Of all the objectives that Freedom Party has set for itself, possibly the single, most satisfying accomplishment we can add to our growing list of accomplishments is that --- for the electorate in London, Ontario, at least --- we created a choice. As acknowledged by the election day editorial cartoon in the London Free Press, Freedom Party uncontestably left its mark in the political community.

In a campaign where an electoral showing (let alone victory) was obviously beyond our grasp, we made no election promises that we couldn't keep. In fact, our only promise came in the form of a commitment to remain active in the community between elections, in the same way we demonstrated our community activity during the period preceding the election.

Particularly pleasing was the manner in which Freedom Party was treated by the local media. Although the press was aware of our electoral expectations, our past record of community activity --- and its political results --- evidently persuaded it to treat us as a mainstream political party. Freedom Party received fair and extensive media coverage during the election period, including even special featurettes which appeared on television and in the newspapers. And on radio, it wasn't uncommon to find that a Freedom Party candidate was the only person quoted or given an aired comment following an all-candidates debate.

Though it may seem a little biased for us to say so, Freedom Party members, supporters, and volunteers can be proud of the fact that the party's first slate of election candidates were among the most professional, well-spoken, and marketable candidates to appear on the provincial election scene in 1985. In fact, when it came to the three London ridings, the only other candidate of comparable stature (political philosophies aside) was Liberal leader David Peterson (London Centre), whose political performance evidently compensated well for his party's lack of political direction and substance.

Representing Freedom Party in London Centre was Michelle McColm, an executive secretary who, in addition to holding a B.A. from the University of Western Ontario, is also a qualified fitness instructor. McColm's reasons for running as a Freedom Party candidate stemmed from her own personal aspiration to be economically and personally independent. She feels that women, particularly, need that "freedom of choice" option in both economic and personal spheres.

No stranger to Freedom Party over the past year and a half of its activities, McColm has been politically active in local Freedom Party campaigns, such as its No-Tax for Pan-Am campaign, and is a contributor to the party's upcoming anti-censorship newsletter, Censorship Alert!, which will have its first issue published and released to subscribers and the media this fall. McColm's overall campaign objective was to get others involved in local issues --- people who, like herself, would be working with Freedom Party between elections.

As a consequence of Liberal leader David Peterson's activities outside his own riding, London Centre proved to be a somewhat less advantageous forum for promoting the ideas of Freedom Party than might otherwise have been expected. Since Peterson, in his first election as Liberal party leader, was seldom available for local all-candidates debates, they were held at a minimum, usually with a stand-in representing Peterson himself.

When Peterson was around, however, he complimented Fp candidate Michelle McColm as being an ideally marketable representative --- and the compliment was repeated on more than one occasion. At one all-candidates debate, no less than five Liberal supporters went out of their way to greet and congratulate McColm on her excellent performance as a candidate, causing one of them to comment "I'm virtually in agreement with everything you say --- but isn't Freedom Party really a 'movement', rather than a political party?"

Evidently, even supporters of other political parties were able to discern the fundamental difference between Freedom Party and its political competition --- A CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY.

Admittedly, as Freedom Party's only female candidate, an onus was placed on McColm to highlight why the party could be seen as a viable political alternative to those concerned with "women's issues": "All that the atrocious policies of the major three parties do for women is to make them more dependent on government and subsidies. Until we see more competition, more economic freedom, women are going to see fewer choices in the job market. Freedom Party is the only party advocating these alternatives."

As an established member of the small business community, London North candidate Robert Smeenk could speak from experience when advocating his "freedom of choice" alternative to the electorate: "Just for being a businessman --- a produced creative, efficient and competent member of the community --- I've been exploited, denounced, and abused, in ways that most people may never even expect. Rules and regulations as long as my arm, dreamed up by someone whom I thought certainly must not have a shred of common sense, finally got me so upset that I threw up my arms and said 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!' --- that's when I got involved with Freedom Party."

A long-time supporter of Freedom Party, Smeenk (who by the way, can be credited with naming our party newsletter the Freedom Flyer) earned the respect of both the press and the public through what was termed by the press as his "persuasive" advocacy of less government intervention and more individual freedom and responsibility.

Unlike the other two London ridings, London North did not have the attraction of political heavyweights like Gordon Walker or David Peterson to add to the spice of the debates. But in another riding where the three traditional candidates agreed on virtually every issue, Fp candidate Robert Smeenk had no difficulty in illustrating Freedom Party's points of difference from the others.

The Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats all believed in government "job creation", though they had minor differences on just how the government might go about doing that. All three candidates fully supported the extension of provincial funding to Roman Catholic schools, in contrast to Freedom Party's advocacy that the taxpayer be allowed to direct his education taxes to the school of his choice. And, as Smeenk himself put it, "All three parties agree that they can fix almost anything by spending your money," --- an observation that always managed to generate a positive audience response.

Representing Freedom Party in London South was, of course, Freedom Party's only full-time representative and president, Robert Metz. With his past experience as a regional accounting and administrative supervisor for a large trust company, Metz's organizational skills have proven to be an asset to the party.

Highlighting Freedom Party's past record of community activity, Metz's primary campaign strategy was to illustrate that political effectiveness is not necessarily dependent upon getting "elected," but upon consistency of action within the community.

The candidate with the greatest status in London South was, of course, Consumer and Commercial Relations Minister Gordon Walker, who, like all Conservative candidates, was placed in the untenable position of having to defend his government's past record. But the only defence offered by Walker was his reiteration that everything in Ontario is just great, and that we can thank the Conservatives for everything we have. As an embarassment to Conservative "philosophy", Walker was the only candidate in support of London's hosting the 1991 Pan-Am Games --- an issue that, thanks largely to Freedom Party, the public was decidedly opposed to.

For Freedom Party's candidate in London South, Robert Metz, the issue was a simple one: freedom of choice. In fact, stressed Metz, "if someone's freedom of choice is not at stake in a particular issue, then that issue is simply not a political one."

The "freedom of choice" issue that surfaced most frequently in London South was clearly the issue of funding for separate schools, where Metz's advocacy of "individual full funding" was given a great deal of attention, allowing him to dominate many of the debates. On one occasion, Metz received a pleasant round of applause when candidates were asked how the government could possibly save money. His blunt response --- "quit spending" --- was so clear, succinct, and distinguishable from the meaningless meanderings of the other three respondents, that the applause was generated even from supporters of the other parties.

That Freedom Party was able to find such excellently qualified people to advocate its cause was an accomplishment in itself. Apart from their personal marketability, Freedom Party candidates had to be able to defend positions that were not always politically popular --- and, as Campaign Director Marc Emery warned --- they had to be prepared to carry the "legacy of a trouncing at the polls."

Coming in last and retaining one's political and personal credibility is certainly a tall order, and all three candidates came through with flying colours.

e-mail

Page last updated on June 3, 2002