Those of us who have been around for a while will remember a well known poster from the Kennedy campaign of 1960. It was infamous…cutting, persuasive and incisive. It showed a picture of Richard Nixon with a rather evil looking sneer and asked the question, “Would YOU buy a used car from this man?” Why was it so effective? It worked because it reminded everyone that trust should be an essential element in the relationship between the candidate and the voters. If you couldn’t trust this guy enough to buy a used car from him, should you vote for him in the election?
The issue of trust is critically important in every election but particularly more so in this age of disinformation, misinformation and downright lies. Candidates map out a campaign strategy to reach out to potential voters and convince them that they deserve their trust, that they are the best choice to govern. Parties develop platforms of promises, some wildly unrealistic and others closer to the mark. They campaign in many ways, reaching out and hoping to establish a connection to each voter, to persuade them to consider them the best choice for the job of governing. Voters are left with the task of separating the wheat from the chaff and pinpointing their choice.
There are many different ways to campaign and there is not one method that is best for everyone. Door to door visits can be effective in a limited way. You may have an individual’s undivided attention in a brief contact and an opportunity to present your platform and ideas. You establish quick contact and present your talking points, unimpeded by the presence of an alternate point of view. If, as so often happens, you choose to campaign door to door in a safe location where you know voters have supported you or your party before, it is a feel good exercise. But is it enough?
Since the 1960 Presidential campaign started the trend of televised debates, voters in North America, have come to expect that candidates will participate in public debates and all candidates’ meetings. It is an opportunity to judge how the candidates compare to each other and to ask questions about the issues that are important to individuals and communities. It means some candidates will need to move beyond their personal level of comfort and address issues that they might prefer to avoid.
Which brings us to the current election.
Like it or not, the PC is the incumbent party, and they are running on their record. That is unavoidable and universal in a modern election process. If you have a good record, you may have an easier ride to the polls. People know you did a good job before; they have developed trust in your judgement and ability, and they will vote for you. But you have a problem if you have lost the trust of the public, and if you are potentially seen as unfit to govern. You have no choice but to run on your record.
That brings us to the current moment. The Ford government called a mid-winter election out of sequence with the standard. And, not having a popular platform to stand on, they have tried to control the narrative. In a very opportunistic way, they have tried to frame this election as a “David and Goliath” battle between Doug Ford and Donald Trump with Canadian sovereignty at stake. And that story is what they want to talk about in their campaign.
Local candidates have received direction from the Party that they should not attend All Candidates’ Meetings or Town Halls where they may have to answer difficult questions from voters. They want to avoid questions about issues where they have a failing record. Because there is no doubt that for the average Ontarian, the PC government has a failing grade. On Healthcare, Housing, the Environment, Public Services, and other files they have chosen to emphasize urban programs and ignore people in rural ridings. They have taken for granted that voters in those rural areas will support them….because “they always do.” It is somewhat ironic that Doug Ford is the leader of a party that praises fiscal conservatism and yet, according to the Fraser Institute, he continues to accumulate debt at an alarming rate. His expensive brain waves are costing us dearly, including multibillion-dollar projects like beer in the corner store, a highway that will destroy more farmland and benefit Toronto developers the most, a spa in downtown Toronto for the rich, destroying the Ontario Science Centre and now, digging a $100 billion tunnel under the 401. Rural voters will pay for these projects yet will have next to no benefit from them. As far as Toronto is concerned, to many rural voters it seems that, “We pay, and you play!” Ford is actually a spendthrift. . Is anyone really buying the tale that Doug Ford is out there saving Canada…while Ontario goes to hell in a hand basket?
The recent $200 “bribe” cheques delivered to all Ontarians over the past several weeks were all paid for with borrowed money. Many of us are concerned about that debt and the interest that will be involved.
So, what does all this mean for the residents of Grey and Bruce counties? In both the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Huron-Bruce ridings, there were several All Candidates’ meetings. In Owen Sound the meeting focused on both healthcare and the environment. Others emphasized farming and the economy. This would give voters a chance to hear directly from the candidates on many of the issues affecting our rural communities. Voters have been outraged that Paul Vickers and Lisa Thompson followed the Ford party’s marching orders and did not attend meetings where the PC record would be on display, and where the difficult questions would likely arise and so they said they had other things to do, and they avoided talking to the voters. Candidates for the other three parties with seats in the legislature, Liberal, NDP, and Green, all attended these meetings…but not the PC candidates.
What does this mean for the future? If the Ford party is re-elected, will Vickers and Thompson really represent the constituents of these ridings? Or will they take their marching orders from the party and ignore our needs? They took marching orders on the issue of the meetings; it might be reasonable to expect another 4 years of slavish adherence to orders from the party. Can we trust them to work to restore Healthcare, Education, and other services to us or will we once again get the dirty end of the stick that has been our fate for the past 7 years?
I don’t know about you, but I am going to buy some gloves; that stick can get awfully dirty.
Brenda Scott
Co-chair, Grey-Bruce Health Coalition
You have really hit the nail on the head.! I have voted conservative for many years but NOT this year! This government has let us down in so many ways. I thank you so much for all the work you have done for our healthcare and continue to do.
Right on. I tried really hard to be well informed for this election, listening online to the 2 different leaders’ debates. All Doug Ford wanted to talk about was that he was the only one able to stand up to DT in the states. This technically isn’t part of his job description as a provincial premier unless he is working with other premiers and the federal government of Canada. He has no solutions for our most pressing problems, but this does not necessarily mean he won’t be voted in for a 3rd term since a convicted felon is now President of the US.
I also attended the local candidates debate at Harmony Centre. Vickers did not attend. The others running for an accredited party all spoke well and had studied the issues carefully. All who took the time to attend were aware of that. My problem is not with any who attended but with those who didn’t. And that includes not just the candidates but the voters. If you are too apathetic to listen, learn and stand on guard for what you believe in then you will be just living with the consequences of that.