Tory headed for defeat in Don Valley West aided by GPO candidate Adrian Walker promoting single school system

[the following are reposted here as orginally done, after finding them somehow improperly moved to after a different blog entry by someone else; this was discovered only late 6 Oct., having no computer access for several days since 3 Oct. comments below]

some difficulties
Submitted by Daryl Vernon on 3 October 2007 - 12:07am.

It's hard to see what "role [is being played] in the unfolding of the likely defeat of John Tory" by GPO's "position of having only one publicly funded education system". It is clear that the (per most recent polls) at least doubled support GPO has over last election is on the coattails of GPC. It is also notable that GPO poll numbers have apparently dropped significantly during this campaign (see http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/1859 -- around 11% to around 6% now). Maybe what is meant is merely that one more voice was added & applauded in uncomprehending opposition to Tory's partly sensible education proposal.

The main piece in GPO's education policy had finally been properly attenuated from its seriously problematic first expression, but I'm afraid is still being poorly played. A major concern was that a positive referendum result might be jeopardized by this grosser expression of poor policy. If GPO is getting lesser notice than is otherwise just, it might not be all that bad since greater prominence might have been given to missteps regarding this most ungreen policy (itself something of a contentious recent reversal of prior policy).

I happen to be acquainted with principals in Ontario's "fair funding for education" movement. I share little with them regarding education, having non-/un-/home-schooled our children for almost three decades. However, their search for equity is well-founded, & almost all opposition thereto, especially as expressed recently by Ontarians within & without GPO, most especially by Liberal leader McGuinty, is wrongful & very disappointing, based at best on ignorance. I'm almost afraid to ask what occasioned "the most spontaneous applause" at the meeting.

Tory's Ontario Tories, in common with some other parties of the "right", make an attempt at playing postmodern, but fail miserably. A postmodern pluralistic inclusivism is properly the home of Greens, and in education policy it is to be hoped GPO will soon more wisely correct itself back into that proper stance. The Tories most foolishly put focus on "faith-based". I asked someone close to them how they came to such a foolish posture, jeopardizing the cause for equity in line with most other Canadians. (Ontarian sorry history in educational discrimination is part of the root of our peculiar inequity today.) I was told that the Tory inner circle decided against campaigning for "independent" schools, rather than only for religious, lest they be misinterpreted as favouring the wealthy, electors being led to believe (abetted by severely hypocritical Liberals) that the Tories want to "subsidize" places like Upper Canada College. What a sorry, inept move to focus on "faith-based"!

The "savings of $500 million" per GPO education policy is dubious indeed. It rather seems that this is a first excursion by GPO into playing the calculating & less principled side of politics. It has been for the most part been a discouraging episode to witness. Neither is the GPO candidate's 6% indicative of "attracting a significant support", but merely reflective of average GPO support provincially, much as per the 2003 election for that riding.

The polled propositions in Table 3 (of the attachment above) are problematic indeed:
"Funding should not be extended because Ontario already has a major challenge making sure that our large immigrant population fits in and shares our values" (43%, largest #, agree) -- but a major premise of more fairly extending funding, (& allowing taxpayers some access to their own tax monies!), is that their integration into the publicly-funded system would serve to allay any such fears per that proposition.

"It is risky to extend funding because public money could be used by some schools to teach extremist values" (28%, largest #, agree) -- but this kind of thing is simply disallowed where funding is extended as proposed, & what school would jeopardize hard-fought funds by stupid teaching?!

"Funding should be extended because all faith-based systems should be treated equally and the Catholic system is already funded" -- thus 48% (plurality) seem to like inequity or have no appreciation for their own provincial history.

"Funding should be extended because parents should have the freedom to pass on to their own children their own personal moral and religious values" (54% say no) -- how do "pluralistically inclusive" "spiritual" Greens like this one (note that 'spirituality' is a term much used in GPO literature)!?

I'm reluctant to invoke these words of Petra Kelly that our GPC leader quotes for us today in a serious vein, but I'm afraid they apply here to GPO: “I truly hope that the Green parties will never make the mistake of giving up their Green identity for the sake of being in power!”. It is very discouraging that on this issue too many in GPO seem unclear about certain aspects of what that identity should entail. I vote GPO & MMP regardless, for this disappointment is merely one wayward aspect, versus the countless ones of, as our GPO party leader put it, the three "industrial age" other parties.

.............................................

The Politics of Names
Submitted by Bill Hulet on 3 October 2007 - 11:16am.

People like to drop names instead of entering into substantive debate. I suppose that is just human nature, but when I joined the Greens back in 1988, I hoped that we could create a party that would help people develop a better way of doing politics.

The Greens have already made huge compromises in its values as it adapts to reality. For example, we went from a party that tried to exist without any formal leader, to one that had a pro-forma leader, to one that is uses all the trappings of her media stardom to promote the party. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

We also tried to create a party that instead of having a centralized structure was one of strong local riding associations, and was a "community of communities". That was the ideal of "grassroots democracy", one that kept as much power as possible on the local community level. Instead, the party seems to have opted for a sort of centralized structure with the idea that atomized individuals have the right to intervene at any level of decision-making---whether they represent a genuine community or not (i.e "participatory democracy".)

I admit that I am a bit annoyed that, IMHO, we have stumbled into these positions rather than consciously choose them, but that is the nature of a mass-member political organization. The more our membership grows, the more we will begin to resemble mainstream society and the political parties that represent them.

The main issue I'd like to raise is that what the Green Party is, is what we, the membership, choose to make it. Almost invariably when I hear someone start to make reference to some sort of "Green identity", they are about to make some move to deny the right of the membership to collectively make a decision that that particular individual disagrees with. At that point the nasty personal attacks sometimes start to fly and people start making inflammatory statements to the media.

There are mechanisms in place for someone to write up a policy plank, shop it around, and take it to a policy conference for the delegates to vote upon. If anyone has a problem with a GPO policy, they have that option. With the right to participate in this process comes the obligation to "agree to disagree", not start making public statements about the Greens having "sold out".

That is the difference between the GPO and the provincial Liberals, Tories, or NDP----where the leader shoots from the hip and the rank-and-file have to justify it after the fact.

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken

......................................................

nameless
Submitted by Daryl Vernon on 3 October 2007 - 5:05pm.

"People like to drop names instead of entering into substantive debate."

I'm not sure why you say this. I hope you don't have myself in mind!! The people I know mentioned above are unnamed. My very many arguments contra the GPO education policy have not been addressed, not a one, neither do they depend on the people I mentioned.

Yes, "a better way of doing politics" should be at the heart of the matter for Greens. GPO education policy is in part a departure therefrom. I got exercised because of its content, derivation & basic intent. But perhaps even more problematic is the way it has been dealt with since. Since this is our provincial matter, where names would be named, it's not for here, but it very much deals with problematic process, even with a generous understanding that GPO is a great volunteer effort.

Re leadership: I strongly feel that Green parties should move as far away from leader-centredness as possible. Fuller responsibilities for "shadow cabinet" members, even paid if doable, might be the way to go. But my own renewed activity for Green politics (we were there at the start in '83) owes a great deal to someone in our riding of great energy & dedication, which dedication to Green politics only arose in earnest for attraction to the competence & persona of our currrent GPC leader. As you say, "compromises"; even good ones, too.

Thus far whenever I've mentioned that "strong local riding associations, [...] "community of communities"" should arise for Greens by doing things other than straight political organizing together, I've drawn blank from others. Where Greens can riding by riding (or by whatever region) actually compost, garden, share vehicles, generate electricity, &c &c together, that would serve to cement local solidarity, & more important show neighbour not-yet-Greens what can be done. But in this grander context, this "atomized individual" appreciates the opportunity to speak up & speak directly. If internet cannot be used at least like this in some salutary way for politics, it's hard to see how it can be used well at all.

Glad you say, "[a]lmost invariably", for far be it for me to deny people the right to make their own collective errors. It is better sometimes to learn that way, too, the harder way. But it is foolish to wish for grown adults of presumed rationality that they be subject to this if not necessary. When many arguments are proferred & not a single one is met with any competence, that is disappointing indeed. One hopes the "hard way" doesn't take that long to play out.

My "public statement" here addressed the use & misuse of polls, not the policy per se, for which, as I agreed, this is not the proper forum. If appeal to logic & evidence is out of bounds, there's yet another ticket to the "hard way". Maintaining the "difference between the GPO and the [other parties]" is partly at issue here. I've full appreciation for the great energetic & emotional expenditure attendant upon putting oneself on the line as our party leaders are doing, a special appreciation that comes from having for so long gone out so far on a limb oneself, "leading", as it were. There are nonetheless serious issues of process to address, relating to how delegate-driven policy is actually sold. But that I've been reserving for after the election.

......................................................................

The names are "Petra Kelly" and "Green identity"
Submitted by Bill Hulet on 3 October 2007 - 8:23pm.

I suppose I was being a little too elipical in my post. Both Daryl and Elizabeth used the quote from Petra Kelly, and I was reacting to the rhetorical device of assuming that one person or point of view has a monopoly on what a specific democratically organized, mass movement "really" stands for. There is a saying that all "isms" are "wasisms", which is to say that once a movement begins to be easily defined, it ceases to be a living being and instead becomes a dead husk preserved in formalin.

My concerns about atomized individuals is that unless someone has the experience of really working in a strong community, it is very easy to never understand how incredibly difficult it is to build a consensus around complex policy issues. With regard to the separate school issue, for example, I am now in a pretty heart-felt discussion with a member who is also a Jesuit priest and who is quite upset about the GPO policy. I hope that we come to some sort of accomodation over this (I've suggested that I would work with him to write up a resolution for the next policy conference), but it is damned difficult to share personal experiences and come clean with an ordained individual about why so many people feel antipathy towards the church.

Members who's only experience is either on the internet or in a lackluster EDA have no idea about what it's like to have a group of hundreds of members---all of whom see the issues slightly differently from each other, yet hold their opinions just as passionately as everyone else. At that point the easy answers start to melt like ice cream soldiers.

I don't know what your substantive questions were, why not share them on this discussion list? Communication never hurts as long as it is honest. It is only when people play games that it is counter-productive.

"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken