A
afransen TO
Guest
McGuinty puts controversial Tory ideas into play
IAN URQUHART
Privatize the LCBO and TVO. Means-test drug benefits for senior citizens. Hike user fees. Tax fast-food meals. Slap tolls on existing highways. Reduce the scope of government.
If Mike Harris had put forward these ideas, all hell would have broken loose.
In fact, when Harris was in power at Queen's Park, all of the above were considered, but his Conservative government never summoned up the nerve to pursue them.
Now that Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals are leading a presumably more benign government, however, all of these ideas are back in play. They're among proposals put forward yesterday by McGuinty in a "discussion paper" to kick off 2 1/2 months of pre-budget consultations with the public on how to tackle the deficit.
Some of these ideas — notably the privatization of the LCBO and the means test for the seniors' drug plan — have been floated before by the Liberal government. But until now they were only visible through the screen of anonymous sources, or McGuinty's responses to reporters' hypothetical questions.
In other words, there was deniability. If the public backlash was too strong to withstand, the government could always say — as it did — that the sources were wrong or that the Premier had been misunderstood.
But now the ideas are in black and white in a government document called "Delivering Change." The document's title is, not coincidentally, borrowed from the Liberals' 2003 election campaign slogan, "Choose Change." But somehow one doubts the changes outlined in the document are the ones the public had in mind in ousting the Tories and replacing them with the Liberals last fall.
Rather, the document suggests we have replaced one Tory government with another. Indeed, McGuinty's Liberals might go one step further than Harris' (and Ernie Eves') Tories by actually implementing these changes.
McGuinty objects to such comparisons. He says that his government is not the same as that run by Harris and Eves because the Liberals' motivation is different.
That is, the Liberals want to cut spending and raise fees in certain areas in order to have more to invest in health care and education, whereas the Tories were interested only in lower taxes.
But the Tories claimed much the same motive as the Liberals. They said they had to cut taxes in order to strengthen the economy, which, in turn, would produce more revenues to spend on health care and education.
The real difference between the two is that the Tories weren't believed when they claimed to be interested in improving health care and education. McGuinty and the Liberals are more credible on this score.
And that means they may be able to go further than the Tories dared.
There are historical examples of this sort of counter-intuitive politics. Take, for example, Richard Nixon's rapprochement with China. Only someone with his solid anti-Communist credentials would have been trusted by the American public to take such an initiative.
For a more recent example, take Tony Blair's decision to introduce workfare to Britain. Only a Labour prime minister — albeit one espousing a "third way" somewhere between Thatcherism and socialism — could have gotten away with it.
The Blair example is particularly appropriate because there are close links between 10 Downing St. and McGuinty's Queen's Park office.
While he was leader of the opposition, McGuinty spent time in Britain soaking up third-way ideas from Blairite advisers. One of those advisers, Michael Barber, was brought to Toronto to brief McGuinty's ministers at a cabinet retreat last month.
So expect to hear a lot of third-way rhetoric as McGuinty and his ministers tour the province over the next 2 1/2 months searching for cost-saving ideas for the spring budget.
But will any of the ideas in the opening paragraph of this column actually make it into the budget? That depends. Clearly they were put in the discussion paper to soften up the public for change of this sort.
They can also be seen, however, as trial balloons to be shot down by public reaction.
If the latter, the government could move toward one or two other options that were not even mentioned in the discussion paper: raising taxes or running a deficit.
Either option would mean breaking an explicit promise made by McGuinty during the election campaign. But if the public clamours for a tax hike or more red ink — as opposed to the ideas in the first paragraph — then McGuinty would be off the hook.
Which may be what the next 2 1/2 months of consultation are all about.
IAN URQUHART
Privatize the LCBO and TVO. Means-test drug benefits for senior citizens. Hike user fees. Tax fast-food meals. Slap tolls on existing highways. Reduce the scope of government.
If Mike Harris had put forward these ideas, all hell would have broken loose.
In fact, when Harris was in power at Queen's Park, all of the above were considered, but his Conservative government never summoned up the nerve to pursue them.
Now that Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Liberals are leading a presumably more benign government, however, all of these ideas are back in play. They're among proposals put forward yesterday by McGuinty in a "discussion paper" to kick off 2 1/2 months of pre-budget consultations with the public on how to tackle the deficit.
Some of these ideas — notably the privatization of the LCBO and the means test for the seniors' drug plan — have been floated before by the Liberal government. But until now they were only visible through the screen of anonymous sources, or McGuinty's responses to reporters' hypothetical questions.
In other words, there was deniability. If the public backlash was too strong to withstand, the government could always say — as it did — that the sources were wrong or that the Premier had been misunderstood.
But now the ideas are in black and white in a government document called "Delivering Change." The document's title is, not coincidentally, borrowed from the Liberals' 2003 election campaign slogan, "Choose Change." But somehow one doubts the changes outlined in the document are the ones the public had in mind in ousting the Tories and replacing them with the Liberals last fall.
Rather, the document suggests we have replaced one Tory government with another. Indeed, McGuinty's Liberals might go one step further than Harris' (and Ernie Eves') Tories by actually implementing these changes.
McGuinty objects to such comparisons. He says that his government is not the same as that run by Harris and Eves because the Liberals' motivation is different.
That is, the Liberals want to cut spending and raise fees in certain areas in order to have more to invest in health care and education, whereas the Tories were interested only in lower taxes.
But the Tories claimed much the same motive as the Liberals. They said they had to cut taxes in order to strengthen the economy, which, in turn, would produce more revenues to spend on health care and education.
The real difference between the two is that the Tories weren't believed when they claimed to be interested in improving health care and education. McGuinty and the Liberals are more credible on this score.
And that means they may be able to go further than the Tories dared.
There are historical examples of this sort of counter-intuitive politics. Take, for example, Richard Nixon's rapprochement with China. Only someone with his solid anti-Communist credentials would have been trusted by the American public to take such an initiative.
For a more recent example, take Tony Blair's decision to introduce workfare to Britain. Only a Labour prime minister — albeit one espousing a "third way" somewhere between Thatcherism and socialism — could have gotten away with it.
The Blair example is particularly appropriate because there are close links between 10 Downing St. and McGuinty's Queen's Park office.
While he was leader of the opposition, McGuinty spent time in Britain soaking up third-way ideas from Blairite advisers. One of those advisers, Michael Barber, was brought to Toronto to brief McGuinty's ministers at a cabinet retreat last month.
So expect to hear a lot of third-way rhetoric as McGuinty and his ministers tour the province over the next 2 1/2 months searching for cost-saving ideas for the spring budget.
But will any of the ideas in the opening paragraph of this column actually make it into the budget? That depends. Clearly they were put in the discussion paper to soften up the public for change of this sort.
They can also be seen, however, as trial balloons to be shot down by public reaction.
If the latter, the government could move toward one or two other options that were not even mentioned in the discussion paper: raising taxes or running a deficit.
Either option would mean breaking an explicit promise made by McGuinty during the election campaign. But if the public clamours for a tax hike or more red ink — as opposed to the ideas in the first paragraph — then McGuinty would be off the hook.
Which may be what the next 2 1/2 months of consultation are all about.