Dealing with an issue - a comparison

Let's face reality - expecting a party's political platform to agree with one's preferences 100% just isn't going to happen. So, how do you go about choosing what party to support during an election?

I would suggest looking at how they go about adressing problems. While their conclusions may not be exactly what you want, you can get a pretty good idea of the thought process, and can readily see who is at least looking closest to the right direction.

So, let's apply this to today's highlight.

The problem to be addressed: a kid was stabbed outside a school in Scarborough.

Here's how the party leaders address the problem:

Dalton McGuinty: "Let's ban handguns in Ontario." Someone is going to have to point out to "the Education Premier" that handguns aren't typically used to stab people. Sarcasm aside, we see a party that avoids the issue and shifts responsibility for a specific crime to an inanimate object that isn't even used in the crime under discussion. Dalton's response to the proposal that schools have metal detectors and security guards is equally revealing. "Such a move, he said, would amount to the Americanization of schools in Ontario. I see that as an absolute last resort.” America, bad. Let's remember where this crime took place - Ontario. At last check, that wasn't under US jurisdiction. Its also interesting that the Premier chooses to diss his jurisdiction's largest trading partner in a discussion that has nothing to to with the USA. It is equally instructive that a proposal that would physically ensure that weapons are not on school grounds is dismissed outright for no reason other than it has been tried in a few schools in the USA. The USA does get the odd thing right after all. They feed a good chunk of the world and bail out other countries on a regular basis, with zero expectation of reciprocity. You could do much worse than the US as a neighbour. In summary, the Liberal approach is to avoid anything reality based and slag our largest customer, even though they are uninvolved in the topic at hand. Look the other way and pay no attention to a reality based solution. I would suggest that we could probably do better that that approach.

Howard Hampton: "Schools need to have enough supervisors. They need to have strategies to deal with kids, particularly teenagers who are high risk. That's not happening, despite the fact that Dalton McGuinty promised to fix the school funding formula.” So, if we are to follow the NDP line of thought, the solution to a kid getting stabbed is to throw more money at school boards. Again, we see avoiding the issue and a failure to deal directly with it.

John Tory: "... introduce a range of issues to combat youth violence, ranging from after-school and mentoring programs to tighter conditions for receiving bail." Well, this isn't my 100% preferred approach either, but its definitely a better than the other two. Mentoring programs - well, that at least merits some discussion. It has potential to get kids going in the right direction. After school programs - I suppose if the kids are in a controlled environment, its much less likely they will be on either end of a crime. OK, again there could be improvements, but its not completely unrealistic. Tighter conditions for receiving bail - Well, since the majority of major crimes in the GTA were committed by those either out on bail or with a criminal record again the thought of keeping those most likely to be committing the crime off the streets a bit longer does seem at least reasonable and logical.


Three contrasting approaches to a problem. The Tories are the only ones willing to try to address the issue and have proposed some things that are concrete and reality based.

Closest to my approach is clearly the Tories on this one.

Shame on you if you fool me once...

Shame on me if you fool me twice.