Hello all,
More on the Ontario pregnancy benefit. I am sorry for the Ontario focus,
maybe we can look at the issue of politics driving health policy and people
could share what is happening else where. It seems in Ontario we are
seeing a radical shift away from public policy for public good and instead
public policy for political gain. I think the recent proposal for the
removal of the nicotine patch and gum from consumer's hands in Ontario is a
hard one to understand as well. How do we get health, economic and social
policy to be driven by evidence?
Anyone have any thoughts?
S
Sherrie Tingley
Barrie Action Committee for Women
[log in to unmask]
----------
From: may uusberg[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 9:01 AM
Subject: OW-WATCH-L Harris polling
There was an interesting article in Eye magazine, and
that's rare, the column, the Park, has again
resurfaced. In the past, the unnamed Queen's Park
insider who writes the column has provided us with
material from the various warring camps of the
provincial Liberals, from the Harris Tories, and last
week, there was a very peculiar expose about an
independent whistle blower.
The following is from today's Eye magazine:
ECONOMIC CLEANSING IN ONTARIO
Harris "gaffe" on welfare moms a cynical ploy
When Mike Harris apologized for his comment about
pregnant welfare moms spending their milk money on
beer, most of us thought he really meant it. Once
again, here was Harris putting his foot in this mouth
only to be followed a few hours later by damage
control from his spin doctors.
But the truth turns out to be very different.
Not only did Harris say exactly what his handlers
wanted him to say, but his so-called gaffe was
specifically designed to win approval from a key
group of voters he needs to get back on side before
next year's election.
eye has learned that, prior to Harris' milk money for
beer comment, the Tory government spent taxpayers'
dollars on public opinion research asking voters if
they would support cutting the benefit.
Public opinion for the measure was so high that, at
first, party insiders didn't believe the results.
More than 70 per cent of voters said they would agree
if the government cut the milk money.
Harris' spin doctors were astounded. Had their dream
of a right-wing revolution in Ontario actually
started to take root? If so, how ruthless could they
become?
To confirm their findings, selected voters were
further probed, using government-sponsered focus
groups. Groups of 10 to 12 middle-class voters were
invited to share their views on welfare cuts while
their reactions were monitored carefully through
one-way glass by Harris' spin doctors.
To their astonishment, these groups repeated that
most middle-class Ontarians(the haves) were prepared
to make the poor(have-nots)suffer more. Some of the
most vicious comments came from the so-called soccer
moms in the 905 suburban belt surrounding Toronto.
They asked: "If these women were already on welfare,
why are they getting pregnant, and why should we pay
for them?"
After all, in the 'burbs, both parents have to work
to pay the mortgage and taxes and then spend any free
time loading the van up with kids for hockey or
soccer practice.
So why should taxpayers pay for welfare moms to sit
around partying and getting pregnant? Who even has
time
for sex any more, unless you're on welfare?
Harris was delighted. After his public humiliation at
the hands of the Dionne sisters, here was a perfect
opportunity to make amends with the female suburban
voters he had pissed off.
But there's more.
To soften the backlash from Harris' comment that
pregnant women on welfare would rather drink beer
than eat healthier food, the strategy was to issue an
apology for the comment just in time for the story on
the 6 o'clock news to be about the apology, with the
original comment in the background.
After all, no one who says they would beat up on
welfare moms in a focus group really wants to gloat
about it on TV. We don't really feel that way about
the poor, do we? At least not openly.
Thus Harris was able to bash welfare moms and at the
same time look like a mortal human being, open to
gaffes, just like you and me.
The only difference between the statement and the one
about the Dionee sisters is that Harris polled the
public after his comment about the Dionnes. Whe
public opinion quickly moved to the Dionnes, Harris
just as quickly reversed himself and publicly
apologized to them.
This time, in the ultra-cynical politics of Harris ,
he was able to manipulate all of us, twice in the
same day, on the same issue.
Who says you can't fool all the people all of the
time?
Not Mike Harris.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
|
