Greenbelt flip-flop good politics or sign of weakness?
Re Hubris, and fantasy, Editorial, May 3
After a leaked video of PC Leader Doug Ford pledging to developers that, as their premier, he’d allow them to build on the Greenbelt, Conservative candidates in the GTHA were flooded with angry constituents’ objections.
Realizing he risked losing seats crucial to his election, Ford attempted an ungainly flip-flop. He claimed that “after consultations with the people of Ontario,” he wouldn’t touch the Greenbelt. He equates “consultations” with widespread public outcry against secret deals with developers. Will he favour us with more “consultations” on other backroom deals he has concealed from us? Penny Gill, Dundas Herein lies the rub. The Star criticizes Doug Ford for saying the people spoke and he listened about the Greenbelt. You then lecture him on responsible government.
Unfortunately, you ignore recent history. Eighteen months ago, the people spoke to the responsible government about hydro rates. The government, on the cusp of an election, replied by lowering rates. Your editorial on March 1, 2017 (“Plan to cut hydro rates is a reasonable response to real pain”) praised the government response.
After praising the government for a decision in response to the people, you have no right to lecture Doug Ford in the same circumstance. Alan McDonald, Trenton PC Leader Doug Ford’s promise to open up the Greenbelt for development and his subsequent reversal days later was politically clumsy, but he does deserve credit for abandoning a bad idea.
As is often the case for politicians, Ford is being criticized for flip-flopping on an idea, as if this is a sign of weakness or an indication of being untrustworthy.
But consider the alternative. Would we really want a politician to stubbornly stick to a bad idea just to avoid being accused of flip-flopping? Don’t we want leaders who, when confronted with the error of their ways, will change their position? David G. Williams, Toronto