP cooperated to pass the Conservative’s anti-corruption law.  I am sure that the same thing could happen at Queen’s Park, since both the PCs and NDP want to clean up government in the wake of McGuinty-era scandals.  They might even stop tax-funded bodies from using your money to make political donations, a serious problem I blew the whistle on five years ago.

Who knows? Perhaps the PCs and NDP will cooperate to correct our election laws, so that parties aren’t handcuffed by spending caps while third parties are free to assault them with unlimited ad buys. Or maybe they will close the ridiculous loophole that allows businesses and trade unions to pay the full salaries of partisan campaign “volunteers,” without this significant corporate or union support counting as a political contribution. (See page 25 of the Elections Ontario handbook, bottom paragraph.)

But minority Parliament also demonstrated the limits of cooperation.  When most of the seats are held by high-tax parties (read Liberals and NDP) they can combine to outvote the low-tax party (PCs).  We have also saw the Liberals and NDP unite to block tough-on-crime reforms and to frustrate attempts to cut regulatory red-tape on job creators.

 And don’t expect parties that would enforce the census with jail terms to understand what’s wrong with the Big Brother intrusiveness of Smart Meters.

 So even assuming cooperation among MPPs, the composition of the next Legislature will matter a lot.  The more Liberals, the smaller the prospect of change.  As between the two “change” parties, the choice also matters greatly: Will it be change toward low taxes and a solid plan for the economy, or change toward a high-tax, high-spending party whose job-killing policies repelled employers and investors during the 1990s?

 The choice matters.  And so everybody should vote.

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

 I’ll tell you when “cooperation” became a dirty word in Canadian politics: Dec. 1 2008.

On that day, Liberal leader Stephane Dion and NDP leader Jack Layton signed an agreement that would have seen a Liberal-NDP coalition government, acting with the support of the Bloc Quebecois. The agreement was viciously attacked by the Conservatives in Ottawa ; terms like “unholy alliance” and “socialist-separatist coalition” were thrown around like confetti. The 2008 election was fought and won (and lost) on that issue.

The coalition talk continued to haunt Liberal Leader Michael Igantieff, despite the fact that Stephen Harper himself tried the same thing in 2004.

I don’t subscribe to the school of thought that working together is a bad thing in politics. Our parliamentary system of government is based on the idea of legislators, working together, to reach conclusions about the nation’s policy direction. That’s in part why there is such a focus on debate in a parliamentary system. That’s why the “mood of the House” matters.

Good public policy can – and often does – result from politicians being forced to put aside their ideological frames. Centrist parties like the Liberals, and centrist politicians like Premier McGuinty, have a natural affinity and aptitude for working in this way.

The other two parties cannot put aside their ideological bias.  The NDP is now touting “let’s all play together” talking points because they understand they will not form the next government.  But they could play a big role in the next government if there is a minority situation. 

But, NDP, let me ask you where was this working together mantra when you voted with the PC party of Ontario 183 times?  Where you working together when you voted against full day-kindergarten, increased funding for hospitals, re-training programs and infrastructure stimulus spending?   

Premier McGuinty has ruled out a formal arrangement with other parties:  “no accord, no coalition, no entente, no agreement — formal or informal — or any other linkage of any kind.”  Ontario Liberals do believe in working together – we have done so with legislation in the past, and believe in good public policy – we have proven how working together can be done in a legislative situation.  The NDP, on the other hand, have not.  They may be saying something different today based on poll numbers, but take a serious look at their voting record. 

The fact is Ontario needs a strong stable Liberal government.  More, the province needs a government that will make tough choices and will ensure that good public policy is implemented over ideological bias.  The world is facing economic uncertainty.  As I said in a past post we are potentially on our way to double dip recession.  Now is not the time to gamble on a minority situation. 

 

Ottawa survived years of minority governments without a formal coalition, or agreement.  Both leaders Tim Hudak and Dalton McGuinty have ruled out a coalition in Ontario if the votes come in on Thursday and there is a minority situation.  Only the NDP is hoping for a balance of power situation. 

But again, let’s wait to see what happens when all the votes are cast before pre-determining balance of power talk.

  

The Daily Exchange: Hey media, why the focus on the 'horse race'?

Now that the leaders’ debate is over, will the media put their “horse race” coverage behind them and start focusing on matters of substance?

Not likely.

For many news media, including two major TV networks, the top day-after issue was who won the debate or who claimed to have won. Never mind what was said during the debate – or any information that might better inform a voter who missed the televised exchange.

Meanwhile, for this newspaper, the primary post-debate coverage of the PC campaign was a screaming headline, "Hudak rallies behind candidate whose husband is charged with sex assault."

That’s right. Not a PC candidate. Not charges involving a PC candidate. A candidate’s spouse. A candidate’s husband, to be precise.

Maybe in the 19^th century it was acceptable to believe that a woman’s fitness to occupy a job was related to the conduct – we should stress, alleged conduct – of her husband. But this campaign is occurring in 2011, folks.

How backward, insulting, patronising and, quite frankly, un-Star like, to imply that a husband’s behaviour (alleged behaviour) reflects on a modern woman’s suitability for elected office.

For the record, following the debate the PC leader delivered a message of substance. Those interested can read it here. Mr. McGuinty was also talking post-debate policy. On the other hand, perhaps taking her cue from the news media, Ms Horwath eschewed substance in favour of process. Her dominant Debate Day +1 message was that the NDP has momentum, lots of momentum.

The news media are now reporting that the campaign has entered the home stretch – which of course means that their reports will focus even more heavily on process, to the exclusion of substance.

At the same time, the major parties will be relying even more heavily on paid advertising. People tend to deride those TV commercials as simplistic, self-serving and shallow. Fair enough. But they are one of the only ways in which a political party can communicate directly with the voters ... especially when the news coverage is insubstantial.

- Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

I agree with Guy’s assessment of the post-debate media coverage. There continues to be a pronounced lack of reporting about substantive issues. Energy policy? The economy? Who needs that stuff when we can talk horserace - who's up, who's down, and who's got the big 'Mo? 

As I stated post-debate, I don’t think that there was a clear winner - at least not on the things that matter in most voters' calculus.

But reporters seem to think that Andrea Horwath is the greatest debater this side of Oxford, and the NDP is falling over themselves to let them. And why shouldn't they? Talking about unmeasureables like momentum, likeability, and the YWCA effect is SO much more fun than trying to explain away the logical inconsistencies in their platform, or the fact their costing document would make Enron's accountant blush.

Reporters' failure to ask, and the NDP's failure to answer, is unfortunate because, as I've argued before, there are very serious (not to mention very obvious) questions about their platform. Like every major party, the NDP has a duty to present their plan (read: dangerous protectionism) and their math (however dubious) clearly and often to the people they propose to lead. So far, they've shirked it.

One also hopes that Ms Horwath’s “I’m just a girl in the world" mantra will be shelved during the last week of the campaign. Far from avoiding mud, the NDP have been slinging it Jackson Pollock-style. Case in point: Ms. Horwath's televised attack on one of the best hospitals in Canada, which she was forced to walk back the next day after the "truthiness" of her story became clear.

My advice to Ms. Horwath is, if you want voters to take the NDP seriously, then start acting seriously.

Regarding the PCs, Guy is quite right: they talked policy following the debate, and I thank them for it. In fact, I hope they continue talking about gangs of unrestrained prisoners wandering our streets being monitored by one or two armed or unarmed non-police officers. I'll give credit where credit is due: Changebook doesn't address the need to create a modern economy, and it may have more holes than a golf course, but at least the PCs are talking about it.

This brings me back to Dalton McGuinty, who talked about policy and the future in substantive terms every day before the debate, and has done the same every day since. Voters tend to notice - and value - that stuff. That's why I'm confident that, on October 7, Mr. McGuinty will be back in the Premier's Office, Mr. Hudak will be back in the Official Opposition's Leader's office, and Ms Horwath will have plenty of time to ponder what went wrong - and maybe take that dee-jay up on his offer of dating advice.

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

In their pieces, Guy and Erika suggest that only Ontario's Liberals and PC Party are entitled to govern. It's a view widely shared by much of Ontario's corporate establishment, folks who want to maintain a status quo that favours them, not change that puts people first.

What my Daily Exchange colleagues fail to appreciate is that they and their parties don't have the final say on who governs. Neither do the elites at the top who have all the money and usually get to call the shots. It's voters who decide. And on October 6, voters will deliver their verdict on who's fit for office, and who they want representing them at Queen's Park.

This exchange, and Erika's piece in particular, reminds me of the old saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." It strikes me this aptly describes the story arc for this campaign. At first, the Liberals ignored the NDP. When the NDP's support held firm through the campaign's first few days, it was on to jokes and name-calling (my personal favourite was the Paula Abdul comparison). Now, after Horwath's home run debate performance, the Liberals have launched panicked, last-minute attacks on Horwath, including today's hyper-partisan screed from Erika attacking Horwath and her fitness to govern. Only Dalton McGuinty, Erika tells us, can provide the serious leadership we need on the issues that matter most to Ontario families.

Let's review the substantive issues Team McGuinty wants to debate in the campaign’s crucial final days.

There's Greg Sorbara addressing burning issues around the NDP's landlord. There's Laurel Broten questioning how injured Horwath's son really was when he went to the hospital. There's Bob Chiarelli denouncing a $500-million tax hike that Tim Hudak hasn't proposed. Another release about Horwath's son. And so on and so on.

If McGuinty wants to have a serious debate about the issues he sure hasn't informed his campaign team. They have steered McGuinty clear of all but one debate, not to mention all interaction with any human being not hand-picked and vetted by his day planners. Instead, they've chosen to engage in a series of goofy and irrelevant war room stunts with enough mind-numbing childishness to embarrass a frat house.

Everyone understands what's really going on here.

McGuinty and Liberals are losing ground to the NDP. It's not just because poll after poll shows Horwath is a likeable and authentic leader. It's because voters believe Horwath's New Democrats have the best policies.

Horwath's message of rewarding job creators instead of handing out no-string-attached corporate tax cuts, of improving the affordability of everyday life for everyday families and of improving health care has clearly struck a chord with many voters.

Rather than stick to the high road and face their declining fortunes with a semblance of grace, Liberals are simply making the case for why voters should choose change.

The Daily Exchange: Do political leaders really care about wooing Toronto?

It’s all tied up – so says the latest polling – with the Liberals and the PCs both enjoying the support of 35% of voters. (The NDP has slipped to 23%.)

Given the tightness of the race, it’s time to talk about the importance of the Toronto vote. With almost one-fifth ((22 of 107) of the seats in Ontario’s Legislature, Toronto is an important battleground for all three parties, but for very different reasons.

Toronto is the city Ontarians love to hate. And they’re often not too crazy about its politicians either. Perhaps that’s why Bob Rae has been the only premier from Toronto since the 1940s (and he was, arguably, less “voted in” than David Peterson (of London) being “voted out").

This makes Toronto’s relationship to the rest of Ontario, and to its political class, complicated. Politicians have historically balanced their relationship with Toronto, trying to not be seen as captive to Toronto interests – or else risk votes from outside the region. That’s why you see politicians scrambling to play up their “not-Toronto” personas (remember Ernie “I’m Main Street, Not Bay Street” Eves?) Be that as it may, Toronto is both the centre of Ontario’s economic universe and a huge chunk of seats. It matters.

Now, with the polls drum-tight, Messers. McGuinty and Hudak, and Ms. Horwath, will begin their unique and supremely careful “woo-Toronto” fan dances. 

McGuinty: In politics, as in military strategy, it's critical to have a secure home base. With 18 seats, taken with more than 45% of the vote (on average) during the 2007 election, Toronto is the Liberal party’s citadel. A lost seat in Toronto is nearly impossible for them to replace elsewhere in Ontario. So don’t be surprised to see more Toronto-friendly policy decisions being made. 

Horwath: The New Democrats are miles from contention in most Ontario ridings, save the north. But with 4 seats in hand from the 2007 election, Toronto is a huge piece of electoral pie, and where they are closest to taking new seats. They need to consolidate their existing seats and grab new ones to create a strong foundation for future growth.

Hudak: The PCs are, in some ways, the mirror image of the Liberals; every seat Tim Hudak wins in Toronto puts Dalton McGuinty closer to retirement. And importantly, Hudak must win Toronto seats in order to establish a mandate and credibility with the media. Like it or not, for the media, winning seats in big urban centres like Toronto bestows legitimacy on a government – no seats, less (or no) legitimacy. Don’t believe me? Go look up news clippings from 2006 and 2008 about Stephen Harper and Toronto (and Vancouver, and Montreal…)

It will be interesting to see Ontario’s political party leaders – particularly Hudak – dance for the affections of Toronto over the coming week, which coincides with the City of Toronto (with Mayor Rob Ford – PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE – at the helm) contemplating dramatic budget cuts. Incidentally, popularity numbers for Mayor Ford and Hudak track pretty darn closely.

Given all of this, I suspect that Mr. Hudak is hoping Toronto voters don’t mistake him for the mayor and stomp on his toes.

- Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy

 

Response from Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

I don't envy municipal politicians. Year after year, they have to wrestle with significant fiscal challenges. And when it comes time to pay the bills, they can't pass the buck to lower levels of government like their federal and provincial counterparts often do. By law, municipalities have to balance their budgets. And when it comes time to pay, it's up to them and their taxpayers.

There is just one week to go in the election campaign. As a citizen of Toronto, I am interested in how the three party leaders plan to support municipalities like Toronto. How are Andrea Horwath, Tim Hudak and Dalton McGuinty going to help mayors and councillors keep property taxes affordable? And how are they going to help them preserve the municipal services families count on every day?

Too often, political leaders talk gobbledy-gook when discussing these kinds of issues. They talk about things like uploading and downloading. While this all makes sense for municipal leaders, to the average voter, it sounds more like a debate on Internet policy than municipal taxes and services. Ordinary folks tune out.

Here are three things that I think folks at home will want to hear from the provincial leaders in the campaign's final days:

If you become premier, is the province going to start paying its fair share? Today in Ontario, the province tells municipalities they have to provide all sorts of programs, but it doesn’t give them adequate funding to provide them. For example, municipal taxpayers are on the hook for provincial court security costs and the provision of social services. Both, in reality, should be provincial responsibilities, and should be paid for through our provincial tax system. Relieving municipalities from this financial burden would free up money they could invest in other priorities, from eliminating deficits to funding services to providing property tax relief.

If you become premier, will you support public transit? Specifically, will you restore the 50-50 share of transit operating costs. Returning to this funding model, the standard model for transit funding until 1998, would mean significant budget relief for municipalities, allowing them to freeze fares and divert money to other city priorities.

If you become premier, how will you create jobs and make life more affordable? Getting the economy moving and providing relief for families is crucial to securing and growing municipal tax bases. The stronger the tax base, the more money we have to fund municipal priorities and keep property taxes affordable. This is an especially important issue given the economic storm clouds on the horizon.

Municipal taxes and services are top of mind issues in Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario. How the leaders address these issues could have a huge bearing on election night results in battleground Toronto. 

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Let’s put things in perspective.

Toronto is the provincial capital, the biggest city and a major economic engine. But Ontario extends far beyond the Toronto city limits.

Nearly four-fifths of Ontario ridings – 84½ to be precise – are located outside Toronto. The “half” reflects a riding that is part Scarborough (inside Toronto) and part Pickering (outside).

Despite its namesake, this very newspaper is not just about Toronto, and not just about the GTA. Roughly one-half million Saturday Star readers, about one third of the total, live outside the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. (The Toronto CMA extends beyond the city to include all of Peel and York, most of Halton, and parts of Durham and Simcoe.)

Perspective is important. Certain things may be “all about Toronto,” but provincial and federal elections don’t fall into that category.

Still, one-fifth of the province is a very important segment. Each party leader is vying to be Premier of all Ontario, including Toronto.

It’s fashionable to believe that there exists a discrete bundle of “Toronto issues.” The view is perpetuated by many Toronto media and municipal politicians, and other elite constituencies within the City.

I’m not sure, however, that mainstream residents of Toronto are very different from mainstream residents of other Ontario communities.

Torontonians, like other Ontarians, feel the burden of higher taxes. The HST is the same in Toronto as elsewhere in the province. The Eco-tax didn’t stop at Steeles Avenue, the Rouge River or Etobicoke Creek. Smart meters will make sure that Big Brother is watching over electricity customers whether they live inside or outside the city.

Health care is the top issue in Toronto and elsewhere. Torontonians prize community safety and victim justice as much as other Ontarians. The list goes on.

The city’s elites have their own agenda, but mainstream residents are not crying out for a Toronto-centric vision and Toronto-specific policies.

A case in point: Five months ago, a political leader offered Torontonians the same policies and the same leadership that he was presenting to other communities. The result? Voters in the city responded favourably to Stephen Harper and his party.

 

 

 

The Daily Exchange: So did anyone win the leaders' debate?

So who won the debate?

It was NDP Leader Andrea Horwath. Hands down.

It’s not because Dalton McGuinty suffered a knockout blow – because he didn’t. In fact, I think he held his own in this debate. He defended his record fairly well from the jabs of both of his opponents. He even scored a few points of his own, notably when he went after Tim Hudak on the issue of tax credits for hiring new Canadians.

And it’s not because Hudak failed to land the blows or talk about his plans for change. He did both. Though he came across as slick and rehearsed, he did hurt McGuinty on the issues of taxes and credibility. And he laid out some of his alternative plans fairly well, like some of the tax reductions he is proposing.

So why is Horwath the winner? Horwath had the most to gain in this debate, and she delivered a strong performance. She emerged as a candidate who is knowledgeable, in touch with the needs of everyday people, and well suited to deal with Ontario’s jobs challenge, to make life more affordable for ordinary families and to deliver the public health care we need. She was confident. She was charming. She was plenty premierial.

The example Horwath cited – the Liberals' and PC Party’s support for more no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts – is a good one. Why should giving blank cheques to corporations be our top fiscal priority? There are better and more targeted ways to create jobs, like rewarding companies that actually create jobs. There are also more important things we need to do, like providing relief for families who are feeling the pinch and improving health care.

What does the post-debate public opinion research tell us?

Ipsos Reid conducted a flash poll after the debate. It found that “impressions of Horwath skyrocket, seen as leader with best policies, most likeable.”

“It was Andrea Horwath who made the biggest impression on Ontarians as 67% say they have an improved impression of her as a result of the debate, while just 10% say their impressions worsened, representing a net score of +57, effectively making her the real winner of the debate.”

 By contrast, McGuinty scored a -2. Hudak scored a +3.

Clearly, Horwath exceeded expectations, and established herself as a legitimate alternative to four more years of McGuinty’s and Hudak’s tired old ideas that aren’t working.

What will all this mean in the campaign’s final few days?

Poll after poll shows that Ontarians who know Horwath like her and trust her. I suspect the people who got to know Horwath for the first time in the debate liked what they saw.

Let’s look at one more finding in that Ipsos Reid poll.

“With the NDP leader performing so well compared to expectations, it is interesting to note that one in ten (14%) viewers say they changed their mind about who they were going to vote for as a result of what they saw tonight, with the NDP appearing to be the biggest beneficiary among those who viewed the debates and reportedly switched their vote.”

We may well see progressive voters who are parking their votes with the Liberals, and voters who want change but are uneasy with Hudak, giving some serious thought to throwing their support to the Steeltown Scrapper.

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

 

Assessment from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

Which leader won the debate?

If you read the press releases each party issued last night you would think there were three winners in last night's debate.

But unlike Jeff, I am not going to proclaim a hands-down winner. My assessment is that all three leaders went in, and left, the debate in the same position.

Mr. McGuinty did what his team set out for him to do. Defend his record, ward off attacks from the opposition, and come out unscathed. Despite numerous attacks from Ms. Horwath and Mr. Hudak, Mr. McGuinty was able to stand his ground, and scored proactive points with his attacks on his opponents' stances on the HST and the new Canadian tax credit.

Mr. McGuinty was strongest on two points, both related, and both important. First, the need for a strong, non-Conservative voice representing Ontario's interests at the health accord negotiations. The second was when he was talking about protecting health/education services/stability from the Hudak approach (by which he meant the Rob Ford approach). Those points will certainly resonate with Liberals, and will likely resonate beyond.

Ms. Horwath's portrayal of herself of an "average mom having to balance a checkbook" may have gotten her noticed, but I hope viewers actually listened to what she was saying. The debate was her first introduction to most Ontarians, and she didn't fall down. She came across as nice and energetic (despite her numerous interruptions), but also like a stereotypical new democrat - long on empathy and stories about the working man and woman, but woefully short on ideas that make sense. For example, taxes. Ontarians are sophisticated enough to understand that raising corporate taxes kills jobs (you know, the jobs "workers" need), even if you do give some of it back in a tax credit.

Mr. Hudak came across better than I expected - he managed to suppress the frat boy streak, and put in a credible performance, particularly for a first-time leader. The question remains, will that performance play beyond the people who are already voting for him? It's hard to say. It probably won't help him that Rob Ford's (Conservative) City Council voted to sell the beloved zoo moments before the debate began. In some ways, despite a good performance, he may no longer be the master of his own destiny.

Going back to my initial assessment - that the leaders went in and left the debate in the same position - begs the question what happens next? With one week to go it is still too close to call. Expect all three parties to ramp up their paid advertising as they try to shape a ballot question for Ontarians to consider while casting their votes.

 

Assessment from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

Jeff, I think you know what I am going to say, because my position on debates has been consistent over the years.

Debates are not “won” or “lost.”  We don’t score them like boxing matches.

For reasons of momentum, I suppose, the campaigns feel they need to indulge in the old paradigm of winning and losing. For example, the NDP is celebrating its leader’s "debate victory."

The website of my party (PCs) likewise proclaimed a "K.O." victory. I am comforted, however, that the website copy writer was probably not involved in debate preparation. Last night Mr. Hudak clearly knew that connecting his message with voters was more important than connecting a verbal blow with the Premier’s chin.

Debates are an opportunity for the politicians to speak directly to the voters at home. Each leader enters the debate – or should enter the debate – with definite goals: the messages he or she wants to convey to the home audience, and how he or she wants to be seen.

The leader who meets these objectives has succeeded. A leader who fails to meet the objectives has, well, failed.

It’s possible for more than one candidate to succeed in meeting his or her objectives. In fact, it’s possible for everyone to achieve his or her goals.

So what happened last night?

If Mr. McGuinty’s goal was to hang on, to hold his own, then he did just that. At the same time, I am not sure he converted many more voters to the Liberal camp. His performance was a bit like treading water: it kept him afloat but did not move him any closer to shore. (Come to think of it, maybe that explains all the thrashing of hands.)

That said, the Premier missed several opportunities to connect with voters at home. Particularly when he was forced to address his broken promises (his pledges not to hike taxes) Mr. McGuinty had difficulty looking people in the eye (through the camera) to explain himself. I don’t think that failure was accidental.

A final comment on the Premier’s performance: I am not sure how effective it was to rattle off all those health care statistics. The thing about health care is this: every family has experience with our health care system. People’s actual experience with health care (good or bad) is much more important in shaping their views than any statistics (pro or con) touted by a politician.

Tim Hudak, meanwhile, did an effective job of speaking directly to voters at home about the need for change and the type of change he will deliver. He used examples and analogies to which real people can relate. Assuming that those were his objectives, he clearly achieved them.

And Andrea Horwath? I think that she met the objectives of presenting herself to voters and coming across as likeable, down-to-earth and concerned about Ontarians. That said, she revealed a habit that undermined her goals: Ms. Horwath tended to heckle and interrupt a great deal, though always in a good-natured way. I thought that the interruptions worked contrary to her attempt to position herself as new and different, and above the fray. Heckling is old-school politics, not new and different.

 

The Daily Exchange: What does each leader have to demonstrate in the debate?

 

Assessment from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

I have a colleague, Liberal pundit Rob Silver, who was once an internationally-ranked debater. And before that, I worked with his wife, Katie Telford, also a Liberal and also an internationally-ranked debater. They taught me a few things about strategic debate prep, creative, on-your-feet thinking, how to stand by your argument and, helpfully, how to lose to better debaters.

In talking with Rob about the upcoming leaders debate, he raised an interesting point: the televised leaders' debate is not a traditional debate.

There are no judges scoring on logical consistency or factual accuracy. The moderator, Steve Paikin, will not be holding a score card. The debate will not be won or lost on a set framework, but on the perception of who the audience likes and, importantly, who they tell pollsters they like, which in turn informs the media's decision about who "won." This is why who “won” - who really won - is not usually apparent until 48-72 hours afterward.

This, of course, doesn't hold true if there is a solid “knock-out-punch” from one of the leaders. But this rarely happens, and my crystal ball tells me that won't happen Tuesday night.

To date, the campaign has not been a divisive debate over ideas or policy; except for a quick, early, shift to the right for Mr. Hudak, it has been a steady, dull ride.

So in the absence of the “knock-out-punch” what do the Leaders need to demonstrate? 

Dalton McGuinty

Mr. McGuinty has the toughest job going into the debate as he has the most to lose. He needs to keep the coalition of voters that elected him in 2003 and 2007. For them, he needs to demonstrate that he is still the authentic, centrist, guy they voted for then - the one who best understands their values and priorities. This means his primary jobs are to highlight his accomplishments and lay out his vision for the future.

He also has two secondary jobs. First, he needs to make Mr. Hudak look "small."

McGuinty can do this by talking accomplishments, and also by acknowledging that while he made some tough, unpopular decisions, we are better off because of them. He should also contrast his big ideas (e.g. health care, the green economy, post secondary education) with Hudak's small ideas (e.g., cancelling contracts and chain gangs). In short, he should talk "world peace" while Mr. Hudak talks pocket change.

For Ms. Horwath, Mr. McGuinty needs to demonstrate to Ontarians that the NDP platform is fiction, without looking like he is personally attacking Ms. Horwath. He can achieve this by being clear up front – an attack on your platform is not a personal attack against their leader.

Tim Hudak

Mr. Hudak needs to distance himself from the angry brand he carries from the first week of the campaign.

His team needs to hope that the red tory audience (I mentioned in a previous post) is watching, and is open to knowing more about him. For him to appeal, he needs to have two goals: to look and act less like a frat boy, more like a Premier; and to portray that he is safe not scary.

He can do this by strategically attacking the Premier (the way his campaign did this spring) as “out of touch.”  He needs to pick up on the narrative that it’s time for the Premier to go, because voters just can’t trust him. But attacks on the Premier alone will not sway the red tory vote, which is needed for Mr. Hudak to form government. He needs to show something to them besides being “Mr. Caustic.” He needs to be "big" - or at least bigger than he has been to this point in the campaign. He can do this by talking about two to three policy planks that don't involve simply ripping up existing government policies.

Andrea Horwath

Ms. Horwath needs to define herself as a real contender for the Premier's office, not just a likeable person. In order to do so, she needs to articulate and defend the parts of her platform that are, charitably, weak.

Her biggest challenge will be the format of the debate. The one-on-one, six-round style, will not allow her to rest on her recent message track, which can be summed up as, "the boys are personally attacking me." The fact is, she will have to defend her platform and counterpunch when Messers McGuinty and Hudak point out that her math doesn't add up. Simply invoking the spirit of Jack Layton or Tommy Douglas won't be enough.

Assessment from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper: 

First, all the party leaders need to maintain a disciplined focus on the million or more voters who will be watching the debate. What the politicians say to one another is less important than what they say and convey to the people at home. 

Second, they should banish from their vocabulary and their thinking the concepts of "winning" and "losing." The debate isn't a boxing match (and certainly not a mud-wrestling match). It won't be settled by a knock-out punch and it won't be decided on points. It's a chance to speak to the voters, so members of the public can size up the candidates and draw their own conclusions. 

Opportunities for the leaders to speak directly to Ontarians, and for Ontarians to hear directly from the leaders, are extremely limited. A TV commercial is short. A sound bite during a TV newscast is even shorter. The debate presents the only opportunity for a mass audience of voters to hear the leaders speak unfiltered and unedited.

A well-run campaign will focus all of its resources on two activities: voter persuasion and voter mobilisation: persuading voters to choose (or stick with) you, and ensuring that supportive voters vote. There is nobody in the TV studio to persuade or to mobilise; they're all in living rooms. Talk of winning and losing is at best irrelevant and at worst a distraction. An effective campaign will concentrate on persuading and mobilising the TV audience.

What Mr. McGuinty needs to do

Mr. McGuinty has demonstrated resilience and tenacity so far, but still faces a significant challenge. Polling indicates that nearly two-thirds of voters want change. That's a slap in the face to an incumbent running on his record. The Liberal leader needs to address voters' frustration head on.

He must also confront the issue of credibility or trust. Several times he has promised not to raise taxes; several times he has raised taxes or introduced new ones. Voters are wise. They have long memories. Whether or not the broken-tax-promise issue is raised, voters are thinking about it. Mr. McGuinty needs to acknowledge the broken promises, show contrition, and give voters a reason to move on.

What Mr. Hudak needs to do

Mr. Hudak must do more than make the case for change. He must demonstrate that he offers change. Specific change. Concrete change. Change that will help ordinary families get ahead.

This should involve linking the PC platform (changebook) to the case for change. Using examples meaningful to the voters, on topics that matter to voters (such as jobs, affordability and safe communities), he should explain why change is needed and what specific change his party proposes to deliver.

Mr. Hudak must remember that Dalton McGuinty can't be persuaded to vote PC. In other words, the Liberal leader isn't part of his target audience. The two of them will obviously have one-on-one engagements; the trick is to end the two-way discussion, quickly and effectively, then turn and speak (through the camera) directly to voters at home.

What Ms. Horwath needs to do

Ms. Horwath and the NDP are heavily advertising that they offer a third option to voters who might be dissatisfied with the other two parties. The ads convey little of substance.

The NDP leader can't maintain such vagueness through the entire debate. She has to talk about concrete proposals and plans. Change can be good or bad; what kind does he party offer?

She must also address, head on, the NDP's biggest vulnerability: the party's sorry record of tax-and-spend recklessness and economic mismanagement. With unemployment high and with productivity growth starting to wane, she will need to convince Ontarians that the NDP has learned its lesson, has changed, and can be trusted not to wreck havoc with the economy.

 

Assessment from Jeff Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP:

The Ontario election has been underway for three weeks. For many voters, though, the debate will be the first opportunity to look at the leaders of the three major parties and hear directly from them about their plans for Ontario’s future.

Dalton McGuinty will tell voters he’s the steady, experienced leader they want captaining their ship through turbulent waters for the next four years. Want a stable majority government that doesn’t rock the boat? McGuinty is your guy.

The challenge for McGuinty is convincing the ship and crew he should stay in charge when most of them want to throw him overboard. The last eight years has been pretty tough sailing for many Ontarians and there is significant appetite for change.

Tim Hudak will make a mainstream appeal to Ontarians. He will make the case for change. If the Northern debate is a harbinger for things to come, he will deliver his message about jobs, cost of living, and big government with poise and confidence.

Hudak has two hills to climb. On the style side, he needs to avoid coming across like an over-rehearsed right-wing talking points machine. On substance, he needs to strike a reassuring note. He needs to shelve the angry-man routine we saw early in the campaign and demonstrate that he’s not reckless, that he’s not extreme, and that he can be trusted as premier.

 Andrea Horwath will present herself as the positive alternative to the two old-line parties, as an agent of change with a solid plan to make life better and more affordable for everyday families. She will appeal to voters who are tired of McGuinty and want something different but have misgivings about Hudak.

Horwath’s high standing in public opinion polls means voters will expect her to demonstrate she’s up to the job of being premier. To do that, Horwath will have to explain in clear and compelling terms how New Democrat policies will make Ontario the fairer, more prosperous and more generous place she envisions. She will have to put to rest lingering questions about fiscal responsibility, a hurdle all successful New Democrat campaigns must surmount. And she will need to stay focused on the audience at home, and not make the mistake of getting caught up in debate dynamics. That's crucial to her being able to take advantage of her greatest strength - her ability to connect with voters.

The Daily Exchange: Has the NDP lost its soul?

In Thursday’s paper, the Star questions Andrea Horwath’s vision for Ontario, suggesting the NDP leader is too focused on getting power and winning votes.

It’s an interesting thesis. It’s certainly a view that Dalton McGuinty’s war room is aggressively advancing. It’s a view my fellow Daily Exchanger Erika has been writing about throughout this campaign.

It is also, in my opinion at least, just plain wrong.

Horwath’s vision is for an Ontario of greater equality, justice and opportunity. It is about tackling, as Jack Layton put it in his letter to Canadians, the unfairness of an economy that excludes so many from our collective wealth, and the changes necessary to build a more inclusive and generous society.

At its heart, Horwath’s platform is a blueprint for starting to address one of the great issues of our time – income inequality.

Does it matter that the richest one per cent of Canadians account for 14% of the country’s wealth? Does it matter that Canada is catching up to the United States as a country divided between haves and have nots? Does it matter that going down this road raises a moral question about fairness and concerns about social tensions?

Horwath is seeing millions of Ontarians working hard, but their hydro bills are going up. Their home heating costs are going up. Their health care costs are going up. Their education costs are going up. The price they pay to take public transit is going up. Their child care costs are going up. The price they pay for a litre of gas is going up. And at the end of the year, they have less money, but the people on top are cashing in.

Her plan is an important policy shift aimed squarely at reducing this growing gap between the rich and the rest of us: Discontinuing the no-strings-attached corporate tax giveaways being championed by Dalton McGuinty and Tim Hudak, while ensuring Ontario’s tax rate remains lower than the U.S. rate, to maintain our competitive advantage.

Money for nothing corporate tax cuts entrench income inequality by boosting already lucrative CEO and executive pay packages and by rewarding the wealthiest few who reap the vast majority of Bay Street earnings. It’s more fancy cars, swanky yachts and international travel for them. That's where the money is going, not to investment spending and job creation. In the last eight years, despite tax cut after tax cut, Ontario has lost 300,000 manufacturing and resource jobs, good middle-class jobs that have disappeared.

Horwath’s plan is about changing Ontario’s priorities. It’s about fairness for everyday families who for too long have had the deck stacked against them.

She’s saying to Ontarians, instead of bankrolling higher pay for CEOs, instead of rewarding companies that keep their head offices in Ontario, we can make life better and more affordable for the rest of us.  We can help people find a job and make a decent living by giving tax credits to companies that create jobs. We can take the HST off home heating fuel, electricity and gas. We can freeze tuition. We can freeze transit fares. We can give our local small businesses a break by lowering their taxes. We can freeze child care fees. And we can do all this while improving the public services people count on – health care, education, environmental protection and support for our most vulnerable citizens.

That is Horwath’s vision, and that is what Horwath means when she says it’s time for change that puts people first. 

- Jeffrey Ferrier, former communications director for the Ontario NDP

 

Response from Guy Giorno, former chief of staff to Mike Harris and Stephen Harper:

I agree with Jeff that it's unfair to attack Andrea Horwath for lack of policy. The issue is whether NDP policies will damage the economy and thereby harm Ontario families. I'll return to that in a moment.

The gist of the Star's editorial criticism is that putting more money in people's pockets (or, more accurately, taking less from their pockets) is the wrong way to help ordinary people, and that big social programs are the right way to help ordinary people.

Nothing new there. That's the Star's long-standing ideological belief.

Of course, it's wrong to claim that the NDP isn't wedded to expensive, big government solutions. The NDP is a high-tax, big spending party. When it governed Ontario, the NDP raised taxes 33 times and left Ontario with a deficit approaching $11 billion. It pursued anti-business, anti-investment policies that made Ontario the first province to enter, and the last province to exit, the 1990s recession.

Ontarians concerned about affordability (and who isn't?) need to realise that neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats can be trusted to take less money from people's pockets.

Voters are already thinking about the economy (one poll indicated that it's the number two election issue). Yesterday's news shows there's reason for concern. Economists from TD Bank have now joined RBC in downgrading their forecast for Ontario's economic performance.

The party leaders will face increasing pressure to elaborate on their plans for the economy. I've already commented on NDP economic stewardship. The Liberals promise more of the same. The PCs offer change in the form of lower taxes; lowering taxes is a proven way to boost confidence and get the economy working again.

So far there has been too much coverage of campaign process and not enough about substance. That's a pity. We need more focus on the economy and on the parties' plans to respond to increasingly grim economic news.

Response from Erika Mozes, former senior adviser to George Smitherman and Gerard Kennedy:

A puppy and rainbows for everyone in Ontario!

This morning I woke up to the following headlines in my morning paper: “We’ve been here before: back to the dark days of 2008-2009 as investors hit the panic button,” “Dollar Drop: Canadian dollar takes it on the chin amid flight to safety of greenback,” and “Recession fears, Europe debt crisis blamed for fall.”

There are world-wide economic and job concerns. We are potentially on our way to double dip recession, and the NDP plan would put us dangerously on track to not only further economic instability but on a backward plan for Ontario which will cost thousands of jobs not to mention a free-for-all on the public purse.

Don’t get me wrong, I love puppies and rainbows. But Ms. Horwath and the NDP need to wake up to the fiscal reality we are facing. 

Raising corporate taxes is a proven job killer. Ontario needs incentives for job creators, not further reasons to invest elsewhere (like China or India). The Ontario Liberal plan focuses on building the right work force by investing in education, helping small business and encouraging innovation. The NDP wants to implement higher job killing taxes in a time when corporations are looking for any reason to downsize

Further, their protectionist “made in Ontario” policy is not only against major trade regulations, it also will cut us off from our largest market, the US. Protectionist plans, like that which President Obama introduced, can easily send our economic instability from a recession to a depression (and yes, I can’t believe I am agreeing with Prime Minister Harper on this point). Ontario Liberals believe the right way forward is to provide the right tax structure and incentives to attract companies, not to push them away.

On CEO salaries, I think I already made my point clear on the fictitious math Ms Horwath is using. There is a big difference between $3.7 million adn $80 million. Further, it is a slippery slope between compensation and going back to the days of the brain drain. Ontario needs to be able to keep and attract talent. Talent breeds innovation. Innovation breeds jobs.

Premier McGuinty’s plan is a balance between providing families with relief they need, and ensuring jobs creation continues in Ontario. It is a forward thinking plan which focuses on what type of jobs and what type of workforce Ontario can strive towards. Ms Horwath’s spokespeople couldn’t even answer what industry she would target when I asked point blank earlier this week. Ontarians don’t need higher job killing corporate taxes and protectionist economic theories. They need a real and workable plan.  

Further response from Jeff Ferrier:

Fact check addendum: The NDP plan will cap executive salaries across the public service. This will generate $20 million a year in savings, for a total of $80 million over a four-year mandate.