Talk:Mike Harris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	Ontario Portal This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Someone put up a picture of Hitler in place of Harris. That is just pathetic.

You make mention of Harris's cuts to healthcare and education (there's no way to avoid mentioning them, in fact). However, the record here ought to show that, during his first election campaign, he plainly and repeatedly said that he would not cut either healthcare or education. [Otherwise it looks like the people of Ontario supported his disregard for the well-being of the citizens... it looks like they voted for cuts to vital social programs.] He knew that if he campaigned on an upfront pledge to cut healthcare, he'd never see the inside of Queen's Park -- no one wanted health cuts! So he had to lie about the actual contents of his "Common Sense Revolution" in order to sell it to the voters. And we paid for his lies with Walkerton and the Aylmer meat scandal...

Perhaps he was counting on the public's short memory and short attention span, but his campaign "promises" are all there in the back issues of the daily papers: his repeated falsehoods are preserved in black and white for those who can be bothered to look them up.

• • Health care funding went up from $17.4 B to more than $25 B. So he kept that promise.

On education the promise was not to cut the classroom portion of spending, but he definitely promised to cut non-classroom spending, which he did.

Not just a funding issue on Education! He introduced standardization (EQAO) and introduced mandatory credits aimed at controlling youth through education. His lasting effect still hurts students to this day - I am one of them. He may not be Hitler - but he certainly was going towards Dictator status! (Yohowithrum 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

That figure hides the fact that Health care funding was cut massively early in the term, so much so that money had to be poured in to fix the problem. AndyL 13:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Michael Dean Harris 2 Socialist Encyclopedia! 3 905 region? 4 Titles 5 Candidate? 6 Conservative apologists 7 Some balance, perhaps? 8 Yet more balance 9 Skydome incident 10 balanced budget, or deficit? 11 Elaborate welfare state? 12 Toes yes, Dunn info, no

[edit] Michael Dean Harris

Is his middle name really Dean? I can't find a reference to this anywhere. The initial is certainly "D.".

Actually it appears to be "Deane," according to a Google search (while a search for Michael Dean Harris picks up this article and other websites that use it). Adam Bishop 20:51, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Encyclopedia!

There is nothing here positive about the Conservatives and the Ontario Progessive Party here. There is much bias in this encyclopedia on the liberals and other socialist's sides. As an encyclopedia you should have a neutral perspective on all historical facts. This favoring of the left wing shows that this encyclopedia will never make it to the print

As a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party, I don't see how this entry is biased. All of the information printed here is factual, as far as I know. If you have a specific beef, please point it out. Timc 20:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to agree with the original poster - when you look at this profile in comparison to the profiles of the following Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty, or the previous NDP Premier Bob Rae, there is a very obvious slant.

While the profile on McGuinty makes note of the (disputed) $5.6bn deficit inherited from the Conservative government, Harris' profile makes no mention of the more than $10bn deficit inherited from the Rae government. While every critique of the Harris government has a voice in his profile, there is no mention of the hundreds of broken promises under McGuinty's government (only the health-tax is mentioned), and the strong resentment of the Rae government's term of office is glossed over with excuses about the North American economy. And so it is throughout - excuses made for Liberal/Socialist governments, and harsh criticisms of the conservatives.

Sorry Mr. Murdoch, Rupert that is. Or perhaps since this is a Canadian politician a Canadian conservative media mogul would be better. Sorry Mr. Black. Go read your National Post

Please, let's be real about the cries of bias. You clearly want to represent the Harris years as somehow socially progressive when the record of the facts doesn't bear this out. It concerns me that the Harris article fails to offer an argument that Harris was one of the first examples of a sweeping neo-liberal ideological movement in Canada, nor does the Ipperwash part of the article make mention of the important fact that he possess the self-serving proclivity for selective forgetting/remembering when under oath. If anything, the article is biased toward softening Harris's ultra-conservative politics in order to remove contention. The initial writer's offense is likely the result of an infamiliarity with a critical engagement in politics beyond the received reportage of mainstream (corporate owned) media. Cries of socialism are absurd, without merit, purely polemical, (perhaps the writer should look up the Wikipedia entry on socialism) and point to the writer's lack of political vocabulary and ideological entrenchment in a particular point of view.

If you have a problem, go to http://www.conservapedia.com/. (Yohowithrum 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 905 region?

In paragraph six of the writings current state it reads "Most of his support came from the wealthy "905 region" of Toronto's suburbs". Is this a reference to the 905 area codes in GTA versus the location of the 416 area codes? Can someone elaborate on this, I would just like to take it out because it makes no sense. I think it should be replaced by "Most of his support came from the more affluent regions of Toronto". --Mikeroodeus 19:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok I edited the article to more reflect what I think the "905 region" means. There didn't appear to be any one who contends the change so I guess it is acceptable or maybe not. I felt that the use of the term "905 region" wasn't from a NPOV it was from a Canadian point of view, specifically the point of view of Canadians who know where the "905 region" is located. I think the sentence that replaced the original has a more univerally understandable version of the same content.--Mikeroodeus 05:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does 905 really constitute the "more affluent regions of Toronto"? I submit it was in fact the aspirational middle class of 905 that held the political sway that kept Mr. Harris in power. His neo-conservatism spoke to those voters and they responded at the polls, while many quite wealthy downtown regions showed inconsistent Tory support. Keep in mind that the neo-conservative bent of the Harris campaigns and some of the curious economic arguments did not always resonate with the old money traditional Conservative minds at the time.--TW- 15:38, 24 Aug 2004 (EST)

That's a tough call. Toronto (former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto) do have more of the very wealthiest citizens of the GTA than the 905 suburbs; Rosedale, etc. But Toronto also has Regent Park, Jane-Finch, Parkdale, and other very poor areas -- and I'd make an educated guess, based on many years of work in poverty (see my resume, linked from Madmagic) that there are a lot more poor people in Toronto than in 905.

So... if both the above are true, to contrast the 905/416 split as a battle between the aspiring middle class and the rich would be a distortion of the truth. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe it as a conflict between the lower middle class and aspiring working class -- and everyone else? The majority of Harris supporters I've met were lower middle class or aspiring working class.

The thing about 905 region is not true at all. Although some are wealthy like richmond hill and woodbridge, Harris support came from people outside the GTA. In fact this is the reason why conservatives can never get votes in the GTA. If you look at a canadian election map you will see the toronto area never votes for conservatives because of mike harris. He got all his support from rural areas and smaller cities in Ontario.

[edit] Titles

Does anyone know what his titles and postnominals are? If so, they should be added to his name on the first line of the article. I assume he is "the honourable'" has at least one university degree, and might be a member of the Privy Council. -Arctic.gnome 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate?

It says, "In late 2003, he made a speech in Halifax which many believed was the unofficial launch of a campaign to lead the new Conservative Party of Canada. Within weeks, however, he unexpectedly announced his decision to drop out of the race." How can one drop out of a race one never entered? Srnec 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative apologists

The article has changed significantly in its portrayal of Harris in the last few edits. Although certain arguments for Harris' actions were added (improving the article), removal of several critisms and the introduction of typographical errors degrade the article. I am reverting (because of the removal of content)—the contributor or others can make the additions again. — Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  03:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some balance, perhaps?

I was the author of some of those changes (not the typos, I hope!). I am not a Harris supporter; I support some of his policies, and deplore others. I was, however, shocked at the one-sided nature of the previous article.

Harris was a controversial figure who invariably attracted intense support from some 35-40% of the electorate, and intense opposition from roughly the same number. It is a disservice to readers not to give them the benefit of both sides. For example, to start off by saying his policies involved "steep cuts to medicare" is completely inaccurate when the effect of his first term, and even more so of his second term, was a massive increase in health spending. In fact, even to say he was all about 'cuts' is questionable when in the end his term resulted in little or no reduction to the overall size of government spending (something criticized to this day by some conservatives).

The previous article's essential pattern was 'Harris cut this, and critics said...." Fair enough, but as you say it is important to understand his arguments and the context. Even language such as 'slashed' is questionable, when 'cut' or 'reduced' are clearly more neutral.

I didn't even touch some things that are trivial -- e.g., teachers booing him at an event in 1998 (!) -- but added material on developments that had a far larger impact on the province, such as the launch of Telehealth Ontario or changes to R&D programs. It's a sign of the lack of objectivity about Harris that 'Bearcat' quickly removed references to these major programs, and restored biased wording about labour unions and a host of other things.

The only criticisms I removed were things that were non-neutral, inaccurate or unverifiable (e.g.,"Many believe that this issue damaged the party's reputation for supporting "ordinary Ontarians"; OR "despite having campaigned against this in 1999" OR "new funding formula cripped school services"). In some cases, I also edited the article to put material on similar things together.

I stand by all my revisions, and have readily accepted wording proposed by others. I think the result is a picture that far more objective, accurate and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.

WHO are you?Freiherrin (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more balance

I reconize that I made quite a few changes, and that some people may diagree. But if you look carefully, I think you'll find that pretty much everything I worked on was promoting a certain point of view, either directly or through weasel words. I have tried very hard to make things more neutral, and would appreciate a discussion of possible alterations rather than going for wholesale reverts. I also think this is an articles that could use a LOT of citations...I put in a few requests and will be attempting to fill them.Schrodingers Mongoose 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skydome incident

Edited the reference to the Mandela and the Children event; it seemed to imply that teachers were booing with the student. In fact, our teachers were mortified and begged us to shut up. Carolynparrishfan 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I modified this to be neutral, since we don't have any proof of who booed and who didn't on an individual basis. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No proof? It would appear that Carolynparrishfan was an actual witness at the event. --Mark Alfred 05:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So was I. Single eyewitness accounts are not encyclopedic evidence. There was booing. There was also cheering. Can you prove who was doing what? Me either. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While not in the country at the time (I heard about the event via the internet), I later overheard some teachers who were well known to be non-conservatives boast about refusing to keep their politics out of the classroom, such as telling some young students that Harris 'represented all that was bad about Apartheid-era South Africa.' Quite an influence, wouldn't you agree? 65.92.201.34 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] balanced budget, or deficit?

Harris's government balanced the provincial budget, although its critics contend that cuts in taxes caused a drop in revenues, which in turn led to renewed budget deficits after Harris resigned.

I'm not sure exactly what this means. You've identified a contention of Harris critics, and then quite definitively declared it a truth which "led to renewed budget deficits after Harris resigned."

How long did it take after he resigned for the drop in tax revenues to cause a deficit? If it was years, this would reflect poorly on any subsequent governments' handling of the finances, and not Mike Harris', would it not? Mike Harris was leader for two terms, and, from your article, began with tax cuts; so, if there was no deficit, after Mike Harris' two whole terms in office with tax cuts, surely it was not the drop in revenues that would cause a future deficit, but rather the handling of the finances of subsequent goverments of Ontario, right?

How large was the deficit? If it was in the billions, and was discovered mere months after Mike Harris left office, then surely you're mistaken to claim that "Harris' government balanced the provincial budget". Or, if the deficit was discovered years after Harris left office, then surely you're mistaken to proclaim the critics' contentions as truth. In such a case, a future deficit would be the fault of subsequent governments.

So, please let us know when the deficit was discovered. And, please let us know how large it was.

--Mark Alfred 05:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think this may have to go...revenues didn't drop under Harris; they rose significantly. If no one can show otherwise, I will remove this later this week. Schrodingers Mongoose 03:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference 3, which follows the passage about revenues, is a 198 page budget document. Is it fair to ask for a page reference as well? --Wanderer57 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elaborate welfare state?

My comment is about this sentence from the Leadership section:

"Before Harris, the Ontario PC leadership (typified by figures such as Bill Davis) was Red Tory in nature, being politically centrist and largely responsible for the elaborate welfare state that had been created in Ontario during the party's many decades in power." (emphasis added)

The assertion that Ontario was an elaborate welfare state needs review. It is a statement I would expect from someone on the far right of the Canadian political spectrum. I think it's a long way off from neutral. Wanderer57 18:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's accurate given the massive scope of these programs compared to the start of Davis's time in power, but probably not the best way of putting it. Blotto Adrift's change seems fine. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. Blotto Adrift's wording is a definite improvement. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have posted here first / as well. Glad it's OK. Blotto adrift (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toes yes, Dunn info, no

Wanderer57 left in the shatteringly important news that Harris was suspected of having six toes, but deleted the reference to his then-girlfriend Sharon Dunn's husband's suspicious death. At the time that his relationship was revealed there was rather a storm in the media, since Sikura supposedly had ties to "the mob" (which one? one of them). I guess the toes are more newsworthy.Freiherrin (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave my reason for deleting the "suspicious death" part of the article in an edit summary. "(I'm removing this addition because I think 1) it sensationalizes an accidental death, and 2) it is only vaguely related to the article.)" I think the item is questionable under the Wikipedia BLP policy.

I don't agree that the "six toes" story was more newsworthy. ;o) I didn't compare the two items at all. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)