Political pragmatism or prudent leadership?
So, now we have some of the juice that I was musing last week has been absent from the provincial election campaign and it’s arrived in the form of John Tory’s apparent desperate decision to salvage what he can. This decision has him accepting that a large majority (up to 70 per cent) of the province want no part of his faith-based school funding plan so he’ll put it to a free vote if elected.
In my view, the political “juice” is not the issue of faith-based funding itself, the “juice” is in the weight of Tory’s decision to jettison his original rigidity despite early indications and strategic advice that it was not a popular policy.
Tory’s climbdown has set a flurry of dynamics and questions into motion for the remainder of the campaign that include:
Some have suggested that he would be personally better off losing while holding true to his convictions.
Tory says he climbed down not because the polls showed him 10 points behind but because he is a listening kind of leader. Others think the climbdown is political pragmatism at it’s best or worst.
What do you think?
October 4th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I think if he held onto his integrity and stayed true to his convictions (whether they be right or wrong) it would have been a better political move. Those who flip flop get nowhere fast and look like indecisive leaders who are not true to their word.
Whether I agree with him or not, I would have given Tory much more respect if he had stuck to his guns.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:13 am
First of all I don’t understand when people speak about funding for faith-based schools. It is also includes the Catholic system. And all these people who want to vote for the Liberals because they are against it, should also remember that they might get rid of the Catholic system as well and have only one system. Or maybe not since Dalton’s kids are Catholic. I forgot he looks out for himself first. It would be nice if somebody addresses this for a change.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:38 am
It’s a tough call - whether to be accused of flipflopping, or whether to publicly acknowledge that you have screwed up, or appear to have screwed up. I think calling for the free vote was the best of a bad job, and I still respect John Tory for having the guts to stand by his position (even though I totally disagreed with that position). I also respect a party leader who actually listens to the people. I think he took the best approach to a very difficult question. But I’m also pretty sure think that this issue, more than any other factor, caused the PC’s big loss. God knows why anyone would want to be a politician, I sure don’t get it!!
As for M. Bayer’s question, you’re right that it’s totally unfair to have the Catholic system but not other faith-based systems. I know it would be virtually impossible and very politically unpopular at this point to scrap Catholic school funding, but it would actually be much more fair to do so. It’s completely un-cost-effective (is that a word?!) to have dual school boards across the entire province. I liked a suggestion I saw somewhere just a day or two ago - instead of having separate school boards, have an option within the public school system where parents or kids can choose a religion class for their kids, or a community interest type of class for those who don’t wish to take any kind of religion class. The other 95% of the curriculum is exactly the same.
October 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Hi: I agree that John Tory either didn’t listen to advice or felt he knew best and heaven knows we don’t need leaders who feel they know what is good for everyone. I feel he had a good chance of forming the government, but blew it with his faith based school funding. I know that the public school teachers in the province would not vote for this. Even when he back tracked and said he would allow a free vote, some of his party were still saying they would vote for it, without consulting their constituents. Perhaps in 4 years we will have a change in government.