planet of the arts p 6 vol. seven, issue no. two

SOCIAL DISCREDIT

Is Ritarunning in Ontario, too !?

Stephen Beaumont

“I think it stinks, myself,” quotes the Ontarian, “I mean I’d never vote for
him again.”

o goes one of the latest in a string of Social Credit ads designed

at discrediting the Ontario New Democratic Party and, by

association, Mike Harcourt’s B.C. NDP. The campaign, which

features disgruntled Ontario taxpayers rebuking the govern-
ment of Bob Rae, urges voters to not “make the same mistake Ontario
made” and elect the NDP.

What Rita Johnston’s ads conveniently overlook, however, are the
facts. Capitalising on the lack of Ontario political coverage in the province,
the Socreds target the only well-known aspect of the NDP’s first year in
government - the large $9.7 billion deficit - in an attempt to scare B.C.ers
away from Mike Harcourt and gloss over their own Party’s scandalous past. As
a campaign strategy, it seems to smack of negativism and desperation.

To begin with, Johnston’s television spots use the assumption that
Mike Harcourt and Bob Rae have the identical vision of how to run a
province. This is an obvious fallacy. Simply because the two men are
members of the same national party does not indicate that they share exact
ideologies. The Ontario NDP and the B.C NDP are autonomous entities,
each with their own program based onthe needs of their individual jurisdictions.
To suggest that they share mandates would be akin to assuming that Gary
Filmon and Brian Mulroney have the same Constitutional vision.

Another vision of Ontario politics the Socreds conveniently overlook
is the devastating effect the Recession has had on the province. Certainly,
many unemployed in Ontario will angrily blame Rae for forcing them out of
their jobs, but at least the same number or, likely, more will cite Mulroney for
the same reason. Do not, however, expect Johnston to take her ideological
mentor to task for the depressed conditions in either province.

And then there is that budgetary deficit, the well documented weak
spot in Bob Rae’s agenda. If Rae can be faulted for any part of the financial
course his party has chosen to take, it is for the budget. However, the problem
lies not in the deficit itself, but in the explanation

of the deficit. The biggest mistake this partyhas._" The biggest mistake this party has made in

made in its short stay in power has been that , ;
nobody every took the time to provide the people its short stay in power has been that nobody
with a set of concrete reasons why they were

going torunsucha large deficit. Noone explained ever took the time to provide the people with

that the out-going Liberal party had lied about ®
the financial state of the province and had left @ set of concrete reasons why they were going

i T nt rather °

ar : Sem i agian ‘Onis fo run s uch a large deficit." $ $ $ $$ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ $
Treasurer, never fully explained that, due to the inherited deficit, the budget’s
real excess was in the area of $2.5 billion or a little more than a quarter of that
which was reported. Most importantly, the government did not make it clear
that the increased spending was necessary to temper the effects of what was,
in fact a full-blown Recession made worse by federal initiatives and Ontario’s
reliance on the manufacturing sector.

In the final analysis, Johnston is playing with fire when strategists
choose to pursue a negative agenda rather than a positive campaign. Regard-
less of whether the above-mentioned facts and figures ever come to light, B.C.
voters are unlikely to fall victim to propaganda designed to taint the

opposition by condemning their associate party in another province. A A : \
negative strategy may work for George Bush in the anything-goes world of See x
American politics, but this is Canada and, as the saying goes, we do things a Wag SSS
little differently up here. * Wy [QR

Stephen Beaumont is a freelance writer for the Toronto Star SEE,T Mer ecu INN
q } 4 THEM, | UST WENT ALONG FBR
THE RIPE”

Rene Bourque
planet of the arts p 6

SOCIAL DISCREDIT

Is Rita running Ontario, too !

‘Stephen Beaumont

“I think it stinks, myself,” quotes the Ontarian, “I mean I’d never vote for
him again.”

© goes one of the latest ina string of Social Creditads designed
at discrediting the Ontario New Democratic Party and, by
association, Mike Harcourt’sB.C. NDP. Thecampaign, which
features disgruntled Ontario taxpayers rebuking the govern-
ment of Bob Rae, urges voters to not “make the same mistake Ontario
made” and elect the NDP.

What Rita Johnston's ads conveniently overlook, however, are the
facts. Capitalising on the lack of Ontario political coverage in the province,
the Socreds target the only well-known aspect of the NDP's first year in
government - the large $9.7 billion deficit - in an attempt to scare BC.ers
away from Mike Harcourtand gloss over their own Party’sscandalous past. As
‘a campaign strategy, it seems to smack of negativism and desperation.

To begin with, Johnston’s television spots use the assumption that
Mike Harcourt and Bob Rae have the identical vision of how to run a
province. This is an obvious fallacy. Simply because the two men are
members of the same national party does not indicate that they share exact
ideologies. The Ontario NDP and the B.C NDP are autonomous entities,
each with theirownprogram based on the needs oftheir individual jurisdictions
To suggest that they share mandates would be akin to assuming that Gary
Filmon and Brian Mulroney have the same Constitutional vision.

‘Another vision of Ontario politics the Socreds conveniently overlook
is the devastating effect the Recession has had on the province. Certainly,
many unemployed in Ontario will angrily blame Rae for forcing them out of
their jobs, butat least the same number or, likely, more will cite Mulroney for
the same reason. Do not, however, expect Johnston to take her ideological
mentor to task for the depressed conditions in either province.

‘And then there is that budgetary deficit, the well documented weak
spot in Bob Rae’s agenda. If Rae can be faulted for any part of the financial
course his party has chosen to take, itis for the budget. However, the problem
liesnotin the deficit itself, but in the explanation

Vol. seven, Issue no. two

ofthe deficit. The biggest mistake this partyhas__" The biggest mistake this party has made in

made in its short stay in power has been that

obodyevery took the timetoprovide the people its Short stay in power has been that nobody

with a set of concrete reasons why they were
goingtorunsucha largedeficit. Nooneexplained
that the out-going Liberal party had lied about
the financial state of the province and had left
the NDP with a red budgetary statement rather
than a black one. Floyd Laughren, Ontario's

ever took the time to provide the people with
a set of concrete reasons why they were going
to run such a large deficit." $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

‘Treasurer, never fully explained that, due to the inherited deficit, the budget’s
real excess was in the area of $2.5 billion ora little more than a quarter of that
which was reported. Most importantly, the government did not make it clear
that the increased spending was necessary to temper the effects of what was,
in facta full-blown Recession made worse by federal initiatives and Ontario’s
reliance on the manufacturing sector.

In the final analysis, Johnston is playing with fire when strategists
choose to pursue negative agenda rather than a positive campaign. Regard-
less of whether the above-mentioned facts and figures ever come to light, B.C.
voters are unlikely to fall victim to propaganda designed to taint the
opposition by condemning their associate party in another province. A
negative strategy may work for George Bush in the anything-goes world of
American politics, but this is Canada and, as the saying goes, we do things a
little differently up here. *

‘Stephen Beaumont isa freelance writer for the Toronto Star

Rene Bourque