Poll shows Tory support waning in Ontario's 905
The fast-growing region surrounding Toronto is one of two key battlegrounds over the coming weeks
KAREN HOWLETT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
September 19, 2007 at 5:12 AM EDT
TORONTO — Support for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is eroding in the vote-rich 905 region, former premier Mike Harris's political stronghold and a key battleground in the election campaign.
The Conservatives' support in the 905 suburbs, named for the area code they share, has declined five points from the 2003 election to 38 per cent, according to a poll conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV.
The 905 is the fastest-growing region in Ontario and is making the transition from a suburban to a urban area. The survey suggests that the Conservative Party has not kept up with this change and has not been able to broaden its base of support under leader John Tory. It remains the party of choice for older, wealthier, less-educated men who predominantly live in rural and small-town Ontario, the survey says.
"The problems of the inner city are becoming more prevalent there," the Strategic Counsel's Tim Woolstencroft said. "It's becoming less suburban, so it's much more receptive to Liberal messaging."
He said the 905 region is one of two battlegrounds in the election. The other is Southwestern Ontario.
In the 905, the Tories won eight of the 25 ridings in 2003. They have to reclaim seats they lost to the Liberals in the region in the last election, he said, and the Liberals have to "beat back" the Green Party, whose support has climbed four points to 6 per cent.
The Strategic Counsel poll shows support for the Liberals at 49 per cent in the region, up from 47 per cent in 2003.
It was the 905 where Mr. Harris made his political breakthrough in 1995, when he swept to office on a promise to cut taxes. But the Liberals under Dalton McGuinty spent much of the past four years restoring cuts that the Conservatives had made to health care and education.
"In 1995, 905 was all about tax cuts, and in 2003, it was all about reinvesting in social services, and in 2007, health care and education still seem to be the No. 1 and No. 2 issues," said David Docherty, a professor of political science at Wilfrid Laurier University.
Mr. Woolstencroft said support for the Conservatives could slip across the province because Mr. Tory's unpopular proposal to bring faith-based schools into the public system is "dead on arrival" for a large majority of Ontarians. The survey shows that 71 per cent of voters oppose it, including a majority of Conservatives.
More Ontarians said Mr. Tory would make a better premier than the incumbent, Mr. McGuinty. And Mr. Tory's popularity - at 37 per cent - exceeds support for his own party, which remains virtually unchanged at 34 per cent.
The survey of 850 Ontarians was conducted from Sept. 13 to Sept. 16, and is considered accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, 95 per cent of the time.
The policy to extend public funding to Jewish, Muslim and other religious schools is the "big factor" holding Mr. Tory back, Mr. Woolstencroft said. It's distracting him from the issues on which he wants to campaign, including Mr. McGuinty's broken promises, he added. "It's an emotional issue. It's a religious issue. It has all the ingredients of not working for him."
The campaign, now in its second week, is revolving around two issues: funding for religious schools and Mr. McGuinty's broken promises, including the $2.6-billion annual health premium he introduced in 2004 after campaigning the year before on a pledge not to raise taxes.
A majority want a change of government because they believe the Liberals have broken too many promises, the survey shows.
Three-quarters of those polled said the Liberals have broken too many promises. Moreover, this sentiment was shared by 66 per cent of Liberal voters who indicated they could switch their support to the Tories.
-------------------
i don't see this as a minor issue at all and neither do a lot of people. personally, i think tory could've blow this election out of the water if it wasn't for this issue that has really bit him on the ass.
too bad the number 1 issues in these elections weren't about cities and transportation (public transit).
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Guys, keep in mind that neither McGuinty nor Tory are really pushing for the "separation of church and state".
McGuinty is pushing for status quo (only the Catholic schools get government funding). Tory is pushing for equity (all schools get it). If I had to pick one, I'd say that Tory's position is the lesser of two evils. At least it gets rid of the discrimination/double-standard that's been accepted for so long.
I'd also prefer to see all religious school funding thrown out, but be realistic, you all know that no party could ever get elected on such a platform.
so where does the money come from to give all these schools?
dEsidEL
i'm not sure if things have changed over the years, but i had some friends attend Catholic school back when I was in highschool who weren't Catholic. Granted, they were required to attend liturgies during school assemblies and what not, but they weren't forced to accept the religion by any means. It's funny, because at the time it seemed that a lot of the Catholic highschools were receiving more funding than the public highschools in my area. I know that there were several programs that I wouldn't have had the opportunity to participate in had I not changed schools part-way through.
ShadoWolf
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
so where does the money come from to give all these schools?
*long*
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by DigiNut
Guys, keep in mind that neither McGuinty nor Tory are really pushing for the "separation of church and state".
McGuinty is pushing for status quo (only the Catholic schools get government funding). Tory is pushing for equity (all schools get it). If I had to pick one, I'd say that Tory's position is the lesser of two evils. At least it gets rid of the discrimination/double-standard that's been accepted for so long.
I'd also prefer to see all religious school funding thrown out, but be realistic, you all know that no party could ever get elected on such a platform.
The truth of the matter is that the only way to end funding for the RC system is by way of a constitutional ammendment... we've seen several times now how well things go when you try to open up the constitution. As a result I am willing to accept the status quo until such time as ammending the constitution is possible. While I understand your point regarding "fairness" I cannot agree with it nor do I see it as the lesser of two evils. The idea of supporting religious education, moreover, segragating children on religious lines using state funds is deplorable IMO. I have to vote my conscious on this one, as I'm sure you will vote yours, and I respect that.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Just from the images it appears to me that the freedom party basically is stating that each household pays tuition to which ever school the kid goes to.
The increased costs for people to do this would be huge....just look at the cost of university....I could see many lower income families not sending their kids to school because they can't afford the tuition.
This would be great for someone like me who has no kids...then I wouldn't be dishing out education taxes but I still think we have a duty as citizens to help educate the children.
Jayx1
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The real shame is that you would be so arrogant as to try to tell someone else what is or is not an issue worth basing their decision on. What makes you think that just because you deem something to be unimportant it should be disregarded by others. I am a firm believer in the seperation of church and state. I do not believe that there should be any state funding for any religious program or education in any way or form EVER. I detest that the Roman Catholic faith (my faith incidently) receives funding for religiously segragated education, however, given that that would take a constitutional ammendment to change I understand that it is outside of the pervey of the provincial goverment. That said, I certainly do not think the proper way to address such an aggregious wrong is to expand said wrong. There should be no funding from state coffers for religious anything and I am unwilling to support any party that would offer it, moreover, I'm willing to vote for a party I'd rather not see in power just to ensure that does not happen. As far as I'm concerned the person who has the best chance of ensuring that funding for religiously segragated schoold does not happen is the best candidate.
How dare you presume to tell someone how to vote.
when i say "minor" i mean that based on numbers. Whether talking about money or student numbers its a very minor issue. Now obviously if you feel as strong as you do about this then you should be campaigning against catholic school funding as well.
As for telling you how to vote. Obviously i cant force anyone to do anything. But the suggestion is definately there and i make no apologies for attacking your justifications just as others do to me.
It's called debating.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Jayx1
when i say "minor" i mean that based on numbers. Whether talking about money or student numbers its a very minor issue. Now obviously if you feel as strong as you do about this then you should be campaigning against catholic school funding as well.
As for telling you how to vote. Obviously i cant force anyone to do anything. But the suggestion is definately there and i make no apologies for attacking your justifications just as others do to me.
It's called debating.
I am firmly against catholic school funding as well, however, opening up the constitution is bad news.
No, debating would involve you submitting evidence to disprove my position that funding religious schools is contrary to the doctrine of seperation of church and state, or, arguing that the seperation of church and state is not a valid or important doctrine (both of which are valid points of debate). What you did was dismiss my convictions out of hand, likely because they don't match with yours. That is arrogance pure and simple; if it isn't important to you then clearly it is unimportant et al. Do you see the difference?
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
et al.
I'll et al you if you don't watch it
TO guy
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
so where does the money come from to give all these schools?
When you pay property taxes you are able to choose which stream your school funding goes to.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by TO guy
When you pay property taxes you are able to choose which stream your school funding goes to.
I am aware of that....it was more a question of where does all the extra money going to come from to give to the new religous schools that would qualify for funding? The money is either going to be taken from the public schools or is going to be taken from tax payers via increases in our tax dollars.
TO guy
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I am aware of that....it was more a question of where does all the extra money going to come from to give to the new religous schools that would qualify for funding? The money is either going to be taken from the public schools or is going to be taken from tax payers via increases in our tax dollars.
Ah. It "could" stay the same, and just be spread more thin ....
But that likely will not happen, and I think you are right there will be a tax increase.
