Canada's Greens are the most successful national Green Party in the world
From time to time I talk to people who are aware of Green Party successes in places like Germany and New Zealand. But not many know that the Green Party of Canada is more successful in terms of popular support than the Green Parties in those countries.
That is, our long-standing 10% or more in the polls handily trumps the 8.3% won by the Greens in Germany and the 5.3% won by the Greens in New Zealand. Not to diminish the significance of those successes, but the nationally elected Greens in those other countries have typically come as a result of some form of proportional representation. I'm not aware of any national Green Party other than Canada that has 10% support.
Canada's Green Party success is all the more striking given that our supporters keep supporting us, even though they know that it won't lead to immediate wins in their riding!
I just wanted to put this analysis out there, along with a thank you to our supporters who recognize that the most strategic vote is the one for the party with the core values that match their own. We are in it for the long term, and you have helped the GPC come a long way in recent years. I'm confident that the Greens can win Parliament by 2020 regardless of whether the electoral system is changed to incorporate some level of proportionality, as has been recommended to Parliament by the Law Commission of Canada (since disbanded).
- Kevin Colton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
right-o
BC Greens are polling at 19%...
19%...
GPC at 14%...
Its just insane... Makes me so angry to think we could elect no one...
... yet
Jim Johnston,
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex
We are going to win seats
We are going to win seats -- we came within 5% of winning in LNC and we're within range to win in Bruce Grey Owen Sound in the Ontario election.
People will no longer stand by and watch governments and parties do nothing as the catostrophic impacts of climate change relentlessly march towards inevitabilty. We are approaching the tipping point rapidly.
We placed second in LNC in 2006
In 2007 we're in second place in Bruce Grey Owen Sound
Andrew Lewis won more than 10,000 votes in Saanich Gulf Islands in 2004
Adriane Carr won 26% of the vote in 2005 in the BC provincial election
Jim
UFO & GPO
About a century ago in an Ontario by-election in a riding adjacent to today's Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, a first seat was won as something of a rural protest for the United Farmers of Ontario. In the following general election (1919), UFO actually won most seats & led the government (formed with Labour; leaderless to boot!)!! Current GPO excitement is justified indeed.
However...
However...
(quotes from http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/200... :)
"De Jong said he believes the Greens have actually won many people over with a plan to scrap the Catholic board and create a single unified public school system."
I hope this is not verbatim from our GPO leader. If true and/or if said as reported, it is a disgraceful way for Greens. It is well understood that good things can come from bad beginnings, but no Green should be proud if a policy arising from no understanding has attracted voters.
"Rather than trying to push people to vote Green, Jacek said the party should have focused its campaign on getting people to vote for electoral reform during Wednesday's referendum."
The pro-MMP campaign is indeed most important of all.
"[...] wouldn't be surprised to see the Greens place second in a rural riding like Owen Sound, where people may be inclined to "make a statement'' by voting for a party other than the Liberals or NDP"
Of course the majority of credit for a show or a win goes to candidate & coterie, with secondary influence for the two theorized other aspects above.
Politics is the realm of the possible---
Actually, if we lived in a perfect world there shouldn't have been any other issue than climate change. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of media types would have completely frozen that issue out of the debate. The schools issue absolutely dominated this election (even though it shouldn't have), and the Greens have picked up huge numbers of votes because of our policy.
Part of being a real political party is trying to figure out how to get elected.
Personally, I have yet to see any argument at all about why we should be paying for Catholic schools other than some general ideal of pluralism. This would be a fair argument if there was no opportunity cost from running two parallel (actually, four when you factor in French and English versions of both) systems, and, we forget that there is an argument that Roman Catholicism is a malignant influence on society.
(On the whole, Catholicism may or may not be malignant---but given the behaviour of the church hierarchy over the last few decades, I think that it is an argument that should not simply be dismissed out of hand. If for no other reasons, than a large number of voters believe this.)
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
put down or pick up
We'll see about "picked up huge numbers of votes because of our policy".
Going into an election over 10% but settling down to some 6% doesn't look like "huge" to me. If GPO policy has provided shelter for some fearful, ignorant & uncomprehending heirs of the sorrier side of Ontario history, of that you should not be proud, tactically nor "ideologically". I rather think that it has had minimal effect overall. And if as much attention has in fact been paid as claimed, it might as easily have detracted from MMP support by >1/3 of the province who school in ways you wouldn't have. If the latter can be shown to have transpired, I should expect some serious contrition & repentance from the unreligious...
We agree that Tory's (inept but partly well-meaning) education proposal has unfairly dominated reportage. Tories' fault for ineptitude (by your reading Greens' as well for abetting). I cannot give Tories clean credit for wholesome intent, for I believe their own contentious policy option was part of larger plan to highlight the (true) hypocrisy of McGuinty & co. on this & many other matters, making "Dalton the plumber" (hear those somewhat amusing but dumb radio ads?) appear even less "leader-like".
Nuclear power should have been front & centre of the campaign. I can't believe that Hampton & the NDP did not make their own points on this more loudly. I guess they accept their lesser fate in Ontario given gross media bias. I saw the televised debate for a few moments, and argumentless Dalton & John could have been flattened by Hampton on the issue right there & then. To have the campaign so dominated by one thing full of misperception & worse is sorely disappointing. While months ago I publicly predicted the centrality of the school funding issue this election, I had no idea it would play out like this!
Bill, I can't do any more for your inability "yet to see" here than point you (& anyone else interested, of course) yet again to the links suggested as a good Green starting point. Send your Catholic friend there for some possible solace at least. When you spew about "malignancy", you truly disqualify yourself, however strongly you feel about blunt talk. I agree there's a place for frankness & even bluntness, but no way as you show here.
But up in the Bruce win, place or show
Let it be for success like UF of O
Wrong on polls, not the decider
Daryl, you are misinterpreting polling data. What’s worse, you have set yourself up as the judge of what is or is not truly “Green” policy, without regard for the views of other Greens.
(This is a response to your posts on this topic in various threads, not just this one).
On polling, you have stated that the GPO went into the election at 10% and are now down to 6%, attributing this drop to our education policy. But the numbers don’t support you, and you are ignoring the traditional Green Party polling curve. It is normal for Greens to have a certain level of initial support which grows over the first 2-3 weeks of the election, as negative campaigning drives voters to us and media coverage increases general awareness of the Green option. Then, in the final week or two, support falls back as the push for strategic voting gets stronger and some of our votes drain back to the bigger parties. The important trend is that, each time, the starting & finishing numbers are higher than the last.
This election has been no exception. According to the rolling, multi-poll reports at Democraticspace.com, we came into this election as low as 5.5%, rose as high as 9.3% past the midpoint, and have dropped back to 8%. If this falls as low as 6% in the ballot box, I won’t be surprised. But even at that reduced showing, it will be significantly higher than our previous provincial result (2003) of 2.8%, and even our most recent federal result of 4.7% (in ON). You can’t really attribute this to the GPC effect, since Elizabeth has been in & out of hospital and general GPC visibility has been negligible during Parliamentary recess. At this point, it’s all GPO.
Thus, your belief that this policy has hurt rather than helped us is unsupported. As a candidate, I can’t even count the number of people who have told me they were voting (or considering voting) Green for the first time primarily because of our education policy. I have, to date, met only one person who felt the opposite. If you were to discount the traditional Green Party polling curve, you could see our growing support as indicative of this trend, especially with the issue gaining prominence and as Conservative voters crossed over – finding Tory’s policy unacceptable but unwilling to vote Liberal or NDP. Since Tory’s flip-flop and retreat, some of them have doubtlessly moved back, which could account for our drop. (Myself, I see the standard curve but with an education policy bump overall).
Now, on to “Green” education policy. It is your OPINION that John Tory’s approach (to fully fund all religious schools) best fulfills our key value of diversity, and the ancillary value of spirituality. But that is just your interpretation. There are other, equally valid views on this. When the GPO adopted our current policy last year, the support was a clear majority of 60% to 40%, 3-2, not a PQ-style 49/51 squeaker. The debate (I was there) focused entirely on what was the best way to deliver a fair education that supported diversity – there was no thought of what might please the electorate.
Certainly funding religious schools is not the only way to support spirituality. In fact, many traditional religions (especially Judeo-Christian) are explicitly or implicitly anthropocentric; anathema to a Green spirituality. Funding such is by no means a certain path to creating a positive, Earth-centered spirituality envisioned in the Global Green Charter. The latter, I believe, tends to favour aboriginal or other biocentric religions over many traditional mainstream ones.
Now, what of Diversity? My reading of Green values leads me to believe that when Greens say they value diversity, it means we recognize, tolerate and celebrate it, not that we strive to create or fund it. The question is then how best to foster tolerance and acceptance of such diversity as already exists. You seem to feel that funding each separate religion to enable them to remain separate & distinct is the only way. Others feel that tolerance is best fostered when children learn together in a public school setting – with cooperation, understanding, and friendship that cross religious boundaries. Certainly the latter is a valid view. Schools run by organized religion tend to be explicitly or implicitly ethnocentric – how can they not? Whether intended or not, they foster a sense of “us” and “them”, a strong feel for (yet lesser understanding of) the “other”. To worry that this could actually run counter to our hope for tolerance is logical and sensible – not “fearful, ignorant, and uncomprehending”.
I find your self-righteous stance on this offensive – there are many ways to look at education & diversity, and your views seem to be in the minority – not just among the public, but among Greens. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are right and everyone else wrong, or if perhaps you need to work harder to understand & accept (rather than dismiss or denigrate) other views and help build consensus.
Regards,
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
polls in their place (&c)
"you are misinterpreting polling data."
The whole point of a series of my comments over the last little while has been to ACCURATELY point out difficulties with poll reading, construction & dependency. This concern of mine here about unclear and improper focus on polls has even recently been somewhat vindicated also right here on this blogsite, where someone's rejoicing at a prospective win in a provincial riding was based on wild misreading, which misperception was gently, seemingly sheepishly, but still only indirectly corrected by another (http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/2857).
"What’s worse, you have set yourself up as the judge of what is or is not truly “Green” policy, without regard for the views of other Greens."
Erich, I'm about ready to retract some of the kinder words I've directed your way privately! I have made it clear that I'm loath to resort to "green" or "Green" as cheap descriptor, but in a grosser interchange it serves its purpose. It's bizarre that you can accuse of disregard for others, when all along I'm kind of crying out for competent & reasoned interchange with fellow Greens!
"(This is a response to your posts on this topic in various threads, not just this one)."
Have you read them well enough? Let's see...
"On polling, you have stated that the GPO went into the election at 10% and are now down to 6%, attributing this drop to our education policy."
It doesn't look good for you already: where on earth do you see such a claim?! If you refer to the immediately preceding, your words are not even close. At issue was use of the adjective, 'huge', and of course the feeling behind its use. It is obvious that some intend to park their vote with GPO for (uncomprehending) opposition to the Tory school funding plan.
"But the numbers don’t support you, and you are ignoring the traditional Green Party polling curve. It is normal for Greens to have a certain level of initial support which grows over the first 2-3 weeks of the election, as negative campaigning drives voters to us and media coverage increases general awareness of the Green option. Then, in the final week or two, support falls back as the push for strategic voting gets stronger and some of our votes drain back to the bigger parties. The important trend is that, each time, the starting & finishing numbers are higher than the last."
I wouldn't feel so surefooted as all that in general application of your analysis. Until now, Green numbers have been "traditionally" too low to learn all that much from --- there is no significant "tradition", esp. given stated statistical "error margins". What you're doing seems maybe more like more careless wishful dealing with poll data, although in the last year or so, numbers are becoming more firm & serious for analysis.
"This election has been no exception. According to the rolling, multi-poll reports at Democraticspace.com, we came into this election as low as 5.5%, rose as high as 9.3% past the midpoint, and have dropped back to 8%. If this falls as low as 6% in the ballot box, I won’t be surprised. But even at that reduced showing, it will be significantly higher than our previous provincial result (2003) of 2.8%, and even our most recent federal result of 4.7% (in ON). You can’t really attribute this to the GPC effect, since Elizabeth has been in & out of hospital and general GPC visibility has been negligible during Parliamentary recess. At this point, it’s all GPO."
If I were not a Green supporter, your overly enthused reading of those polls would have me "rolling" with laughter. I fully attribute the early high figures to "GPC effect" --- where was GPO before GPC's recent climb? Major (irresponsible) newspapers even wrote things like, "who knew?", about something as momentous as the referendum. Green is Green in people's minds for the most part. It is awful to rely on "brand recognition", but that is unfortunately a big part of how the game is played.
Look how difficult & possibly very misleading to deal with such numbers: Consider % terms. If Ont. Liberals had bounced around in polls by the up to 100% factor that GPO shows, say by going from 40% down to 20% then drastically back up again, that would be cause for serious notice. When Greens poll 10% or so but come out by half, for a variety of factors it is far less interesting. Media seems to have been shutting out GPO at least as much as letting in. It cannot be "all GPO", except in some very localized circumstances, and among a certain prefigured constituency ("oneboard" anti-Catholic fanatics, eg).
"Thus, your belief that this policy has hurt rather than helped us is unsupported."
Your use of the logical "thus" is to be thrown away. I make no such claim that this policy has hurt immediate GPO numbers. I even admit the possbility above of support of some unfortunate significance. The graver danger was that with stronger publicity accorded as occurred already pre-election to ugly words like "Greens want to scrap ...", even if not actually in any GPO-er's mouth, then the by far more important referendum could be jeopardized, being a game of very narrow numbers that it is. I do not think that that has happened, and I have already expressed my feelings here as to why Ontarians are about to effectively say no. It will be for GPO to repair other damage caused by the foolish policy. Again, let that be addressed in a more strictly provincial forum, unless many others think that useful political lessons could be drawn from watching peculiar Ontario twists.
When I drew pre-election attention to the crude publicity GPO was drawing on the issue, it seems GPO campaign people did pay some attention. But there has been reversion & sliding back all over, with attendant longer term dangers. There is no way that such a focus on dubious & contentious policy has ultimately been for anything other than crude political point scoring. It may be too hard to determine whether any gains were "worth" it, turning otherwise uninterested heads GPO's way, some staying for far better reasons after finally taking notice of better elements. My primary concern is about alienation of the thinking & sensitive than attraction of the unthinking. Do you get it now?
"As a candidate, I can’t even count the number of people who have told me they were voting (or considering voting) Green for the first time primarily because of our education policy."
Thus my main worry. A policy logically at odds with its supposedly principled Green self, and based on utter ignorance to boot, played up for crude political gain --- this is what you're happy to call "green"?
"Now, on to “Green” education policy. It is your OPINION that John Tory’s approach (to fully fund all religious schools) best fulfills our key value of diversity, and the ancillary value of spirituality. But that is just your interpretation. There are other, equally valid views on this."
After reading (did you really?) all I put out on that other forum, you can say such wrongful garbage? LOGIC & EVIDENCE were & are at issue, not OPINION. We waited in vain for any counterarguments. And "Tory's approach best..." I guess you did not really read then. Or seriously misread. Yet again. I won't comment further here, for any claim that I support such an approach is ludicrous. (Those private "kinder words" are by now almost fully retracted.)
"When the GPO adopted our current policy last year, the support was a clear majority of 60% to 40%, 3-2, not a PQ-style 49/51 squeaker. The debate (I was there) focused entirely on what was the best way to deliver a fair education that supported diversity – there was no thought of what might please the electorate."
How many in attendance? 10? 20? 100? (I was originally told the policy was nearly "unanimous"!) What the debate was could in no way reflect the (uglier) main motivations of the policy's promoters, nor what political use was subsequently made of it. That the debate was likely too unlearned is washed away in recognition of the good striving volunteer efforts of all. But 60-40 is something of a "squeaker" when you consider how strongly this ball has been run with since.
"Certainly funding religious schools is not the only way to support spirituality."
Who ever said as much?
"In fact, many traditional religions (especially Judeo-Christian) are explicitly or implicitly anthropocentric; anathema to a Green spirituality."
I recall you yourself strongly taking to task the non-anthropocentrism of another fairly recently!
"Funding such is by no means a certain path to creating a positive, Earth-centered spirituality envisioned in the Global Green Charter. The latter, I believe, tends to favour aboriginal or other biocentric religions over many traditional mainstream ones."
You, like Bill, are seriously missing the inappropriateness of examining religious innards in this way for these purposes. If you had paid any real attention to that other forum, you would have noticed Supreme Court of Canada references to religion that count here.
"Now, what of Diversity? My reading of Green values leads me to believe that when Greens say they value diversity, it means we recognize, tolerate and celebrate it, not that we strive to create or fund it."
Why would you use such a word as "strive". How at this point can you be so apparently ignorant of the rest of Canada, where there is little such striving any more? (Do note, however, the fairly recent sorry Quebec episode when the Liberals tried to extend funding for some --- what so grossly came out there should be a lesson for you about policy motivations.)
"The question is then how best to foster tolerance and acceptance of such diversity as already exists. You seem to feel that funding each separate religion to enable them to remain separate & distinct is the only way."
"Seem"? "Only"?
"Others feel that tolerance is best fostered when children learn together in a public school setting – with cooperation, understanding, and friendship that cross religious boundaries. Certainly the latter is a valid view. Schools run by organized religion tend to be explicitly or implicitly ethnocentric – how can they not? Whether intended or not, they foster a sense of “us” and “them”, a strong feel for (yet lesser understanding of) the “other”. To worry that this could actually run counter to our hope for tolerance is logical and sensible – not “fearful, ignorant, and uncomprehending”.
Enough already. You're arguing so beside the deeper "green" points repeatedly made elsewhere. All your talk has been completely countered elsewhere more appropriate for discussion of provincial matters. You have no evidence whatsoever. Evidence is to the contrary. Children assured of solid traditionalist identity in our safer Canadian context actually have stronger appreciation for others' identites. GPO policy is (largely but not totally unwitting I see) sorry heir to an uglier side to Ontario history.
"I find your self-righteous stance on this offensive – there are many ways to look at education & diversity, and your views seem to be in the minority – not just among the public, but among Greens. Perhaps you should ask yourself if you are right and everyone else wrong, or if perhaps you need to work harder to understand & accept (rather than dismiss or denigrate) other views and help build consensus."
Good that you are offended if it is a spur to seek to understand! "Self-righteous"? How? As non-schooler? All I asked for was argumentation. What got mostly delivered was open ignorance & borderline bigotry, except from a thoughful few, your (thinking) "minority". If Greens are not into persistent attempts at logical & heartfelt persuasion, woe to them. If they are into plowing ahead as has been done around this issue, woe to them, too.
One cannot "help build consensus" without informed interlocutors. My first months of copious efforts at this issue were gentlemanly indeed, but ultmately ineffectual. In the context, only tougher words that risked offending were resorted to & got sufficient notice.
It's disagreement, not ignorance
With a quote like "Going into an election over 10% but settling down to some 6%" you are clearly cherry-picking polls. You claim to know that individual polls are subject to margin of error issues, especially at our comparatively lower numbers. That's why I refer to the multi-poll, rolling average of Democraticspace, which uses averages of polls from different pollsters and times to create a far more reliable number - one which has been surprisingly accurate in past elections, even concerning us. Your criticism of attaching too much to a poll applies to a single poll, but the multi-rolling is a rather reliable gauge of support. Yet to make your point, you have done exactly what you criticize - chosen a single, unrepresentative early poll (10%) and compared it with a single, unrepresentative late poll (6%) to try to make a case that our results are shrinking precipitously when that isn't the case. (Yes, you were doing this indirectly to refute claims of a 'huge' gain). In fact, since our numbers are at about 400% what they were in the previous provincial election, for someone to describe them as 'huge' is quite apt.
As to GPC-GPO effect, the summer's GPC activity certainly helped the GPO, but since September, the media focus in Ontario has been on provincial election issues and provincial parties. It doesn't matter that media has been shutting out GPO as often as not, since they haven't been covering GPC AT ALL - that's the point you seem to be missing.
The Green Party curve I describe was rather clear in the 2004 and 2006 federal elections and was supported by Nik Nanos of SES when he spoke at our 2006 convention. You have no grounds to offhandedly dismiss it as careless wishful thinking. And how do you see my reading as "overly enthused"? Again, SES and Democraticspace have been the two most accurate predictors of past elections, including Green Party results, despite your reservations. I'm not cherry-picking, I'm going with proven success. Since you seem unaware of these highly accurate multipoll resources, I can't credit any of your criticism or analysis of polls.
You say that you are "loath to resort to "green" or "Green" as cheap descriptor" yet even in this post, you dismiss those who disagree with you on education policy:
- "oneboard" anti-Catholic fanatics
- dubious & contentious policy
- logically at odds with its supposedly principled Green self, and based on utter ignorance to boot
- the (uglier) main motivations of the policy's promoters
- the debate was likely too unlearned
- arguing so beside the deeper "green" points repeatedly made elsewhere
These are the statements that come across as self-righteous. You casually build your argument on a constant implication that your analysis is principled, learned, and justified by dismissing the opposite view as dubious, ignorant, ugly, unlearned, beside (outside) green. You dismiss the hundred plus members who approved this policy as an unlearned, unrepresentative body misled by those with ugly motivations - even though you yourself did not even attend this open meeting. (I believe it was in Toronto - not too far for you to travel). Are you really so superior that you can, sight unseen, simply dismiss 100 involved green party members, many with longer & deeper political or philosophical background than yourself, as unlearned? What gall!
You seek to discredit the policy with comments such as "How many in attendance? 10? 20? 100?" as if it mattered not that quorum was present & confirmed. (For your information, I believe it had the highest attendance to date of any GPO policy conference - in any case, there is no reason to suppose that if all members had been present they would have voted differently, as there was no indication of some kind of attendee bias on this one policy of the many discussed that day.) There are good reasons for quorum and supermajority, and this policy met both. To continue to question it is to question the entire democratic policy-creation process. Would 70-30 satisfy you? 80-20? I get the sense that it could be 99-1, yet if that 1 were you, the policy would still be dubious and unlearned.
I have read many of the resources or links you have provided. I still don't agree with you. You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees has merely not read the right supporting link - that if they had, then surely they would feel as you. Well, sorry, that's not how it goes. There are other sources out there, and people draw their information from many vectors. Showering us with selected references will not win a debate. It's not a case of lack of knowledge so much as difference of opinion. (This is what diversity looks like).
That you can't even see the unwarranted negative assumptions and hostility in your posts does not bode well for informative or respectful discussion. Withdraw your kind remarks if you will - as they say, with friends like these...
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
with love & appreciation
"With a quote like "Going into an election over 10% but settling down to some 6%" you are clearly cherry-picking polls."
I'm cherry-picking nothing. I took the former from something on this very blogsite! The latter figure you yourself seem to acknowledge. What are you talking about? I've been addressing, you must have missed it, use & construction of polls, not the accuracy or methodology of number accumulation.
"You claim to know that individual polls are subject to margin of error issues, especially at our comparatively lower numbers. That's why I refer to the multi-poll, rolling average of Democraticspace, which uses averages of polls from different pollsters and times to create a far more reliable number - one which has been surprisingly accurate in past elections, even concerning us. Your criticism of attaching too much to a poll applies to a single poll, but the multi-rolling is a rather reliable gauge of support. Yet to make your point, you have done exactly what you criticize - chosen a single, unrepresentative early poll (10%) and compared it with a single, unrepresentative late poll (6%) to try to make a case that our results are shrinking precipitously when that isn't the case. (Yes, you were doing this indirectly to refute claims of a 'huge' gain). In fact, since our numbers are at about 400% what they were in the previous provincial election, for someone to describe them as 'huge' is quite apt."
So I can't use polls that I criticize, and can't criticize polls that I use. GPO was polling your 4x or so higher before anyone took real notice of GPO. Did you miss the dates on the early polls? The list at http://nodice.ca/elections/ontario/polls.php tells me that as early as January (!!) there was 11%. Do you still not consider your argument defeated?
"As to GPC-GPO effect, the summer's GPC activity certainly helped the GPO, but since September, the media focus in Ontario has been on provincial election issues and provincial parties. It doesn't matter that media has been shutting out GPO as often as not, since they haven't been covering GPC AT ALL - that's the point you seem to be missing."
I, like everyone, miss much, but nothing that you're bringing. You've got evidence that GPO mattered itself so much, rather than coattailing on the general brand association (for which some credit is of course still due), like anyone has evidence differential schooling turns out inferior citizens. Zero -- a poll number you'll risk seeing if you keep going on like this. (Or not, I'm afraid.)
"The Green Party curve I describe was rather clear in the 2004 and 2006 federal elections and was supported by Nik Nanos of SES when he spoke at our 2006 convention. You have no grounds to offhandedly dismiss it as careless wishful thinking. And how do you see my reading as "overly enthused"? Again, SES and Democraticspace have been the two most accurate predictors of past elections, including Green Party results, despite your reservations. I'm not cherry-picking, I'm going with proven success. Since you seem unaware of these highly accurate multipoll resources, I can't credit any of your criticism or analysis of polls."
Okay, so I ascribed too much emotion to you. But I rather think enthusiasm is an asset, sometimes one can even be safely "overly". After another blog entry I think I even justified such current enthusiasm (but not on some of the grounds of the enthused themselves). I'm not waiting for your accreditation either. A higher degree of literacy must come first; I'm sorry, but you're asking for it, time after time misreading what I've written here & elsewhere, even if I was once moved to somewhat praise your forthrightness in argument. I hope I'm not tumbling off a higher road with this (as my spouse is suggesting as she just saw what I typed...).
"You say that you are "loath to resort to "green" or "Green" as cheap descriptor" yet even in this post, you dismiss those who disagree with you on education policy:
- "oneboard" anti-Catholic fanatics
- dubious & contentious policy
- logically at odds with its supposedly principled Green self, and based on utter ignorance to boot
- the (uglier) main motivations of the policy's promoters
- the debate was likely too unlearned
- arguing so beside the deeper "green" points repeatedly made elsewhere"
Re your list: #1 - you qualify as "green"? #2 - not a single GPO-er or their oneboarder friends chose to argue in the very public forum as profusely invited, so I rest comfortably with "dubious"; & 60-40 is contentious -- answer my question, how many were there besides you (not meant in any way whatsoever to belittle if it was only 10, for here I stand singly, as already done here, & fairly vindicated, eg re wind power & cell phone controversies)? Even at 100, considering all I put on the table to consider before you & others, that's still "contentious". #3 - what's cheap is not the descriptor, but utter inability or unwillingness to explore essentials like history, law & administration, as displayed by too many GPO-ers I've dealt with in the episode, let alone some "tie-dye and sandals" (your own descriptors) deeper "green" stuff that I proferred for discussion re education (actually, one wee bit, about school ground electrical generation seems to have been noticed, one I even probably shared with yourself in a more encouraging moment). #4 - you think, eg, anti-Catholicism as, say, Bill right here expresses it is not ugly? #5 - how could I surmise otherwise, given all that transpired thereafter? #6 - see #3.
"These are the statements that come across as self-righteous. You casually build your argument on a constant implication that your analysis is principled, learned, and justified by dismissing the opposite view as dubious, ignorant, ugly, unlearned, beside (outside) green. You dismiss the hundred plus members who approved this policy as an unlearned, unrepresentative body misled by those with ugly motivations - even though you yourself did not even attend this open meeting. (I believe it was in Toronto - not too far for you to travel). Are you really so superior that you can, sight unseen, simply dismiss 100 involved green party members, many with longer & deeper political or philosophical background than yourself, as unlearned? What gall!"
I regret that my long dormant involvement with Green politics was only renewed well past that fateful assembly. I might have been able to attend, even if on a Saturday. My clearly expressed appreciation for everyone's well-meaning volunteer efforts is as far as one can get from "dismissal". Do you need glasses?
"You seek to discredit the policy with comments such as "How many in attendance? 10? 20? 100?" as if it mattered not that quorum was present & confirmed. (For your information, I believe it had the highest attendance to date of any GPO policy conference - in any case, there is no reason to suppose that if all members had been present they would have voted differently, as there was no indication of some kind of attendee bias on this one policy of the many discussed that day.) There are good reasons for quorum and supermajority, and this policy met both. To continue to question it is to question the entire democratic policy-creation process. Would 70-30 satisfy you? 80-20? I get the sense that it could be 99-1, yet if that 1 were you, the policy would still be dubious and unlearned."
Discredit-by-number? You do need glasses. What I was arguing above was about contentiousness based on %s. What about that it took a defector from GPO to actually own up & tell me that it was 60-40, whereas I was originally told of unanimity, as already noted? Great that so many were in attendance. How do I question that democratic process, other than to decry decision based on lack of information, lack of persuasive people to counter bad stuff? Must your democracy indeed be so ignorant & illiterate? I even suggested an extraordinary policy meeting, if possible, to address what were obvious gross errors in presentation. I assumed it was not possible, but after witnessing the seat-of-the-pants type of interpretative leeway taken by chief campaigners, I'm aghast for very democratic reasons indeed. I'm getting far too detailed already re a more local concern. Apart from having unfortunately to deal with your errors & confusion, I engage this much also hoping maybe some will learn something valuable politically & otherwise from thsi interesting case.
"I have read many of the resources or links you have provided. I still don't agree with you. You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees has merely not read the right supporting link - that if they had, then surely they would feel as you. Well, sorry, that's not how it goes. There are other sources out there, and people draw their information from many vectors. Showering us with selected references will not win a debate. It's not a case of lack of knowledge so much as difference of opinion. (This is what diversity looks like)."
No, Erich, I do not assume as you say. Disagreement is (diversely, right?) wonderful, but when based on illogic & evidencelessness by people sharing something else with oneself, this must be countered & called what it is. "[O]ther sources out there". Indeed. They were openly challenged to debate, left a link that I shredded somewhat, and there was no one to discuss or debate with. The crux: not one sensible argrument was proferred. Your version of democracy? I pleaded very clearly in total acceptance of GPO policy process (which I now know to doubt itself). You can in no way glorify your stance even as "opinion", as it implies a higher degree of rationality than displayed.
"That you can't even see the unwarranted negative assumptions and hostility in your posts does not bode well for informative or respectful discussion. Withdraw your kind remarks if you will - as they say, with friends like these..."
As I said, resort to kind & elegant words did little. Talking a little closer to Bill's style did. it bothers me, too. But the issue, esp. including the aspect of due process, is that important. Controversy and heat do go together sometimes.
... and hugs and kisses, too
You are repeating your patterns even as you deny them.
On polling, you once again cite a single 11% January poll as if that were a true indication of our support then - ignoring one from April that put us at 2% - in both cases, having little to do with GPO activity and nothing to do with religous school funding. If you must try to guage where and when the GPO went up or down, go to the aggregate rolling numbers at http://democraticspace.com/blog/ontario2007/polls/. And don't forget that poll results for Greens which are so far removed from a writ drop or voting day (like last January) are often deceptively high, as people park with us outside elections.
You continue to fixate on the 60-40 vote as if it were some kind of deep, dark secret. That no-one had the number close to hand is not secrecy, but rather the simple fact that individual votes on specific policies from past conferences are not easily referenced. Whoever thought it was unanimous was simply mistaken, and it did not need some 'defector' to report the actual vote. I'm pretty sure Victoria Serda confirmed it when she joined the conversation. You are creating melodrama out of nothing.
As to contentiousness, the 60% supermajority requirement was designed to PREVENT contentious policies from passing with mere 51% or 55% support. A 60% vote in a referendum or election is considered decisive or even a landslide, not contentious. At what level would you consider a decision clear? 75%? 90%?
And here you go again at disparaging the membership:
"How do I question that democratic process, other than to decry decision based on lack of information, lack of persuasive people to counter bad stuff? Must your democracy indeed be so ignorant & illiterate? I even suggested an extraordinary policy meeting, if possible, to address what were obvious gross errors in presentation."
Why do you assume there was a lack of persuasive people? I was there, and the issue brought out plenty of debate from many attendees, including those who actually work in both branches of the education system (rather than withdraw from it completely). There were persuasive arguments on both sides. None of them seemed ignorant or illiterate - what a hateful way to describe our collective membership. The policy was presented as is and argued (at length) on its merits, not through gross errors in presentation.
You may feel that recent list discussion of this policy was "based on illogic & evidencelessness," but on what grounds do you apply the same accusation to the discussion at the conference?
Your debate style seems to rest on victory by exhaustion/forfeit. You provide sources and consider your side proven unless all your sources are refuted in detail; when the other side provides sources, you dismiss (or 'shred') them; when the other side disputes your sources you attack their intellectual or 'green' credentials or lack of 'understanding'; when the other side tires of your dismissal and retires from the field, you consider your point won because of lack of counter-argument. The problem is not that the other side is failing to argue, but that you are demanding ever more responses without crediting those made earlier. Why would they persist, when they see no progress from presenting their side? When their arguments are successively dismissed (by you) as being insensible, ignorant, illiterate, or "bad stuff", why should they bother to continue to provide them? They clearly can't change your mind, so further effort is wasted.
In a democracy, it is not necessary that they win over all opposition; rather, that they win over the silent majority. That was done at the policy conference, and so far as I have seen, has only magnified since then. That their arguments have failed to convince you is immaterial; whether they have persuaded the voting members is what matters. Therein you will find which side has succeeded in being persuasive. I suggest that you propose a policy for our fall convention, providing whatever background documentation you wish; make your argument at the time, and acquiese to the vote, whichever way it goes. Remember, of course, that you will need 60% support to change the policy. (Or perhaps you would prefer a higher, less contentious threshold).
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
time to vote then
"You are repeating your patterns even as you deny them. On polling, you once again cite a single 11% January poll as if that were a true indication of our support then - ignoring one from April that put us at 2% - in both cases, having little to do with GPO activity and nothing to do with religous school
funding. If you must try to guage where and when the GPO went up or down, go to the aggregate rolling numbers at http://democraticspace.com/blog/ontario2007/polls/. And don't forget that poll results for Greens which are so far removed from a writ drop or voting day (like last January) are often deceptively high, as people park with us outside
elections."
Your rolling up & down throughout 2007, mostly pre-election, shows that it is patently uninteresting to read much at all into the subtle waves of polls since then. If you find some peak during the election that you say is GPO-alone-driven, you have to make sense of the same "rolling" up & down outside of anybody's significant notice of GPO, which is not possible, thus
the charge of overenthused, wishful, &c. People verbally "park" as well during campaigns & don't bother to vote thereafter. This kind of thing particularly distorts things for a party that serves as "protest" parking lot.
"You continue to fixate on the 60-40 vote as if it were some kind of deep, dark secret. That no-one had the number close to hand is not secrecy, but rather the simple fact that individual votes on specific policies from past conferences are not easily referenced. Whoever thought it was unanimous was simply mistaken, and it did not need some 'defector' to report the actual
vote. I'm pretty sure Victoria Serda confirmed it when she joined the conversation. You are creating melodrama out of nothing."
No melodrama intended. Just pointing to incompetence. Inexperience. Possible abuse of process. Inherent difficulties with member-driven policy. Waywardly-used leeway by leadership circle with such derived policy. Avoidance of argument. Irrationality. Ignorance of essentials to government. Falling into an immoral pit of sorts. Had enough? I've spent all this time where some professional academic would not, the importance of which latter I already quoted about on the main forum for this, for concern about a certain culture about this particular Green party which has the opportunity to not have itself
quirkily writtten off. I'm sorry it hurts in the attempt to raise the bar, but that only indicates problematic stiffness. There were intelligent suggestive voices that came out in discussion, that did not agree with me necessarily, you must have missed them. They were praised as examples of intelligently suggestive discourse. I would have wanted to see a respectable defence of your terrible policy. I even suggested, in total (possibly I see now misplaced) deference to the process for establishing policy, ways to respectably salvage the policy for platform expression. The brochure that came out I commended, all the while still expressing dislike of the policy, and was gratified that there were some paying attention, if in a strange way (itself a problem). Two conjoined aspects of the platform are particularly welcomed as signs of intelligence & sensitivity, but those were such departures from the gist of the actual policy that they just cannot fall under regular interpretative means available to leadership bound by policy rules. And then when the general campaign, abetted by sensationalistically idiotic media, truly disgracefully went awry in disproportionate focus on the arch-hypocrite Mcguinty's capitalizing on Tory's incompetent wielding of a postmodern banner, even more disgracefully did the Greens largely pile on, for crude political gain alone, thus abetting themselves the disproportionate focus. I'm sorry, but that is not Green politics that I want anything to do with, except to help get rid of.
"As to contentiousness, the 60% supermajority requirement was designed to PREVENT contentious policies from passing with mere 51% or 55% support. A 60% vote in a referendum or election is considered decisive or even a landslide, not contentious. At what level would you consider a decision clear? 75%? 90%?"
Contentiousness is also not only determinable within a membership base or among conference attendees, but for a wider audience, which latter concern doesn't seem to register with you, another sign of impermeable insensitivity that has me withdraw my praise for any forthrightness.
"And here you go again at disparaging the membership:[quote of me]
Why do you assume there was a lack of persuasive people? I was there, and the issue brought out plenty of debate from many attendees, including those who actually work in both branches of the education system (rather than withdraw from it completely). There were persuasive arguments on both sides. None of them seemed ignorant or illiterate - what a hateful way to describe our collective membership. The policy was presented as is and argued (at length) on its merits, not through gross errors in presentation."
It is not possible to raise all the children we have and "completely" withdraw.as you suggest. We've plenty of experience with the deletrious backwardness for green purposes of schools as they are at all levels. Professional teachers also made up a significant proportion of "homeschoolers", too. That should tell you something. If there was such thoughtful discussion, what caused it to fail to come out in discussion later and in policy expression & platform-making? The arch-one-boarder folks, you fail to understand, are not coming from a wholesome place.
"You may feel that recent list discussion of this policy was "based on illogic & evidencelessness," but on what grounds do you apply the same accusation to the discussion at the conference?"
Fair enough, I was not there. But some of the same attendees did speak up in list discussion, & in confirmingly gross ways to boot! I can rest my main case on that alone.
"Your debate style seems to rest on victory by exhaustion/forfeit. You provide sources and consider your side proven unless all your sources are refuted in detail; when the other side provides sources, you dismiss (or 'shred') them; when the other side disputes your sources you attack their intellectual or 'green' credentials or lack of 'understanding'; when the other side tires
of your dismissal and retires from the field, you consider your point won because of lack of counter-argument. The problem is not that the other side is failing to argue, but that you are demanding ever more responses without crediting those made earlier. Why would they persist, when they see no progress from presenting their side? When their arguments are successively
dismissed (by you) as being insensible, ignorant, illiterate, or "bad stuff", why should they bother to continue to provide them? They clearly can't change your mind, so further effort is wasted."
No, Erich, go back & read my early very generous in thought, time, research, & gentlemanly expression intervention. I even got high praise for it from one GPO principal. Your litany above simply does not apply. I'm the one tiring now, for this is kind of off-topic & on-person. All I ever asked for was on-topic disproof of some pretty serious charges. Not forthcoming.
Kind of proves the charges, no?
"In a democracy, it is not necessary that they win over all opposition; rather, that they win over the silent majority. That was done at the policy conference, and so far as I have seen, has only magnified since then. That their arguments have failed to convince you is immaterial; whether they have persuaded the voting members is what matters. Therein you will find which
side has succeeded in being persuasive. I suggest that you propose a policy for our fall convention, providing whatever background documentation you wish; make your argument at the time, and acquiese to the vote, whichever way it goes.
Remember, of course, that you will need 60% support to change the policy. (Or perhaps you would prefer a higher, less contentious threshold)."
Possible woe to us for that magnification. And if in the end politically beneficial, what a needlessly ugly way to attract people....yes, very ungreen. I'm still as embarassed, almost even ashamed, at what as gone on on this file under our banner. I had contemplated assisting with overturning the policy, felt virtually invited to do so by our leader's words even fairly early on. We'll see what can be done. It hasn't been a pleasure, but wasn't expected to be this disappointingly revealing, partly as forewarned. But in our unfortunate real poltical circumstances, one should brace for the unpleasurable. Maybe that's the best lesson for any onlookers here.
What is diversity and tolerance?
Daryl:
I've been trying my best to avoid getting "down and dirty" about the religious issue, but I suppose that it is important to let out the real reasons why I am so opposed to religious schooling. I grew up in an area that was dominated by fundamentalist religious groups. One of the flakey ideas that these churches held was that vacinnation was "not Biblical". I had a neighbour my age who was bit by a horse and died of tetanus. I also went to school with people who got polio. (There are other things I could relate as well.) I consider myself a very religious person, but people have got to face up to the fact that it is exactly the sorts of people who most want religious schools that are the ones who should not be allowed to have them because they want to use the venue to twist children's minds.
Early in the campaign John Tory suggested that it would be fine for one of his proposed schools to teach "creationalism", so it is clear what he had in mind. To be honest, I think that we should have a law that forces even non-funded private schools to follow the provincial curriculum.
I suppose it all comes down to personal experience.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
implications
Diversity implies differing particularities which must have their own intensity to be viable. No intensity, no enduring particularity, no diversity. For many traditionalists, a full childhood ambience including school environment is a better way to assure continuity. If the ways of these people do not overlap sufficiently safely & beneficially with others, then there is a question about public support for their activities. If, on the other hand, there is considerable evidence of successful integration for purposes of upstanding citizenship, then this invites public support. (Your vaccination example variously harms your own case, esp. as one is rightly permitted to conscientously object to vaccination of one's children as a condition for Ontario public school attendance.) Catholic schools, for example, have been so much a part of producing this upstanding citizenry, apart from Catholic special foundational aspects, that there should be no question about their established place. (Although our Catholic-schooled Premier's campaign performance on the issue makes me not so sure!) You will not see them displaced. It is besides absurd to argue in favour of a "weaker" "deliverer" of education -- people choose the long discriminated against Ont. Catholic schools for their perceived positive difference, so let's take the option back away!?!?! Examine the "output" of other differential schoolers in Ont. & elsewhere in Canada, and you'll really have no argument, especially as you'd be comparing to the "secular" system. Do you know what is apparently playing well in some parts of my own riding (not among those pleading for fairer funding)? The elderly respectable long-term incumbent, who happens to be in some electoral trouble for at least a much diminished plurality, is having blame somehow attach to him, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, for nearby shootings around public schools. "Tougher on crime" -- they're urged to support the Tory opponent. Are the shootings related to the opposed Catholic schools? These people are aware of what goes on where when the value of their houses drops by association with nearby violence. Now it's absurd to blame our incumbent minister, as is being at least hinted, for such violent troubles coming from a partcularly troubled segment. It is also unfair to tar your secular schools by association. But not absurd...
As the "very religious person" you are, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt, is it not apparent to you that "secularism" functions partly also as a religious surrogate? If so, then how could you be insensitive to the many self-sacrificing good parents who are not wrong in their choice of differnetial schooling for their own? (Ont. Catholics sacrificed, like current campaigners for equity do now even more, for a century due to disgraceful discrimination.) If you aren't insensitive, and are so concerned about provincial curricula (big fat "green" problem, too, that!), why would you not want math &c to be taught where most effective, and if for many that means a different school, for all kinds of other reasons, some better than others, why would you have paid tax monies withheld from those children? These parents can move most anywhere else in our country and get some funding. Why not Ontario? I know why & what it's the legacy of, and it stinks, & some GPO-ers got trapped into it. But look, you've drawn me into discussing provincial particularities. I'll stop, or try to make it more general & thus more appropriate for here.
Most content of particularisms is not even at issue. If math or geography have proven to be "delivered" well in whatever environment, there should be consideration for public funds, especially if most Canadians already do so, more especially to provide effective service with tax dollars paid. I hope next school year, with likely majority (ugh) victorious (alas) Liberals, fifty thousand or so unfunded religious schoolers finally enrol in the public system to wreak some havoc for the Liberals, then en masse withdraw, the kind of point-making these good people have held back from so patiently for so very long. Add to that the umpteen other independent schoolers stupidly shut out by Tory proposals.
Your accusation about "use [of] the venue to twist children's minds" is truly calumnious. You've a problem with some Christians? So do I. We all have lots of problems with lots of people, even those close to us. Is it unsafe to say that Green tolerance must be filled with the utmost patience & understanding, even willingnesss to learn from those whose teachings we're partly even repelled by? Choose another venue, maybe we can talk religion. Still waiting for your Jesuit...
Bill Davis' funding of Catholic Schools
I lived in Ontario when outgoing Premier Davis made public funding of Catholic schools one of his final decisions, and an unpopular one it was. I remember being repulsed (as were many others) by the way the decision was made: an outgoing premier, no public consultation - simply a unwanted, unpopular decision imposed upon us.
My thinking since then, especially after living in the United States for eight years, has only solidified: no public funding for religious schools. As another poster mentioned, religious schools by nature foster an 'us' and 'them' mentality, hardly the tolerance we seek. And some religious schools are thinly-veiled indoctrination centres for young, impressionable minds, deliberately imprinting values many of us would find highly objectionable.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Davis ditched
I thought to let this lie awhile, but feel compelled by others' prodding it awake. Catholic schools in Ontario were not really Bill Davis' to fund or not fund. Their existence is foundational to your country, whether you like it or not. How many anglos are totally unaware of the history of the overrun French presence in North America, and yet reflexively, in totally failing to grasp what was seminal for our foundation, are impatient with, eg, Quebecers "demands"? If you see a problem with that emotive approach based on lack of understanding, then it takes little to transpose that recognition to historic Ontarian attitudes towards Catholics & their begrudgingly entrenched schools. Only by longstanding discrimination & niggardliness in interpretation of the foundationally legal entrenchment of these schools could what Davis extended have been denied until he did what he did. It was uglier still in Manitoba. I am a fan neither of Tories nor Catholics, but urge others get to some grasp of what's foundational for things that probably all of you as Canadians take for granted, a certain spirit of accomodation, however come by (ie even if in the context of gross discrimination, accomodation for straight pragmatic reasons).
The campaigners against Catholic schools today (that's what they are, however it's worded) are (to be generous, unwitting) descendants of those anti-Catholics attitudes. Just as it is truly passé to lopsidedly favour one specialized constituency, even if foundational, in such a manner to the exclusion of others that have come of age in our time (thus eg our UN embarrassment in the matter); likewise is it to backhandedly flog an old imagined antagonist, Catholic schools. Eg, just consider the straight idiocy of some motivated this way to do away with Catholic schools, where in their smaller jurisdictions more children are attending the Catholic schools to the apparent dertiment of their "secular" ones: more parents have made the choice finally fully available, find something superior to motivate their choice, and so the new minority wants to pull them all back under the umbrella that their fellow citizens chose to come out from under. Why not close the "secular" school & send the kids to the Catholic where there is such a numbers problem? You see, it really is not about education, children are being theoretically forced to do the self-transporting that parents should be doing themselves. Don't know your neighbour? Go say hello yourself, don't try to force their children to come into your school setting to accomplish what you can't find it in yourselves to do yourselves. Parents' own modelling far outwieghs what more sterilely is prescribed to be socially engineered in (already largely problematic) schools. There are many, many unanswerable (I won't say "green" again here, for it should be obvious...) other arguments to defeat this anti-religious approach.
It's unfortunate that Ontarians deserved Davis' unfortunate process to fairness & equity. It's rather revealing that Tories' own main constitutency still have as much trouble with such things (although things are much more complex this time, making it even harder to grasp for the uncomprehending), they didn't like it slipped in by Davis, nor do they like it up front by Tory (most ineptly, but that's not what most didn't like). Let me repeat that one must exercise great caution in Canadians' attempting to learn from American examples. Why not learn from your own British Columbia (which one hopes will teach Ontarians a democratic lesson soon re proportional representation!)? Have decades of partial funding there for differential teaching of math & geography caused poorer, less competent British Columbian & Canadian citizens? I think not. If one would point to the occasional extremist example, look first at the "output" of secular schools' own for other extremisms, then come back & compare (or not).
Let this one go for now. Be sure that, never mind "notwithstanding", maybe even because Liberals campaigned against sensibly extending funding, they should be expected to reverse themselves & find some way to accomodate a justly disaffected group of most responsible citizens. And let's hope it doesn't take Ontario decades to follow B.C. electoral reform as it is taking to relieve gross inequity in education funding. There are far, far better ways to address any vulnerability of Ontario's secular schools, even ones that can strengthen alternatives at the same time. Greens favour monoliths over "alternatives"?
If many Protestants have effectively lost their religion, why urge so much the same to happen for others?
(Does anyone know what other Ontario political bit the title of my comment refers to?)
POLLS 6% NOT NECESSARILY DIFFERENT FROM 10%
Lambton Kent Middlesex EDA (SW Ontario)
When I see poll fluctuations I have to assume that a large part of the fluctuation is polling error. An 8% real value can show up as 6% or 10% and still be wel within polling validity.
It really does not matter to this argument very much, however, if the objective is to build a broad and general acceptance of GPO, we would like to avoid having people concentrate too much on policies that may alienate us from a major segment of the electorate.
Religious schooling has been in Ontario a strongly divisive topic that we prefer not to tackle because we can not win elections by alienating large blocks of voters, even if we can gain the support of a significant block of voters.
Now we could have encouraged public and separate school boards to work to use common facilities to keep costs down, even to ensure that the kids do not grow up in segregated silos. The same for non-catholic religious schools. We could have offered incentives to accomplish that. We could have discussed common classes for most school subjects. What I am discussing is giving local people the opportunity to discuss and negotiate rather than having a provincial body dictate amalgamation. I am talking about leaving it to local option just how fast merging should take place.
We do have other religious schools that have sprung up despite want of funding. What complete absence of funding for those schools does is make them the privilege of those who can afford to pay the cost. Their existence does one thing for the public school system, it takes a few thousand kids out of public schools and so saves the taxpayers the cost of educating them. We could compare this with a medical facility that is privately funded and gives care to those that pay, and so saves the taxpayer the cost of their care. A two tier education system for those who can afford it.
If we were to offer full funding or even say 75% funding, we would see a further shift of students to those schools, from homes that can not afford to send their kids now. These will often be kids that will be mistreated in public schools, by their peers as well as by teachers antagonistic to their value system. So the public school system may become less contentious by their withdrawl. That has its drawbacks. It is not all goodness and light.
But like Catholic schools, those schools too can benefit by an opportunity to use common facilities, share many common classes. This should be encouraged, even given incentives. The kind of incentive I see happening: The religious school is getting 75% funding, whiile the public school is fully funded. When the religious school negotiates for common classes, they save on the cost of providing the classes, as well as not having to provide facilities. They retain the freedom to choose which classes to buy from the public school, but have a solid incentive to go common.
My use of 75% is based on an earlier funding formula for Catholic separate schools. It is low enough to allow for significant incentive to work together, and high enough to cover most non-capital costs. I am not tied up with the exact number.
Now this is not GPO policy. This is a proposal that sustains our preference for local option, but it also allows the same level of freedom for the poorer religious person. It does allow for and encourage having students learn together, but does not compel it.
The GPO policy appears to allow the continuation of schools outside of the public school, does little to encourage them to collaborate with public schools, leaves private schooling the privilege of wealth, and of course alienates a lot of Catholics who will resent having their schools taken over by the public boards. We would likely see CATHOLIC private schools for CATHOLIC families who can afford them.
Full funding as proposed by John Tory likewise provides no stimulus to cooperate with the public boards, but at least it would remove the two tiered education. We would have a single source of funding. It does seem a bit unfair if I take my kids out of the public school system that I should not be able to take to a private school some part of the cost savings to the public board.
Our provincial funding formulas do cut the amount paid to the public school board when the student is not enrolled. We do acknowledge that taking students out of the public school cuts school costs. While we do not want to encourage that, we would like to be reasonably fair to the parents availing themself of that freedom.
Private schools can be real centres of excellence. If they are, our school boards may wish to encourage students to attend, and in this case the school board should be happy to pass on full funding as well as offering facilities and shared classes. This is entirely separate from the question of faith based schooling. Yet it is not. If a faith based school IS one of those centres of excellence, we want to treat it as a centre of excellence, buy its services for interested students.