Consider it, as one Liberal put it, the end of the Buckley's era.
Dalton McGuinty tried to persuade Ontarians that they have to endure the odd bitter taste now, to put their province in healthy shape for the future. Now, when it comes to energy policy - the file that's defined this philosophy more than any other - he's telling them their medicine can taste delicious after all.
The Premier's decision to offer a hydro rate cut, as part of his government's fall economic update, is an admission of failure. And it may prove more costly for the province at large - even for other provinces, if its lessons are heeded - than it does for Mr. McGuinty's Liberals.
It's costly, for one thing, in a practical bottom-line sense. Since the return to deficit two years ago, the annual cost of servicing Ontario's debt has gone up by $1.4-billion. Adding an extra $1-billion or more to that debt each year to subsidize lower energy prices is not necessarily a service to taxpayers.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's not good politics. If the rate cut isn't seen as a sign of panic, it could succeed in getting rising energy prices - a potentially huge liability for the Liberals heading into next year's election - out of the headlines.
But it's also costly in another, bigger-picture way. Creating artificially lower energy prices confirms that the Liberals have all but thrown in the towel, at least for now, on a reasonably noble attempt at an adult conversation about the sacrifices required to shape a modern electricity grid and build a greener economy.
The first sign Mr. McGuinty had lost his nerve came earlier this fall, when the government abruptly scrapped plans for a gas-fired power plant in Oakville. By yielding to local opposition they had previously dismissed, the Liberals signalled they could be no less responsive to NIMBYism than the next government - a red flag as they try to push through green projects around the province.
But the change of direction on price is much bigger and broader. The Liberals previously stuck to the position that homeowners must pay the real cost of energy - that it's the only way to ensure a stable long-term supply, through upgrades and conservation, while weaning the province off coal.
That the government has backed away from that argument owes partly to a political dynamic beyond its control. An angry post-recession period is proving a terrible time to explain the merits of anything that puts a pinch on personal finances.
It also owes to miscalculations in bringing the public along with what they were trying to do. Much effort was expended on extolling the virtues of green energy, which has very little to do with price increases to date. There was much less attempt, until recently, to explain more practical benefits, like avoiding blackouts or really high prices later. Tellingly, 44 per cent of Ontarians surveyed this month by the polling firm Innovative Research Group believe electricity is in worse shape now than when the Liberals took power in 2003; only half that share think it's gotten better.
In fairness, Mr. McGuinty's ensuing retreat is nowhere near as damaging as the one undertaken by his predecessor. Unlike Ernie Eves, who imposed a retroactive rate freeze sixth months after deregulating the industry, he hasn't completely blown up his energy policy. The system won't be thrown into total chaos.
But for the next year, at least, Ontario will plunge into pre-election fantasyland. The Liberals will join their opponents in pretending it's possible to pay less and get more. And the next government, whatever its stripe, will either have to continue that charade, or further fracture the public trust by imposing a rate hike that nobody will dare acknowledge as a possibility during the campaign.
It feels like a lost opportunity. If Mr. McGuinty - he of the fatherly sermons about collective responsibility - can't sell a new attitude toward energy investment, who can? And will anyone want to try?
Adam Radwanski