# 2014  Ontario General Election



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2014)

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's hold on power is under attack and NDP leader Andrea Horwath is finding it, I think, harder and harder to keep Ms Wynne in office, especially given the fact that she is the most popular of the three leaders (Horwath: 32%, Wynne: 31%, and  Hudak: 28%). Now, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ we learn that the Liberals are going to try to sideline the NDP in the next election campaign because, in fact, they fear the NDP more than the Conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-hope-to-fixate-voters-on-an-ndp-free-dichotomy/article17820860/#dashboard/follows/


> Liberals' secret playbook targets NDP as greatest threat to re-election
> 
> ADRIAN MORROW
> TORONTO — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Given that Tim Hudak will - he'll have to - oppose the budget no matter what is in it, the fate of Premier Wynne's government rests with Ms. Horwath. There is, certainly, time to go to the polls in the Spring of 2014 without _interfering_ with the municipal elections which will come in the fall.

My personal take, despite being a card carrying Conservative, is that I don't think Tim Hudak will make a good premier; I will be very happy to be proven wrong. But I also think that Premier Wynne and the Liberals have lost the confidence of the people, or deserve to have done so, in any event. But I doubt the NDP has the sorts of policies that Ontario needs ... not now, not, in my _opinion_ ever.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2014)

Much as I would love to see Premier Wynne-McGuinty gone, there really is no one else.  Every time Mr. Hudak talks  I cringe, I've never really cared for Ms. Horvath, I just don't see palatable options right now.

Get rid of Mr. Hudak, and select a leader with a little something more up his sleeve than his arm, and I'd be very easy too convince to vote Conservative.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2014)

Like everything else, it is the least worst choice that is on the table. The OPC has gambled on the idea that the Liberals and Liberal-NDP coalition would be discredited in the eyes of the voters and collapse on their own. They certainly did not bank on the fact they were actively fighting an election campaign against the Public Service Unions (through the "Working Families" front group) and the crony capitalist clients on the "Green" side who would fight to the last taxpayer to keep the Liberals in power.

Sadly, the OPC does not seem to have done much in the way of effective battlespace preparation, and despite the plethora of (actually quite good) policy platform "white papers", I doubt very many people would be able to actually say what the OPC plans to do if/when they are elected. Since Hudak does not have the media following of the Young Dauphin, the fact that he isn't able to effectively communicate the OPC message is a real killer (the media of course does not cover or even care that the Young Dauphin has no message either...)


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 Apr 2014)

There's no question we'll have a Conservative Premier very soon.  The Liberals long ago lost their moral authority to govern and their entire decade in office has been a complete mess.

The question isn't if, but when we'll have a Premier Hudak.  Hudak's leadership has been challenged twice and both times he came back with support from his party in the high 70s.  In a minority government and with the budget coming up, now is not the time for the PCs to dump their leader and to try to find someone else to take on the McGuinty-Wynne legacy.

I'm _guessing _ we'll see the 2014-2015 budget opposed by the Conservatives and some new tax be implemented at the 11th hour to gain the support of the NDP.  Then they'll take a break until the municipal elections are done in September and get ready for the 2015-2016 budget.  At that time, in my opinion, is when the government will fall for a spring 2015 election.  (Either that, or if the Liberal government does go its full term, Ontario would see a provincial and a federal election in October 2015.)

Hudak's campaigns and ideas haven't been without issue, but they're a breath of fresh air over this corrupt mess...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2014)

God, or whomever/whatever save Ontario from Rae Days round 2.


----------



## mariomike (4 Apr 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> God, or whomever/whatever save Ontario from Rae Days round 2.



I remember Round 1. Every Paramedic on a "Rae Day" was replaced by another at time-and-a-half.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Apr 2014)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I remember Round 1. Every Paramedic on a "Rae Day" was replaced by another at time-and-a-half.



Yup, we cleaned up in Corrections. We tried to explain it but they knew best.............


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Apr 2014)

And things just got a little more complicated. Premier Wynne has served PC Leader Tim Hudak and one of his MPPs with a libel notice. Details here reproduced under the usual provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Wynne serves libel notice to Hudak, MacLeod over gas plant accusations
> 
> Published Friday, April 4, 2014 8:17PM EDT
> Last Updated Friday, April 4, 2014 8:46PM EDT
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2014)

Constant repetition of the gas plant scandal should be the last thing the Ontario Liberals should want.

The fact that Wynne was a senior minister of the McGuinty government _and_ head of the re-election committee when by odd coincidence the gas plants were cancelled should raise questions in people's minds, and the subsequent actions of the government and party are equaly...questionable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Apr 2014)

I think that if I were a Ontario Conservative Party tactician, I might just roll the bones and go to court on this one. Discovery should be just fascinating, as the Liberals are forced to produce all sorts of documents. op:

And then then trial gets to drag on for months. Even if Wynne wins, her party gets clobbered in the process.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Apr 2014)

I don't think she has much of a case. All the CP has said is that she was Premier when this was still going on. In fact the master password was still active until just befoe the story broke.

While she was Premier.


----------



## pbi (5 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Constant repetition of the gas plant scandal should be the last thing the Ontario Liberals should want.
> 
> The fact that Wynne was a senior minister of the McGuinty government _and_ head of the re-election committee when by odd coincidence the gas plants were cancelled should raise questions in people's minds, and the subsequent actions of the government and party are equaly...questionable.



I have to agree. I can't see how dragging this filthy mess out in public is going to help the Liberals in any way, not to mention the unwelcome distraction and diversion of effort it will cause Wynne at a critical time.

But, just for my own education: if Hudak made these allegations in Parliamentary procedure, isn't he protected from libel by the priveliges of the House? Just asking.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (5 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> But, just for my own education: if Hudak made these allegations in Parliamentary procedure, isn't he protected from libel by the priveliges of the House? Just asking.



The first allegations were indeed made in the House, but he repeated them to the press outside the House, where parliamentary privilege does not apply:



> “We now know that the coverup and criminal destruction of documents and emails took place in Kathleen Wynne’s office under her watch as premier,” adding that she “possibly ordered the destruction of documents.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/30/wynne-threatens-legal-action-against-hudak-over-claim-she-possibly-ordered-alleged-gas-plant-coverup/

Does that sound like libel to me? I don't think so.  Is it a huge strategic mistake to sue your opponent for talking about your government's largest scandal to date, meaning a lot more documents and testimony will come into the public light?  Absolutely.


----------



## pbi (5 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> ... Is it a huge strategic mistake to sue your opponent for talking about your government's largest scandal to date, meaning a lot more documents and testimony will come into the public light?  Absolutely.



Agreed. I think she will be very sorry for this. It's ironic in a way, because I think that she was, to some degree at least, willing to admit that the gas plant thing was a ferocious screw up and that the culture which produced it was wrong. Probably too late now.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2014)

And the fun begins:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/08/it-official-directed-by-cabinet-office-to-give-special-admin-rights-to-top-dalton-mcguinty-aide/



> *IT official ‘directed by cabinet office’ to give special admin rights to top Dalton McGuinty aide*
> 
> Keith Leslie, Canadian Press | April 8, 2014 9:11 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (9 Apr 2014)

What is it with our politicians in this country? 

It doesn't seem to matter which party or which Province. They're like dead fish: after they've been around for a while, they start to stink. Is it a sense of entitlement, or a lack of effective checks and balances, or just that rotten people like to get into politics? Their arrogant certainty that they will get away with it is almost breathtaking.

Maybe it's time to bring in recall legislation in Ontario similar to what BC and some US states have, so the public doesn't have to watch helplessly as these messes play out for years between elections.


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Apr 2014)

Stumbled upon this www.yourbillion.ca via a story on Sun News.   Very interesting and enlightening.  The gist, apparently last month, a concerned citizen (or group of them), did a little viral campaign in downtown Toronto, showing people what a physical representation of $1 Billion (in $100 bills) actually looks like.   The link goes straight to their 3rd youtube video showing people's shock and disgust at how it was wasted (gas plants), their second video, them getting their heads full of ideas of what they would do with that cash, setting them up for the reveal. 

I like this.  I think by and large the apathy among potential voters, is they have no physical concept of such a large sum of money.  When politicians start talking about million/billion dollar spending or waste people's eyes glaze over, for them it's all abstract. Make it physical and people can begin to appreciate the waste, as now they have something to compare it with (their own paycheques).


----------



## Infanteer (10 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> What is it with our politicians in this country?
> 
> It doesn't seem to matter which party or which Province. They're like dead fish: after they've been around for a while, they start to stink. Is it a sense of entitlement, or a lack of effective checks and balances, or just that rotten people like to get into politics? Their arrogant certainty that they will get away with it is almost breathtaking.
> 
> Maybe it's time to bring in recall legislation in Ontario similar to what BC and some US states have, so the public doesn't have to watch helplessly as these messes play out for years between elections.



Maybe we treat them like fruit and rotate the stock.  No consecutive terms in office?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe we treat them like fruit and rotate the stock.  No consecutive terms in office?



Sadly, solutions like that overlook the ingenuity of politicians. In California, there are term limits for the State legislature, which prompts politicians to move from the Statehouse to a seat in one of the 500+ government and quasi government agencies which blight the California landscape and economy. If they are "lucky", they may return to the Statehouse in a matter of years.

The ancient Greeks understood this, and tried to get around it by selecting juries by lottery (juries not only passed judgment on civil and criminal cases, but also on proposed laws), while membership in the _Bolule_ (the executive body which set agendas for the juries) was limited to a single year long term during a person's lifetime. Of course there were structural weaknesses in this construct as well, the _Strategos_ could be continually re elected by the Assembly, and the Assembly could be easily swayed by demagogues who knew how to hit emotional triggers (the Assembly voted to execute all the men in the aftermath of the Mytilenean revolt, but rescinded the vote the next day, after a night of reflection).

So we need not only a way of keeping the McGuintiy's, Wynnes and Rae's from overstaying their welcome, we also need to keep them from "slipping in the back door" as well; a much more difficult proposition.

_edit to correct autocorrect...._


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe we treat them like fruit and rotate the stock.  No consecutive terms in office?



Then you wind up with the bureaucracy, as the only constant, running the show.


Imagine if every two years you removed all the officers from a unit and replaced them with new ones, with minimal handover.  That's what you're advocating.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe we treat them like fruit and rotate the stock.  No consecutive terms in office?




To me that may be one of the problems with the quality of the politicians we get..................maybe it's the wimp in me but I'm not sure I would chase after a job that, no matter how well I perform it, comes down to a popularity contest every 2 to 4 years.  [not taking a shot at democracy here, just stating how I feel]


----------



## dapaterson (12 Apr 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> To me that may be one of the problems with the quality of the politicians we get..................maybe it's the wimp in me but I'm not sure I would chase after a job that, no matter how well I perform it, comes down to a popularity contest every 2 to 4 years.  [not taking a shot at democracy here, just stating how I feel]



It's more like a performance review.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's more like a performance review.



No it's not..................many a fine politician has gone down and a clown elected because of a province/ country wide popularity competition.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2014)

I'm with Bruce on this one. The Young Dauphin cannot even define what he considers to be the "middle class" (despite being asked 3 times on three separate occasions), yet is considered to be a strong contender to become Canada's next Prime Minister. 

Imagine the reaction of the press if a Conservative MP, much less a Miniater or the Prime Minister flubbed a question like that....


----------



## Journeyman (12 Apr 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Maybe we treat them like fruit and rotate the stock.  No consecutive terms in office?


This also limits the competent politicians.  I know, I know...... but they're out there. Perhaps because of their competence one hears nothing about them.

I'd hate to chuck baby with bathwater on this.....


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Apr 2014)

One sad sad fact in this whole good/poor/honest/crooked politician things is the voters. How many times do Canadians get snookered by emotional campaigns and rants and vote for an MP or MPP because of either their party or as Bruce said, who is more charismatic with the people. I wish people would THINK logically (turn on your Spock factor people) and not emotionally about who they vote for and why.

I think it would be great to have a tight fisted honest politician with integrity in charge of either the country or this province (ontario). Why the tight fisted? I dare any premier to lower provincial portion of the HST by 1 or 2 percent (lower taxes hopefully have a trickle on effect to the economy) and start ditching government wastefulness. We have wasted too much money on projects that go no where. We have WAY too many people employed in goverment agencies. I know first hand of a few agencies that are over staffed with people.

Also cut down on small waste. In 2012, I particpated in an Ontario Job Creation program funded by Ontario government after leaving the class B world. For about 20 of us, there was probably more than 100,000 spent on having us participate in the program for 4 months. I learned later from one of the program directors that the real "hidden" aim was not to get anybody employed in this program but for the money to be justifiably spent on a "look good" program. SERIOUSLY? This is is the kind of wastefull nonsense that needs to be eliminated from Ontario tax money getting spent. Along with Air Ambulance and failed power plants. I could only imagine the billions wasted that I know nothing about because I only witness a small fraction of the world. Sad. 

Show me a politician with the BALLS to make the changes or transformation neccessary and stick to it. No vote chasing, no baffle gabbing, as JTF2 says "Deeds not words".

Another thought. I would love to see an election campaign where the candidates are not allowed to attack their opponent but instead must highlight what they and their party will do. Lets get away from voting people out of office and lets focus on voting the right party into office.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2014)

The polls, at least the ones reported here in Ottawa, by our local _CTV News_ station, show the Conservatives out in front with a statistically significant lead over the Liberals, while the NDP is falling. 

The prevailing view in Queen's Park, according to Brian Gable in the _Globe and Mail_ is:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-a-happier-note/article17747451/#dashboard/follows/

Given the fall in her party's declining popularity, it is not clear to me what NDP leader Andrea Horwath has to gain by voting to bring down the government. But public opinion _might_ force Premier Wynne to go to the polls.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Given the fall in her party's declining popularity, it is not clear to me what NDP leader Andrea Horwath has to gain by voting to bring down the government. But public opinion _might_ force Premier Wynne to go to the polls.



I think the NDP outplayed themselves. On one hand they don't want election, so they'd have to prop up the Liberals again and pass the budget.

However, on the other hand, a big part of their ineffective PR campaign and slide in the polls is due to people being pissed off and tired of them propping up the (McGuinty) Wynne Liberals ( that's her cross. It's not the Wynne Liberals, everyone still sees it as the McGuinty liberals, which they equate to conniving weasles)

Their chickens have come home to roost.

Besides, the spectre and stigma of Bob Rae is still fresh in people's minds. It was austere time for Ontario when they ushered him in and he turned his back on everything his party stood for and raped Ontario.

We are back to those austere times and people won't take the chance on the NDP again, at least not this time around.

All Hudak has to do is keep his foot out of his mouth this time around. He needs his handlers to put a muzzle and leash on him.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2014)

Stop insulting weasels.

I know very little about politics in Ontario but weasels are far smarter than thse twirls and are not conniving at all.

Thank you.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Apr 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Stop insulting weasels.
> 
> I know very little about politics in Ontario but weasels are far smarter than thse twirls and are not conniving at all.
> 
> Thank you.



Also vicious and not afraid to attack much bigger prey.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

I don't know if the NDP, who are falling in popularity, are going to support Premier Wynne's budget but, apparently, Sid Ryan has already said, publicly, that he would rather have a corrupt Liberal government than a Hudak one. In any event, the Fraser Institute (which is not neutral) takes a look at the budget (as _leaked_) and reality:





Source: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/author.aspx?id=14960&txID=2862


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't know if the NDP, who are falling in popularity, are going to support Premier Wynne's budget but, apparently, Sid Ryan has already said, publicly, that he would rather have a corrupt Liberal government than a Hudak one. In any event, the Fraser Institute (which is not neutral) takes a look at the budget (as _leaked_) and reality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sid Ryan, long ago lost any credibility with anything he says.  He has failed repeatedly to get elected, and now just snipes from the sidelines, while collecting what I imagine is a hefty paycheque derived from union dues.  Of course he would support anyone willing to handout more money to unions.  Means more dues, means bigger payday for him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't know if the NDP, who are falling in popularity, are going to support Premier Wynne's budget but, apparently, Sid Ryan has already said, publicly, that he would rather have a corrupt Liberal government than a Hudak one. In any event, the Fraser Institute (which is not neutral) takes a look at the budget (as _leaked_) and reality:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For comparison, here's what that would look like using Canada's latest Fiscal Monitor figures:




Note to Ontario:  an _awful_ lot less deficit/credit card column in that federal graph, baby ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

Here is the Ontario Budget. There are no surprises, given the government's own leaks ...


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is the Ontario Budget. There are no surprises, given the government's own leaks ...



I guess the countdown and the will they or won't they re: NDP is on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

Another graphic, this time from @ClarkSavolaine on _Twitter_:


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2014)

Some of the highlights via Sun News

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/05/20140501-162235.html



> SUN NEWS NETWORK
> 
> TORONTO - The 2014 Ontario budget hikes taxes on smokers, high earners and high flyers.
> Ontario will hit up upper-income earners for $635 million more this year, smokers for $140 million, corporations for $40 million and users of aviation fuel for $25 million.
> ...



How to spend like drunken whores, and rob your neighbours while burning your house down, a field guide brought to you by the Ontario liberal party.  Given the way these clowns have acted over the last decade, I can't figure out if they are serious or if this is a poison pill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2014)

The _Globe and Mail_ is reporting that "Premier Kathleen Wynne will give NDP Leader Andrea Horwath a hard deadline to decide whether she will support this year’s budget or trigger a spring election ... the Liberals will announce the deadline – expected to be one week – later Thursday afternoon. If Ms. Horwath does not make up her mind by then, Ms. Wynne may call an election herself."

The repots says, also, that "the hardball tactic is an effort to avoid Ms. Horwath dragging out the decision to get more time in the spotlight, as happened the last two years."


----------



## ModlrMike (1 May 2014)

Given the huge number of flights out of Pearson, that 248% rise in fuel taxes could have national impact. An across the country rise in airfares is imminent if the airlines are going to be able to afford this without making flights through Toronto prohibitive.


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Given the huge number of flights out of Pearson, that 248% rise in fuel taxes could have national impact. An across the country rise in airfares is imminent if the airlines are going to be able to afford this without making flights through Toronto prohibitive.



Don't forget about international cargo/mail.  Almost all international cargo (FedEx, DHL, UPS) and mail goes through either Vancouver or Pearson, with the bulk going through Pearson.


----------



## GAP (1 May 2014)

Dorval (oops....Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport) out of Montreal may start looking pretty good now that the PQ  are gone.....


----------



## The_Falcon (1 May 2014)

GAP said:
			
		

> Dorval (oops....Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport) out of Montreal may start looking pretty good now that the PQ  are gone.....



In theory, couple of problems 1) That airport doesn't have the necessary capacity.  Which is why Mirabel was built.  But that was too far from the city and the airlines bitched, and now most of that airport is a racetrack with some cargo flights and a helicopter manufacturer.  Pearson was basically christened the "Eastern Gateway" and as result, its capacity and infrastructure was significantly increased.  2)Airlines, particularly foreign airlines can't just pull stakes and move on whim.  Approvals for new landing slots take time. 3)Concerning cargo/mail, relocating that would necessitate relocating the CBSA personnel (among other things) at the Mississuaga Gateway facility (which also happens to be the largest in the country).


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Given the huge number of flights out of Pearson, that 248% rise in fuel taxes could have national impact. An across the country rise in airfares is imminent if the airlines are going to be able to afford this without making flights through Toronto prohibitive.



Or Montreal become more of an Air Hub and perhaps places like Winnipeg.  Some Trans Atlantic may decide to terminate in Montreal or Halifax, while Pacific Flights will terminate in Vancouver.  Calgary and Edmonton are just as close to Europe as Toronto, perhaps even closer on the Arctic Routes.   Ontario airports may find that they have lost the International Flights and only be left with Domestic Flights to connect to International Flights flying out of other provinces.

We may not see the raise in airfare, but a very large reduction in the number of flights into and out of Ontario centers, and loss revenues.  Detroit, Buffalo and Syracuse will benefit from more Ontario residents crossing the border residents seeking cheaper airfares.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 May 2014)

I finally figured it out.  Underpants Gnomes.  The Liberal Party of Ontario is run by Underpants Gnomes.

1. "a shortfall of $12.5 billion"
2. ???
3. "The government expects significant increases in revenue will eliminate the deficit by 2017-18."


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

I try to keep an open mind and am someone who watches campaigns closely.  I prefer to vote for the party with, what I think, is the best platform.  My provincial, federal and municipal votes vary and are not always linked to any political dogma nor is it consistant across those three levels of government.  

But I've made up my mind for this one.  And it isn't based on any of the party's platforms (a bit yes) or leaders (I wish we actually had real leaders in this one) or anything that has been promised.

No, my decision is based on the fact that the current government thinks I'm stupid.  It thinks it can rule with impunity and that since there are no real alternatives (I don't think there are) that they will win again.  And they might actually pull it off again.

But there is an alternative.  I'm not voting for them because they do not deserve my vote.  Neither do the others, so I will be placing my vote with the party that does not deserve my vote the less.  

This province has gone to h#ll in a hand basket economically.  The Liberals are looking corrupt and borderline criminal.  They've completely surrendered to the environmental lobby at the expense of jobs and teh economy.

But hey they are getting rid of the hydro debt repayment charge on my hydro bill but they failed to mention that the green credit on my bill expires at that time meaning I will in fact be paying more.  But they think I'm stupid.  They think that I will believe that they will get the economy running again in two years despite posting another deficit budget this year.  Right.

But what are my alternatives?  

The NDP?  Maybe as a protest vote but that party always comes third in my riding so really that wouldn't achieve much.  And besides, they've been propping the minority liberals for years for their own self interests and would rather see the province burn rather than risk the seats they have.  

The Conservatives?  They have a leadership problem.  A big one.  But at least they have somewhat of a  plan I can sort of get on board with.  Like scrapping the green energy act.  That alone will likely get my vote.  I don't buy his million jobs plan but I guess the intent is good.  

The one good thing about all of this is that I am way more invested in provincial politics than I used to be.  

So my vote is going to be a punitive one.  I'm voting more against something than for something, because really, I don't think it can get any worse under someone else...


----------



## ModlrMike (2 May 2014)

Alea iacta est

Ontario faces election after NDP rejects budget


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Alea iacta est
> 
> Ontario faces election after NDP rejects budget


So, will it go to the bitter end with a vote in the Legislature, or is the Premier just going to head to the LG's office directly?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, will it go to the bitter end with a vote in the Legislature, or is the Premier just going to head to the LG's office directly?



That's what she said she'd do. Straight to the LG.

She doesn't want to be seen as defeated. She wants to try spin it as "I can't believe they turned down this fantastic budget! It's time to let the citizens of Ontario decide their way ahead without the petty politics of the Opposition!"

She's probably not going to like the answer.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (2 May 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Alea iacta est
> 
> Ontario faces election after NDP rejects budget



Here we go!

However, not to be overly cynical, this is just the usual post-budget jockeying.  No doubt, Wynne will spend the next few weeks attempting to amend the budget to try to get the NDP on side.


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> She's probably not going to like the answer.



 I truly hope so.  After the last by-election in Ottawa South, my faith in the electorate went down a notch.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (2 May 2014)

There's also the convenient release of this book to chronicle the legacy of Dalton McGuinty and what's continued to happen under Kathleen Wynne. I can't believe no one else has done a book on the McGuinty legacy.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 May 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or Montreal become more of an Air Hub and perhaps places like Winnipeg.  Some Trans Atlantic may decide to terminate in Montreal or Halifax, while Pacific Flights will terminate in Vancouver.  Calgary and Edmonton are just as close to Europe as Toronto, perhaps even closer on the Arctic Routes.   Ontario airports may find that they have lost the International Flights and only be left with Domestic Flights to connect to International Flights flying out of other provinces.
> 
> We may not see the raise in airfare, but a very large reduction in the number of flights into and out of Ontario centers, and loss revenues.  Detroit, Buffalo and Syracuse will benefit from more Ontario residents crossing the border residents seeking cheaper airfares.



Kinda moot now (hopefully) but like I was saying above, foriegn airlines can't switch airports on whim, the Fed's tell them where they are allowed to fly into and how often, domestic cariers have a little more flexibility.  The Fed's also basically have designated Vancouvery and Toronto as the two primary ports of entry for air cargo/mail.  Fedex actually has it's own airside terminal and processing facility, and UPS and Purolator have large facilities in the west part of Toronto to facilitate timely access to Pearson.  

But hopefully wynne is defeated and these ideas wind up in the trash where they belong.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's what she said she'd do. Straight to the LG.
> 
> She doesn't want to be seen as defeated. She wants to try spin it as "I can't believe they turned down this fantastic budget! It's time to let the citizens of Ontario decide their way ahead without the petty politics of the Opposition!"


According to Twitter, reporters say she's speaking to media 1430 Eastern.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> She's probably not going to like the answer.


 :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2014)

_Toronto Star_ Queen's Park bureau chief says ....


> Premier @Kathleen_Wynne to visit LG this afternoon, dissolving legislature. June 12 election.


And they're off!


----------



## The_Falcon (2 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _Toronto Star_ Queen's Park bureau chief says ....And they're off!


Guess I have figure out how to register to vote in absentia.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Guess I have figure out how to register to vote in absentia.




Start here.

"If you are an eligible elector temporarily living outside Ontario, you can vote by mail or apply to be named in the Register of Absentee Electors, which also allows you to vote by mail."


----------



## my72jeep (2 May 2014)

I work part time for a Helicopter company and $.04/L tax on fuel was an end to my job.


----------



## Remius (2 May 2014)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> I work part time for a Helicopter company and $.04/L tax on fuel was an end to my job.



I'm pretty sure it was + &.04/L basically tripling the tax to 0.06/L.

But hey, come start a business in Ontario.  :


----------



## OldSolduer (2 May 2014)

If it's anything like elections here, the governing party will bribe you.....with your money, and denigrate the opposition through attack ads.


----------



## larry Strong (2 May 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If it's anything like elections here, the governing party will bribe you.....with your money, and _*denigrate the opposition through attack ads*_.




Nope they - the Ontario Liberal Party - won't do that. They have the likes of Sid Ryan and his union buddies and the Working Families Ontario to do the dirty and heavy lifting for them for free. They get to keep their hands clean.........


Sincerely
Larry


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 May 2014)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Nope they - the Ontario Liberal Party - won't do that. They have the likes of Sid Ryan and his union buddies and the Working Families Ontario to do the dirty and heavy lifting for them for free. They get to keep their hands clean.........
> 
> 
> Sincerely
> Larry



Don't forget that Working Families Ontario is suing the PC's for alleging that they are agents of the Ontario Liberal party. Be interesting to see where that ends up. More  here.


----------



## Remius (5 May 2014)

Speaking of suing...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tim-hudak-files-defence-in-liberal-libel-suit-as-ontario-election-begins-1.2632335

Mr. Hudak has a long way to go to convince he is the right alternative choice to Premier Wynn but in this, I fully respect him for backing up his words and standing by his assertions.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 May 2014)

Never thought I would see the day when 1) I'd agree 100% with an article written by Warren Kinsella, and 2)in that same article he admonishes a very prominent liberal and her party.  

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/05/20140506-081116.html



> WARREN KINSELLA | QMI AGENCY
> 
> The great thing about living in a democracy is, well, living in a democracy.
> Characteristics of a democracy include things like power exercised by citizens, or officials elected by citizens. Majority rule, but with human rights, equality, freedom of media, speech and religion. And - most significantly, for the purposes of this morning's civics discussion - free and fair elections.
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 May 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Never thought I would see the day when 1) I'd agree 100% with an article written by Warren Kinsella, and 2)in that same article he admonishes a very prominent liberal and her party.
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/05/20140506-081116.html



I must agree with you ... for Kinsella, a true-blue Liberal if there is one, to take a hatchet job to Wynne is pretty astounding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2014)

Part of this goes to (yet another) Liberal civil war, this one in Ontario. Mr Kinsella was a major supporter of Sandra Pupatello and he was, and apparently remains, markedly _estranged_ from Premier Wynne and her team.

This (Ontario) spat is not anything like as serious as the deep divisions which have bedeviled the Liberal Party of Canada since the 1960s, but it is still a problem for the Ontario Liberals because Mr Kinsella is a skilled tactician and communicator.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2014)

Remember, the only poll that counts is the one on election day - that said, here's some of the latest numbers (source).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

Based on just one promise, one that might cost him the election, a promise to cut 100,000 civil service jobs, I'm going to vote for that idiot Conservative leader Hudak's candidate in my riding.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Based on just one promise, *one that might cost him the election*, a promise to cut 100,000 civil service jobs, I'm going to vote for that idiot Conservative leader Hudak's candidate in my riding.


Agree with your bit in the yellow - a bit more detail from the news release:


> •An across-the-board wage freeze for every government worker, including MPPs;
> •Shrink the size of cabinet from 27 to 16 Ministers;
> •Lowering spending in every area of government but health care;
> •Reducing the number of government employees by 100,000, and;
> •Encourage better service through competition



Also, " “Vital” frontline service providers such as nurses, doctors and police would not be touched."  Surprised firefighters and jail guards didn't make that list.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

The best thing about that idiot Conservative Laeder Hudak's promise is that he plans to cut 100,000 people from a civil service that only has about 60,000 of them in 25 departments. Of course there are more and more people working employed in the 560 government agencies (*560!*   ). I'm just waiting for the questions ... I'm also waiting, impatiently, for adult leadership in the Ontario PC Party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The best thing about that idiot Conservative Laeder Hudak's promise is that he plans to cut 100,000 people from a civil service that only has about 60,000 of them in 25 departments. Of course there are more and more people working employed in the 560 government agencies [/b] ....


And when he talks about "government workers", when excluding cops, you'd have to lump in the ~270,000 municipal "government" workers, too.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 May 2014)

Maybe this one will get overlooked, or at least his handlers will downplay it considering Hudak has been given 2 gifts.  1) Unilever announcing they are closing a plant in Bramalea to head to cheaper parts in Mississippi, and 2) Wynne deciding that federal politics is more her style and Stephen is more than happy to egg her on.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 May 2014)

Wynne certainly made the right choice when she decided the NDP was her only real opposition. Her platform is further progressive left than any NDP platform in Canada. 

Hudak's platform is to cut 1.4% of all the jobs in Ontario, 13% of all provincially funded jobs. Even if that was his plan what kind of idiot would start his campaign with promising to cut 100,000 of the best paying most secure middle class jobs in the province.

Maybe after the next election we can finally get a look at how the Liberals have been cooking the books. This election looks like it is already in the bag for Wynne.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The best thing about that idiot Conservative Laeder Hudak's promise is that he plans to cut 100,000 people from a civil service that only has about 60,000 of them in 25 departments. Of course there are more and more people working employed in the 560 government agencies (*560!*   ). I'm just waiting for the questions ... I'm also waiting, impatiently, for adult leadership in the Ontario PC Party.



And what better place to call for job cuts than a country club?


It's like he's not even trying...


----------



## Nemo888 (10 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And what better place to call for job cuts than a country club?
> 
> 
> It's like he's not even trying...



The Barrie Country Club is very affordable. It's only 10k to join. Minimum 4000$ a year spent on food and drink not including annual membership fees.

He is throwing the game right? He must not want a minority and plans to win the election after this one. He can't be this out of touch.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (10 May 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Hudak's platform is to cut 1.4% of all the jobs in Ontario, 13% of all provincially funded jobs. Even if that was his plan what kind of idiot would start his campaign with promising to cut 100,000 of the best paying most secure middle class jobs in the province.



I was at a Hudak campaign rally where he clearly said these would be 100,000 *over time and mostly through attrition*.  A Hudak government wouldn't be handing out 100,000 pink slips on June 13 (interestingly, Friday the 13th!).

Of course, this isn't the angle the media wants to tell you about: they're going to fear monger for a bit and "wonder" where those numbers are going to come from... health care? Teachers? Police officers? Oh the horror! (In the media's minds)  :crybaby:

Hudak has been very clear that, for example, LHINs are gone under a PC government.  But that doesn't mean those employees are going to be out of work, it just means they won't be working for a LHIN.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> I was at a Hudak campaign rally where he clearly said these would be 100,000 *over time and mostly through attrition*.  A Hudak government wouldn't be handing out 100,000 pink slips on June 13 (interestingly, Friday the 13th!).


Then someone better get his info-machine in line - the news release associated with this announcement seems pretty clear that the cuts will be made by 2016.


> .... Our Million Jobs Plan will *balance the budget by 2016*, by taking decisive action, including .... Reducing the number of government employees by 100,000 ....





			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Of course, this isn't the angle the media wants to tell you about: they're going to fear monger for a bit and "wonder" where those numbers are going to come from... health care? Teachers? *Police officers*? Oh the horror! (In the media's minds)  :crybaby:


Some of the media has been somewhat clear on this:


> A Progressive Conservative government would chop 100,000 civil servant positions to shrink the public payroll by 10%, Tim Hudak says.
> 
> The job cuts would return government to the size it was in 2009 and save $2 billion, the PC leader said Friday, adding “vital” front-line service providers such as nurses, doctors and police would be spared ....





			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Hudak has been very clear that, for example, LHINs are gone under a PC government.  But *that doesn't mean those employees are going to be out of work, it just means they won't be working for a LHIN*.


You're right about the LHIN promise, but unless you know of some magic employment machine out there, how is someone kicked out of their job as the door's locked not considered a job cut?


----------



## Crispy Bacon (10 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Then someone better get his info-machine in line - the news release associated with this announcement seems pretty clear that the cuts will be made by 2016.



Not trying to spin things here, but the news release says the budget will be balanced by 2016 *through measures such as* cutting 100,000 public service jobs.  It doesn't say 100,000 employees will be cut by 2016, but that reducing the size of the public service will be one of the ways in which the budget is balanced by 2016.

*Maybe* the 100,000 positions will be cut over 5 years, but only the first 30,000 are what it's going to take to balance the budget by 2016.



> You're right about the LHIN promise, but unless you know of some magic employment machine out there, how is someone kicked out of their job as the door's locked not considered a job cut?



There are currently 15 LHINs that employ about 30 employees each.  If 50 employees retire and 300 employees are transferred from a LHIN position to another public service position, then only 100 employees would be cut, but that's not a 'cut' of 450 employees.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> *Maybe* the 100,000 positions will be cut over 5 years, but only the first 30,000 are what it's going to take to balance the budget by 2016.


Your read sounds a lot looser than what the paperwork says:


> Our Million Jobs Plan will balance the budget by 2016, by taking decisive action, including:
> 
> An across-the-board wage freeze for every government worker, including MPPs;
> Shrink the size of cabinet from 27 to 16 Ministers;
> ...


I just don't see as much room for "up to" or "maybe" in the documentation.  Yes, we judge what people _say_, but when there's uncertainty, folks tend to go to what's _written_ - and this doesn't say "we may or may not cut the number of government workers or cabinet ministers".



			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> There are currently 15 LHINs that employ about 30 employees each.  If 50 employees retire and 300 employees are transferred from a LHIN position to another public service position, then only 100 employees would be cut, but that's not a 'cut' of 450 employees.


If that's what's going to happen, you're right.  Can you share a link explaining that?   I've only read/heard the consistent promise to close LHIN's, like this one:


> .... An Ontario PC government will abolish the LHINs and redirect this money into patient care, where it belongs ....


and nothing about moving some of the staff back to (I'm guessing) the Ministry of Health (where at least some of the LHIN staff originally came from to top up the old District Health Councils).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 May 2014)

Every political party makes grandiose statements and promises when campaigning. Once the votes are counted, the usual deference and apologies are made. "Once we had a look at the books, we realized we're in much worse shape and owe much more than the previous government let on. In order to keep some of our promises we're going to have to rethink some of our others (new taxes, levies, hirings & firings, layoffs and pension package buy outs)".

People are, once again, believing everthing they hear, and none of what they already know from umpteen previous elections.

Vote your gut and ignore the campaign promises. They are all worthless rhetoric and no one will hold them accountable anyway.

Such is my jaded view of Canadian politics at every level. 

I don't even listen to their bullshit. My mind is made up, based on their previous four(?) Years when they call the election.

Addendum:
This bluetooth keyboard on my tablet is driving me craaaaazzzzzyyyyy. ullhair:


----------



## The_Falcon (11 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every political party makes grandiose statements and promises when campaigning. Once the votes are counted, the usual deference and apologies are made. "Once we had a look at the books, we realized we're in much worse shape and owe much more than the previous government let on. In order to keep some of our promises we're going to have to rethink some of our others (new taxes, levies, hirings & firings, layoffs and pension package buy outs)".
> 
> *People are, once again, believing everthing they hear, and none of what they already know from umpteen previous elections.*
> 
> ...



The bolded part.  I have been engaged with the wife of one of my friends on FB, since she is a teacher, and Hudak made mention of fewer teachers.  So she obviously now thinks Hudak is evil and she has to vote liberal.  I guess she forgot when the liberals turned on teachers what 2 - 3 years ago.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every political party makes grandiose statements and promises when campaigning. Once the votes are counted, the usual deference and apologies are made. "Once we had a look at the books, we realized we're in much worse shape and owe much more than the previous government let on. In order to keep some of our promises we're going to have to rethink some of our others (new taxes, levies, hirings & firings, layoffs and pension package buy outs)".


*TOO* true!


----------



## PuckChaser (11 May 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The bolded part.  I have been engaged with the wife of one of my friends on FB, since she is a teacher, and Hudak made mention of few teachers.  So she obviously now things Hudak is evil and she has to vote liberal.  I guess she forgot when the liberals turned on teachers what 2 - 3 years ago.



And considering the teacher's put us in this McGuinty/Wynne mess in the first place because they didn't like Harris balancing the books....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And considering the teacher's put us in this McGuinty/Wynne mess in the first place because they didn't like Harris balancing the books....


...and how's that?

.....and when you have to sell off your car to not go farther in the hole this year, did you really balance your books? [think 407 and what would have been next]


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2014)

..and as much as I want to vote Conservative this election, is this, and him,  the same group of "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight" morons that wrecked Mr. Harris's plans way back when?
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/11/tim-hudak-photo-op-derailed-on-ttc-subway


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_ has summed up the first week +, I think, in this cartoon:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/no-wifi-in-the-garden-of-eden/article18348706/#dashboard/follows/

Kathleen Wynne appears, to me to have been the clear winner by picking a "soft target:" the feds. She has given those who are _inclined_ to vote Liberal someone else to blame: Stephen Harper. Next she needs to go after Andrea Horwath and the NDP ~ she, Wynne, needs to "unite the left" and that means taking votes away from Horwath.

Mr Hudak seems to be helping the Wynne campaign by wallowing in gaffes.

There's four + weeks to go, and we all should remember Harold Wilson's admonition that "a week is a long time in politics."


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mr Hudak seems to be helping the Wynne campaign by wallowing in gaffes.
> 
> There's four + weeks to go, and we all should remember Harold Wilson's admonition that "a week is a long time in politics."



Yes, that's four weeks to drop the floor even lower, and end up with a Liberal Majority and NDP official opposition.  I have faith in Hudak's abilities - but not in a positive way...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, that's four weeks to drop the floor even lower, and end up with a Liberal Majority and NDP official opposition.  I have faith in Hudak's abilities - but not in a positive way...



 :ditto:

I agree with you. I'm going to vote Conservative ... despite Tim Hudak. Ms Wynne and the Liberals have earned a rest; the NDP have a whole raft of economically nonsensical policy proposals, and I cannot, here in Ottawa centre, see a useful protest candidate (e.g. the Green Party's Kevin O'Donnell).


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 May 2014)

If Ontario votes Liberal after the last 10+ years of their horrendous mismanagement then they deserve to go down the shitter. A have-not province heading for welfare province status. Soooooo glad I'm getting out of this province, never to return.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 May 2014)

Ms Wynne has picked a soft target indeed. Mr Harper has quite correctly stayed out of provincial election campaigns thus far. Just the same, you can only poke the hornet's nest so much before you get stung.


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2014)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> If Ontario votes Liberal after the last 10+ years of their horrendous mismanagement then they deserve to go down the shitter. A have-not province heading for welfare province status. Soooooo glad I'm getting out of this province, never to return.



I suspect the vote may not be "for" the Liberals, but rather "against" Hudak and Horvath.  The NDP lack a compelling narrative, since the Liberals are taking the NDP platform and have a greater chance of forming a government, while the greatest deterrent to voting Conservative is their leader.

Divide, conquer and come up the middle is a tried and true Liberal technique.  Give them a majority and they'll mercilessly steal from either side of the aisle (6 and 5, anyone?).


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

Within the next decade the bond market, not the politicians, not officials and certainly not the 'people' will decide Ontario's fate: *massive austerity*, HUGE public sector job losses - including nurses, police and fire services, and higher costs for everything for everybody.

The sooner someone, Conservative or Liberal, starts down that road, cuts spending, cuts the public employment rolls, raises the costs of services, the more fairly, and easily, the pain will be shared. Conversely the longer politicians remain beholden to the people's desire for 'free' services, health care for example, and even free goods, like roads, the worse the inevitable pain will be. Eventually all the pipers, not just the ones who belong to public sector unions, must be paid ... oh, and bond holders get paid first and they get paid 100% of what's owed, we all share the the leftovers, if there are any.


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect the vote may not be "for" the Liberals, but rather "against" Hudak and Horvath.  The NDP lack a compelling narrative, since the Liberals are taking the NDP platform and have a greater chance of forming a government, while the greatest deterrent to voting Conservative is their leader.



And for the above reasons see no alternative but to vote Wynne/Liberal. Horvath is in over her head and I can't choke down Hudak personally or his economic thinking on what is best for Ontario.

Not that I disagree with the general line of your thinking ER.



And she is a Queen's grad.


----------



## 2 Cdo (12 May 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> And for the above reasons see no alternative but to vote Wynne/Liberal. Horvath is in over her head and I can't choke down Hudak personally or his economic thinking on what is best for Ontario.
> 
> Not that I disagree with the general line of your thinking ER.
> 
> ...



How's that economic thinking the Libs have shown working for you? Be prepared to enjoy your welfare province full of nothing but part-time McJobs.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 May 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> And for the above reasons see no alternative but to vote Wynne/Liberal.



Yep, Ontario could definitely use 4 more years of deficit, taxes, and economic destruction. Not to mention the blatant corruption and vote-buying with public money.  :facepalm:


----------



## The_Falcon (12 May 2014)

We have town hall meeting on Wednesday over here, if I have the option of staying vs coming bag to a lieberal run Ontario, I am staying here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> And for the above reasons see no alternative but to vote Wynne/Liberal. Horvath is in over her head and I can't choke down Hudak personally or his economic thinking on what is best for Ontario.
> 
> Not that I disagree with the general line of your thinking ER.
> 
> ...




So, you agree with my general thinking but you plan to vote to make the inevitable correction less fair and more difficult for ordinary, working Ontarians ...

I cannot stand Hudak the person, but his party is the only one that is not proposing economic rubbish.

Remember Denis Healey's First Law of Holes:






As far as I can see the totality of the Horwath and Wynne plans are to dig! Dig!! DIG!!!

Hudak is the only one who is not mad as a hatter.


----------



## cavalryman (12 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Hudak is the only one who is not mad as a hatter.



Unfortunately, the behaviour of a significant portion of Ontario voters fits the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.   This time is no different.   :


----------



## Nemo888 (12 May 2014)

Hudak's plan is ideological. Shrinking the economy by cutting too quickly will send it into a death spiral. The Federal Cons try to match cuts to slightly less than the growth rate for just this reason. This is basic economics 101.  Hudak and Horvath are lightweights and ideologues. Corrupt but ever so slightly more competent is the best we got.


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2014)

And the part that never ceases to amaze me about Hudak:

"Hudak attended the University of Western Ontario, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics in 1990. He then studied at the University of Washington in Seattle on a full scholarship. He received a master's degree in economics  in 1993."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hudak


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2014)

So maybe he's knows what he is talking about??.........just askin'......


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So maybe he's knows what he is talking about??.........just askin'......


Maybe _he_ knows his feces, but some of his stumbles makes one question how he pulls together a team and with who.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

I think, and it's just a _guess_, that the PCPO (progressive Conservative Party of Ontario) has forgotten two things:

     1. It's own roots; and

     2. The very nature of Ontario.

The PCPO made Ontario into what it is; big and diverse.

Ontario's size and diversity means that it has to be led from the _mushy middle_, no 'wing' of any party - like the _right_ wing which has, for now, captured the PCPO - can win and govern for long. Mike Harris governed from the right, but he got elected with a solid, _mushy middle_ platform of the "common sense revolution;" he appealed to Ontarians good, solid judgment; they understood that David Peterson and Bob Rae had pushed the province too far to the _left_ and too deeply into debt. Sorting out the budget was not a right wing programme - it was solidly _centrist_.

Tim Hudak is a right wing ideologue and it shows ... it makes him very unappealing to the big, diverse range of people in Ontario. He does appeal to some, but they are a distinct minority: mostly angry, old, white men. Most Ontarians are not angry, old, white* or even men.

____
* OK, OK we are still 70% white, but that's substantially lower than Canada as a whole, and only BC rivals Ontario.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 May 2014)

~$11.7B deficit on revenues of ~$116.8B and expenses of ~$127.6B, with interest charges running at ~$10.3B (effective rate ~4%).  Total debt ~$288B.

Rates governing the cost of servicing debt don't have much room to fall (and are more likely to eventually rise), and are not under provincial control.  Monetizing debt is not an option.  There are no imminent major trade-liberating agreements.  The US economy (market) is still dragging along.  Major options still on table: raise taxes, lower spending, grow revenues.  The first two are within the realm of reason and authority; the last is within the realm of underpants gnomes.

The more time the situation has to worsen, the sharper the correction will be and the less positive control can be exerted (ie. the crisis manages you, rather than you managing the crisis).

The PC has staked out "lower spending"; the LP has staked out "grow revenues".  Has the NDP staked out "raise taxes" yet?

"You must choose. But choose wisely..."


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting take on the interplay between federal and provincial politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/is-tim-hudak-canadas-new-conservative-revolutionary/article18654308/#dashboard/follows/


> Is Tim Hudak Canada’s new Conservative revolutionary?
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Members may recall that both Ralph Klein, in Alberta (1992-2006), and Mike Harris, in Ontario (1995-2002) were elected, in large measure, in response to high spending Conservative (1984-1993) governments in Ottawa.

There is, withing the _broad_ Conservative base, a fairly large "small(er) government" wing. It is not as vocal as the social conservatives but it wants what it wants: less government and less spending. It fully _accepts_ the need for government but it is certain that, *at the margins*, governments are too big and that they are inefficient, i.e. (at the margins, again) unproductive and even counter-productive. I, just for a personal example, believe that we could, without doing any *real harm* to anybody (except for the civil servants and political appointees who serve in them), cut 10% of the departments and agencies form this list and, more than that, maybe 15% from the 560 agencies that  <sarcasm> 'serve' </sarcasm> the people of Ontario.

Does that mean I look forward to Premier Tim Hudak? "Yes" ... to the policies he is, currently, enunciating, and "No" ... to the man , himself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting take on the interplay between federal and provincial politics:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/is-tim-hudak-canadas-new-conservative-revolutionary/article18654308/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...



I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.

Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.

This result has seen an increase in industrial accidents (workers being killed or hurt) because the Inspectors do not have the time, due to those same accident investigations, to go in and do proactive workplace inspections in 'high risk' workplaces.

The same type of situation exists in almost all offices across the province.

Proposing to take another 15% from what is left, of that Inspectorate, will pretty well close the shop.

You'll save money, but more workers will be injured and killed as a result.

[ sarcasm]However, that would create job openings , wouldn't it? [/sarcasm] :


----------



## Remius (14 May 2014)

Interesting take on Tim Hudak in today's Ottawa Citizen.  

Link here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hudak+casts+himself+with+plan/9835720/story.html

I do notice a difference yes, but i still don't like him as the leader (I do however like my local candidate though).  I'll likely vote conservative for this election (unless something spectacular happens) but I do so in a manner similar to me taking Buckley's cough syrup...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.
> 
> Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.
> 
> ...




That's exactly why I said (and repeated) *"at the margins*." Recent government's have cut broadly, which usually means cuts to both the _margins_ and to the core.

Here is a list of the 560 agencies ... all, no doubt, filled with worthy, hard working people and some, like the _Deposit Insurance Corporation_, probably certainly doing things that provide substantial benefit to Ontarians. But I challenge anyone to say that they cannot cut, say, 75 of them without doing any harm at all ... because some, indeed many of those agencies and boards, including those that cost very little, are "on the margins," but, as Lao Tsu said, "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," and cutting _marginal_ agencies is one step we need to take.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a list of the 560 agencies ... all, no doubt, filled with worthy, hard working people and some, like the _Deposit Insurance Corporation_, probably certainly doing things that provide substantial benefit to Ontarians. But I challenge anyone to say that they cannot cut, say, 75 of them without doing any harm at all ... because some, indeed many of those agencies and boards, including those that cost very little, are "on the margins," but, as Lao Tsu said, "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," and cutting _marginal_ agencies is one step we need to take.


Since the list includes provincial appointments to things like college & university boards of governors, hospital boards, public health boards, local planning boards, police services boards, LHIN's (we know THEIR fate under a Hudak government***) and the like, do you want the province to have no reps on such boards (which the agency list shows) to reduce provincial costs, or just get rid of groups like the Rabies Advisory Committee or the Normal Farm Practices Board?

[sup]*** - They'll be replaced by _"health hubs – run by volunteer, skills-based boards and linked to regional hospitals – in charge of local planning, funding and service"_ (which would still appear on the big list if Ontario wants to nominate/appoint some of those volunteers).


----------



## Remius (14 May 2014)

what's troubling is that his plan calls for a return to the 2009 level of the Public Sector.  

That essentially means the Public sector grew by 100 000 in 5 years.  WTF?!

As well if we look at some of the educational data difference between 2009 and 2013 :

2009- 4931 schools, 121 804 FTE (teachers and admin) for 2,061,390 students

2014- 4891 schools, 122 818 FTE (teachers and admin) for 2,031,205 students

So 40 less schools, 30 000 less students but we have 1000 more teachers than we did.


----------



## The_Falcon (14 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Since the list includes provincial appointments to things like college & university boards of governors, hospital boards, public health boards, local planning boards, police services boards, LHIN's (we know THEIR fate under a Hudak government***) and the like, do you want the province to have no reps on such boards (which the agency list shows) to reduce provincial costs, or just get rid of groups like the Rabies Advisory Committee or the Normal Farm Practices Board?
> 
> [sup]*** - They'll be replaced by _"health hubs – run by volunteer, skills-based boards and linked to regional hospitals – in charge of local planning, funding and service"_ (which would still appear on the big list if Ontario wants to nominate/appoint some of those volunteers).



I presume Mr. Campbell means paring down/elminating some of the actual provinically run entities on that list, vice appointments to their boards (since most of those appointments are unpaid, or paid very little). 

This would be a much better starting point http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/crown_2013.pdf

People can argue about this sunshine list not being adjusted for inflantion all they want $100k+ salary today (especially from the public purse) is incredibly generous, especially when looking at the job title of the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE on this list placing them in the realm of middle mangers (if that).  Finding exact salaries in the private sector is not easy, but site like glassdoor, give a glimpse into the payscale of many sectors and individual businesses, and for similiar positions on this list, they are WAY above what the private sector pays. 

Some highlights 
32 people from something called "Agricorp"
48 in the Alcohol and Gaming Commission
139 in Cancer Care Ontario
25 in the Education and Quality Assurance Office
298 in eHealth

200+ in the LCBO
100+ in Legal Aid Ontario (and no most ARE NOT lawyers)
100+ Metrolinx
200+ WSIB
Even the ROM and Art Gallery of Ontario (Seperate List) have healthy numbers. 

Sure very SENIOR people or very technical positions MAY be entitled to a 6 figure salary to compete with the private sector, but I highly highly doubt that is the case for many  of the "managers" and "directors" and specialists that populate this list.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I presume Mr. Campbell means paring down/elminating some of the actual provinically run entities on that list, vice appointments to their boards (since most of those appointments are unpaid, or paid very little).
> 
> This would be a much better starting point http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/crown_2013.pdf


I've skimmed the Sunshine List before, but thanks for the summary of how many some groups have - ouch!

<  >Fave translation from the Sunshine List:  Operations Manager for OLG becomes "Chef, Exploitation" - exploitation boss.</  >


----------



## The_Falcon (14 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I've skimmed the Sunshine List before, but thanks for the summary of how many some groups have - ouch!
> 
> <  >Fave translation from the Sunshine List:  Operations Manager for OLG becomes "Chef, Exploitation" - exploitation boss.</  >



I actually don't take too much issue with OLG, as the salaries are derived from gaming revenues (aka tax on the foolish) vs income/sales taxes.  OLG is basically self sufficient in that regard, and AFAIK those gaming revenues don't enter general coffers.  And before anyone brings it up the LCBO is a different beast, as they are a government administered monopoly, that not only significantly marks up their products, there are also the high taxes on those products, both of which end up profiting the government, and AFAIK much of those money DO wind up in general coffers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2014)

Some of the latest numbers (as usual, the only poll that counts is the one coming via the ballot box) - source


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 May 2014)

Listened to CBC Radio on the way to work yesterday and they had a segment where they randomly asked a dozen or so people in Toronto what party and/or position these people held: Tim Hudak, Katleen Wynne, Andrea Horvath and Dalton McGuingty. Sadly, only one person got all four right. One women actually thought Hudak belonged to the Liberal party.

And you wonder why we end up with the governments we have.  :'(


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Listened to CBC Radio on the way to work yesterday and they had a segment where they randomly asked a dozen or so people in Toronto what party and/or position these people held: Tim Hudak, Katleen Wynne, Andrea Horvath and Dalton McGuingty. Sadly, only one person got all four right. One women actually thought Hudak belonged to the Liberal party.
> 
> And you wonder why we end up with the governments we have.  :'(


And as much as I love to hate TO, the results in a whole lot of other places in Ontario may not be all that different.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 May 2014)

Sid Ryan was in town this weekend. Had about 500 union people at his speech. Told a bunch of his usual communist lies and put forth his "Anyone but Hudak" agenda. Which of course, was lapped up by blind solidarity.

That was followed up today by Jerry Dias, the president of the UNIFOR super union. He was the guest speaker at a Local 444 (Chrysler) retirees lunch. Same lies, same message. Anyone but Hudak.

The newscaster reporting it on the local news put it all quite succinctly, "Union bosses telling retirees how to vote, our next story is about a little girl........."

Par for the course though, this lunch bucket town will always vote what their unions want, not what is needed. We'll end up with a whole slate of NDP MPPs, from here to the next county, and then they'll wonder, again, why the sitting government ignores them. :not-again:

The next move they are pushing for is to get the last president of the CAW, Ken Lewenza, elected mayor  :facepalm:. No that's not a joke, it's a reality. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.
> 
> Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.
> 
> ...




And Kathleen Wynne picks up on your idea, according to this article in the _Globe and Mail_ ... and you are both quite right if, and it is not an unreasonable if, a government decides to cut core functions, as the Liberals are doing with Industrial Inspectors.

We do need a public service, a public _sector_, and (in many cases) it does save lives. But we also need an _efficient_ and _effective_ public sector that does not waste money on cosmetics.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2014)

Is there a link out there for "Elections for Dummies"?     What I mean is, is there a chart (or whatever) that states what each party's stance is on different issues (in a nutshell, please)?


----------



## Crispy Bacon (15 May 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Is there a link out there for "Elections for Dummies"?     What I mean is, is there a chart (or whatever) that states what each party's stance is on different issues (in a nutshell, please)?



Usually the City of Toronto puts out a "summary of issues relevant to Toronto voters" which is basically a summary of all the parties' platforms.  However, those platforms aren't out yet (I'd say wait another week or maybe 2) so there won't be any unbiased summaries yet.

However, you can be sure these will be the main themes that are touched upon:

Conservatives: balance the budget, get Ontario back on track at all costs
Liberals: balance the budget - *maybe * - but let's improve upon the status quo
NDP: the kinder, more reasonable socialists, since the Liberals' budget was actually to the left of the NDP.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Conservatives: balance the budget, get Ontario back on track at all costs
> Liberals: balance the budget - *maybe * - but let's improve upon the status quo
> NDP: the kinder, more reasonable socialists, since the Liberals' budget was actually to the left of the NDP.



Thanks, but that kind of means nothing to me.  I want to know where each party stands on a few key issues (job creation, military, health care, etc), not party themes.

Guess I'll have to do some searching.  I'm not one to listen to the "look how good we are/look how bad the other person is" commercials and speeches.  That's just noise, IMO.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 May 2014)

A common theme for me is that the Liberals blew $1 Billion to cancel gas plants to save their own tails in the last election. A billion dollars that could have gone towards balancing the budget, or actually building the badly needed gas plants. Then they destroyed documents and deliberately mislead the legislature as to the true cost of the cancellation. They're criminals in my eyes, no better than thieves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 May 2014)

The bottom line is that the PC have put their agenda and plan on the table. They talk about what it will take to get us back to where we should be. They are talking 'Tough Love', and that's OK. It needs to be done. The liberals, the ndp and the unions want to remain on the gravy train while the middle class of the province pay for the workers that McWynne layed off, fired, terminated. The PC are the only ones talking with a real plan. The rest are spending their time slagging Hudak and not providing the voters with how they expect to get where Hudak wants, a balanced budget. Hudak is willing to take the risk and get Ontario back on it's feet. The other two parties are maintaining the status quo of more spending (equals more taxes, tariffs and subsidies) which will put us further in the hole.

Look past Hudak. You might not like his attitude, presence, dialogue or looks. It doesn't matter. He is only the face of the party, the signing authority if you will. The PC party makes the agenda, Hudak presents it to the electorate. 

The PCs are the only ones that have presented us with a real, fiscally sound plan, which is what they believe and are campaigning on.

The rest, are simply in full attack mode. One only has to scratch the surface of the hyperbole, that McWynne is putting out about Walkerton, to see that she's still acting like the UNELECTED Premier, she is. She is using obfuscation and misleading prose to slander Hudak.

Vote the platform and party, the leader. Because, right now, there is only one party that has a real plan to get us out of the mess the liberals and ndp have put us in.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 May 2014)

This link has a PDF attachment with what I was looking for.  Unfortunately, I think it's out of date.  Am currently searching for more up to date info.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2014)

At least the ambiguity about the direction the PC want to go has been removed.  If they win a majority and stick to that agenda, no-one should be whining about being misled.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 May 2014)

Actually the NDP plan on cutting about 600 million a year until they reach solvency. A cut of 0.5% annually. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant. 

Cutting more than growth is needlessly harsh on everyone. If you do that the economy shrinks and that gains momentum just like economic growth. Hudak's plan is ideological and will do more harm than necessary. He is a lightweight. Cutting at less than the rate of growth works great without causing a recession.

So the bitter irony is that the NDP have the only plan based on sound economic theory but they lack the skills or experience to meaningfully implement it. That is pretty weird. I don't think I have ever seen that before.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Actually the NDP plan on cutting about 600 million a year until they reach solvency. A cut of 0.5% annually. But don't let that get in the way of a good rant.
> 
> Cutting more than growth is needlessly harsh on everyone. If you do that the economy shrinks and that gains momentum just like economic growth. Hudak's plan is ideological and will do more harm than necessary. He is a lightweight. Cutting at less than the rate of growth works great without causing a recession.
> 
> So the bitter irony is that the NDP have the only plan based on sound economic theory but they lack the skills or experience to meaningfully implement it. That is pretty weird. I don't think I have ever seen that before.




Right.  So at that rate we'll be good sometime in 2114.  We have a deficit of of almost 12 billion.  BILLION.  600 million a year won't even cover the interest we'd generate on that.  Cutting the fat is needed.  This province is in. A drastic spiral that needs drastic measures.

But don't let that get in the way of wishful thinking.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (17 May 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Guess I'll have to do some searching.  I'm not one to listen to the "look how good we are/look how bad the other person is" commercials and speeches.  That's just noise, IMO.



I understand, but the theme of each parties' issues (as they see them) is what will frame their stance on specific issues. If the province's economy is in serious crisis mode, then the economy is clearly going to be the focus at the expense of benefits, etc.

The Ontario PC's are once again the first party out of the gate to launch their platform, The Million Jobs Plan, and a detailed breakdown.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2014)

Actually the NDP plan on cutting about 600 million a year until they reach solvency. A cut of 0.5% annually.

Uh-huh.  I could promise a cut of 6 million a year "until reaching solvency".  The question is: how many years, and what is the likelihood of another recession before then?

>Cutting more than growth is needlessly harsh on everyone. If you do that the economy shrinks and that gains momentum just like economic growth

Canada, 1997-2007.  Your hypothesis is invalid.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 May 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Actually the NDP plan on cutting about 600 million a year until they reach solvency. A cut of 0.5% annually.
> 
> Uh-huh.  I could promise a cut of 6 million a year "until reaching solvency".  The question is: how many years, and what is the likelihood of another recession before then?
> 
> ...


I never said they would do it. I said they were the only one with a functional plan. 
Not really sure where you got those numbers. GDP growth was solid and the economy was growing. I don't see any government cuts either.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=66&c=ca&l=en
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-402-x/2012000/chap/gov-gouv/tbl/tbl01-eng.htm

Harris grew the debt by 50.8 billion while he was in power by the way. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2014)

More "do as I say, not as I do" from Horwath and the NDP.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/05/20140517-073610.html




> *NDP's Andrea Horwath expensed muffins to the taxpayer*
> 
> TORONTO - NDP Leader Andrea Horwath may not like public sector CEOs expensing muffins to the taxpayer, but she’s not above doing it herself.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2014)

A few years ago, probably in 2006, referring to the Canadian general election, I said something like: "Ontario matters ... it is the economic engine of Canada, 38% of Canadian live there and they produce (the present tense matters) over 40% of GDP." Now (2012 data) Ontario still has 38% of the population but it's share of GDP has fallen - only to 39%, to be sure, but that (2.5%) decline is both *a)* statistically significant when measuring GDP over such a short period; and *b)* not how one wants a nation's _economic engine_ to perform.

In fact the _engine of growth_ is now running on three (small) cylinders: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Quebec has significant _structural_ (actually cultural) economic problems that prevent it from running a productive, growing economy: the people have a totally unfounded belief in the utility of the _state_ and this leads governments to intervene, consistently unsuccessfully, in the economy. Quebec, the second largest province, will remain an economic drain on the _state_ as a whole. But: it will remain one of our national foundation stones, one, of several - not just two, that helps define the basic nature of Canada. (The root cause of Quebec's problems lies, in my view, in the education system - it (consistently) denigrates English/British _capitalism_ and celebrates French _statism_. The _liberal_ English system triumphed; France and the _conservative_ 'French model' failed but if you attend school in Quebec you are likely to learn the opposite.)

British Columbia, too, is stagnant ... on about the same level as Quebec but for different reasons.

The problem is worst in the manufacturing sector:






Source: Nova Scotia Department of Finance - Statistics

Canada is doing well in resources and agriculture but the good jobs, the (relatively) well paid, (relatively) low skilled and (relatively, again) secure jobs on production lines and in small factories are disappearing in Quebec and Ontario. Only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have _recovered_ from 2008. 

_MacJobs_ will not cut it for Ontario: the province needs to recover manufacturing jobs. The _holy grail_ is politics is a *real* job, a manufacturing job, for the young, male, newly married, school leaver.

Ontario needs those jobs.

Governments do not, ever, create those jobs.

Governments can, and sometimes do, _create_ the conditions - lower corporate taxes, fewer (not none, just fewer) regulations like compulsory union membership, and so on - that encourage private industry to create jobs.

We, Canada, including Ontario, have some structural advantages: resources, an educated population, political maturity, a half decent public health care system, and so on. We need to embrace _liberal_ capitalism ... and nowhere is that need greater, in 2014, than in Ontario.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governments do not, ever, create those jobs.
> 
> Governments can, and sometimes do, _create_ the conditions - lower corporate taxes, fewer (not none, just fewer) regulations like compulsory union membership, and so on - that encourage private industry to create jobs.



Therein lies the problem. As long as people put their trust in governments to create jobs, and retain the idea that the government owes them a job, they'll remain unproductive.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> The Ontario PC's are once again *the first party out of the gate to launch their platform*, The Million Jobs Plan, and a detailed breakdown.


Only if you don't count this look at how the Liberals say they'd do things that was shared May 1st.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (19 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Only if you don't count this look at how the Liberals say they'd do things that was shared May 1st.



There will still be a Liberal platform for this election (keep in mind the Liberal Party's *platform* and the Ontario government's *budget *technically have nothing to do with one another).

As well, since the Liberal budget was leaked before it was officially released, no doubt some elements of the finally released budget were tweaked in an attempt to garner the NDP's support.

It will be interesting to see where the Liberals reverse themselves advance in the opposite direction in their actual platform.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see where the Liberals reverse themselves advance in the opposite direction in their actual platform.


A compare and contrast _WOULD_ be interesting if any other document comes out.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 May 2014)

>Not really sure where you got those numbers. GDP growth was solid and the economy was growing. I don't see any government cuts either.

From the 2007 Fiscal Reference Tables, program spending was:

1994-95 $123,238M
1995-96 $120,856M
1996-97 $111,327M

See the small drop in '95-96 and the larger one in '96-97?  Those are spending cuts.  And as you noted, "GDP growth was solid and the economy was growing" in the following years.  Those facts contradict the assertion "Cutting more than growth is needlessly harsh on everyone. If you do that the economy shrinks and that gains momentum just like economic growth".


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2014)

If you're interested, here's the NDP's plan, just out today.


----------



## Remius (22 May 2014)

the irony of that plan (one that will solidify this province's decline) is that they want a a Minister of Savings and Accountability... :facepalm:


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> the irony of that plan (one that will solidify this province's decline) is that they want a a Minister of Savings and Accountability... :facepalm:


Hey, the legislation's already in place - easy, peasy, right?

My fave from the Orange Book is a committment to "begin investing in infrastructure for the Ring of Fire without delay' on page 3, with exactly zero $ committed to the Ring of Fire on all the way out to 2017-18.  Wonder how much infrastructure $0 buys through an NDP government?

Meanwhile, Dalton continues to haunt the Wynne folks, at least on the French version of the party's web page  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> There will still be a Liberal platform for this election (keep in mind the Liberal Party's *platform* and the Ontario government's *budget *technically have nothing to do with one another).


As of today, they still appear to be using Budget 2014 as a platform, saying "hey, if we don't get back in, you won't get what we promised."


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2014)

Yesterday, Moody's _de facto_ consigned Kathleen Wynne's budget/platform to the trash bin with a warning about Canada provincial debt.

The _Globe and Mail's_ Brian Gable gets it right in this cartoon:






Source: The _Globe and Mail_

Much as I dislike Tim Hudak and much as I consider him a lightweight, I believe that no responsible Ontarian can vote for either the Liberals or the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 May 2014)

Jeffrey Simpson provides some good sense in a column in the _Globe and Mail_ but he doesn't go quite far enough back.

Ontario began to go 'wrong' - and it is near heresy for a Conservative to say this - about 40 years ago, when Bill Davis, _Brampton Billy_, good ol' _"bland works"_ Bill Davis began to overspend _circa_ 1975. At first Davis' overspending wasn't obvious - Ontario still had balanced budgets based on good, solid industrial growth. The 1977 "Bramalea Charter" which promised more and more _social_ spending, including lower cost, lower middle class housing support was very much in line with Pierre Trudeau's thinking in Ottawa. Both were "short term gain" type politicians who thought that growth was a _natural_ state of affairs. Anyway, except for a short _interregnum_ (Mike Harris' first term (1995-99)) Ontario has remained poorly, often badly, governed by Conservatives, Liberals and NDP governments alike. Ontario needs to recover from 40 years of less than adequate, too often downright poor leadership and management.

Here are some of the key elements of Jeffrey Simpson's column:

     "Attached to the last budget, the provincial Ministry of Finance added a 191-page door-stopper about the long-term economic challenges. Of course, the document was gilded with political gloss, but fighting through it
     did offer a sobering portrait, one almost entirely absent from the campaign.

     Start with economic growth after inflation. From 1982 to 2013, it averaged 2.6 per cent. From 2014 to 2035, it will be 2.1 per cent. Roughly speaking, therefore, growth will be about 20 per cent slower.

     The labour force will grow more slowly largely because of an aging population, a change being felt throughout Canada. Labour productivity will be flat at best, and quite likely lower than from 1985 to 2000.
     In the meantime, global competition will intensify.

     Manufacturing has been declining as a share of the economy in North America and Western Europe. Ontario’s decline was halted temporarily back when the Canadian dollar plunged to nearly 60 cents,
     but those days are long gone.

     The province’s cost competitiveness – this is one of the two or three central challenges – has been poor. Unit labour costs have gone up by a little over 5 per cent per year over the last 13 years, compared with just
     over 2 per cent in the United States.

     When a province’s unit labour costs rise more than twice as fast as the country where it does 78 per cent of its trade, the results are obvious: plant shutdowns, unemployment and not enough new capacity added.
     Automobiles are the classic case: plant openings in Mexico and the U.S., but none recently in Ontario.

     Business investment in machinery and equipment has lagged the Canadian average and is far below the United States. Research and development, a pathway to innovation, also lags. It’s better than the very poor
     Canadian average, but far below the U.S. Take away the healthy financial sector and the Toronto’s overheated housing market, and what do you have?

     In Toronto and Ottawa, where prosperity is sustained, it’s easy to forget the swaths of the province in the southwest, north and east, where very little new economic activity has been taking place. The old industrial cities –
     Hamilton, Windsor, St. Catharines, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie – and smaller cities, such as Leamington, are nearly all suffering in one form or another.

     For most of the past quarter-century, Ontario provincial governments have run deficits. Slowly, the debt has risen. Such is the situation that Ontario now receives yearly small payments from the country’s
     equalization scheme. (And such is the absurdity of the scheme that Ontario taxpayers remain net contributors to Ottawa, which then turns around and gives a small portion of the revenues back in equalization.)

     The Ontario government has reached far, but failed to execute: clean energy, gas plants, e-health, Ornge air ambulance, nuclear cost overruns. No wonder trust in government is low. For almost a decade,
     the Liberal government let health-care spending rip – 7-per-cent yearly increases without commensurate improvements in the system. 

     Very, very powerful – and very, very conservative – public-sector unions and associations in schools, universities, health care, policing, firefighting and municipal government make change very, very difficult.
     Taking on these interest groups has frightened governments, which have preferred to buy peace instead.

     Ontario’s domestic raw-material or hydro energy sources are just about tapped out. An important boost could come with exploitation of the Ring of Fire chromite deposits in the province’s far north, but this project
     and others will be tied up for years, even decades, by aboriginal claims."

Those are sobering facts, and they are facts, not guesses, and the situation needs to be reversed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> There will still be a Liberal platform for this election ....


Sure enough, here it is.



			
				Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see where the Liberals reverse themselves advance in the opposite direction in their actual platform.


I've only scanned it really, really quickly, and they say they'll reintroduce this budget if they win.  We'll see, on both counts ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2014)

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ a few Liberal Party workers in Chatham, Ontario played "let's pretend' and posed as NDP supporters holding up signs accusing Andrea Horwath of deviating from core NDP values.






The "give aways" were the Ontario Liberal Party lanyards and a (Finance Minister) Charles Sousa button they wore. According to the article two Liberal Party staffers from "head office" were there and "One staffer approached the men with signs and, after exchanging words, they promptly hid their Liberal buttons."

It's a bit revealing, isn't it? The head office staffer didn't say, "don't lie," instead he said, "hide your true party affiliation and then lie."  :  (By the way, I'm sure the Conservatives and the Greens and the NDP are equally immoral.)

(Maybe this should be in the We get the governments we deserve, don't we? thread.)  :facepalm:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ a few Liberal Party workers in Chatham, Ontario played "let's pretend' and posed as NDP supporters holding up signs accusing Andrea Horwath of deviating from core NDP values.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder what the media coverage of this would be if it were the conservatives instead of the liberals?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2014)

With more than two weeks to go the polling, like this one from tooclosetocall.ca ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... is starting (continuing?) to favour the Liberals.

Of course, as others have mentioned, the federal Conservative Party of Canada may well not be too unhappy with another Liberal government in Ontario.

I am about 99% sure that Kathleen Wynne *cannot* keep most of her promises because of the message in that _Gable_ cartoon for the _Globe and Mail_ ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/no-wifi-in-the-garden-of-eden/article18348706/#dashboard/follows/

The bond market will, if she tries to borrow more and more, turn Ontario into Portugal. (Ontario's most recent bond sale (€1.75 Billion) has a yield of 1.972%; Portugal's bonds yield 3.64%.) Voter dissatisfaction with higher taxes and continuously high hydro rates and nothing *'new'* and shiny will drive them towards the CPC in the federal election ... so many analysts suggest, anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 May 2014)

Some more numbers for your Friday viewing pleasure/cud chewing - sources here and here.

_- edited to add second polling summary & links to sources -_


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Is there a link out there for "Elections for Dummies"?     What I mean is, is there a chart (or whatever) that states what each party's stance is on different issues (in a nutshell, please)?



This isn't much, but it's a start:  Comparing and contrasting the party platforms in the Ontario election

And here's another: http://omssa.com/public-affairs/advocacy-government-relations/2014-provincial-election/party-platform-chart


----------



## Crispy Bacon (3 Jun 2014)

Advance polls are open now for anyone unable to vote on June 12.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Jun 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Advance polls are open now for anyone unable to vote on June 12.


Voted this weekend - it's easy peasy if you think you may have trouble getting away to vote on the big day.

No excuses, folks!  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jun 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Voted this weekend


Voted yesterday; I didn't want to risk not being able to vote on the chance I was hospitalized/killed in one of the neighbourhood anti-tank ditches potholes.   

You don't vote, you can't complain.   :nod:




......although I seldom complain anyway....about _anything_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ......although I seldom complain anyway....about _anything_



 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> This isn't much, but it's a start:  Comparing and contrasting the party platforms in the Ontario election
> 
> And here's another: http://omssa.com/public-affairs/advocacy-government-relations/2014-provincial-election/party-platform-chart




Or you can try The _Globe and Mail's_ "Where the Parties Stand" tool.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or you can try The _Globe and Mail's_ "Where the Parties Stand" tool.



Thank you!


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jun 2014)

This question may belong in the general Canadian Politics forum.

At what point could Union election advertising be considered unofficial party advertising? I mean there are limits to the amount that the parties can advertise. Would partisan 3rd party advertising be a way to circumvent these limitations?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jun 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This question may belong in the general Canadian Politics forum.
> 
> Would partisan 3rd party advertising be a way to circumvent these limitations?



You betch'ya!


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 Jun 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This question may belong in the general Canadian Politics forum.
> 
> At what point could Union election advertising be considered unofficial party advertising? I mean there are limits to the amount that the parties can advertise. Would partisan 3rd party advertising be a way to circumvent these limitations?



In Ontario we've seen that time and time again with the Working Families Coalition.  They're an anti-conservative lobby group bought with union money and staffed with current and former Liberal staffers.  However, Elections Ontario ruled that since Working Families wasn't being outright controlled by the Liberal Party, and because they were an anti-conservative attack group more than a pro-party lobby group, that their third party advertising (which exceeded the spending of the NDP and Conservatives combined) was acceptable.

And now we have the OPP - who are investigating the Liberals in two criminal investigations - supporting that same party for continued government  :facepalm:

Ontario needs to abolish third party advertising in a fashion similar to the way the federal Conservatives did with the _Accountability Act_.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 Jun 2014)

Also, the leaders' debate was last night and Hudak emerged the clear winner  as Wynne spent 90 minutes stumbling and bumbling to explain her corrupt party.


----------



## Remius (4 Jun 2014)

If I would credit who came out on top I would give it to Mr. Hudak but i wouldn't characterise him as the clear winner.  I didn't see any knock out punches.

Ms. Wynn however was the clear loser.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jun 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Ontario needs to abolish third party advertising in a fashion similar to the way the federal Conservatives did with the _Accountability Act_.



And that's not likely to happen unless Wynne loses.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> If I would credit who came out on top I would give it to Mr. Hudak but i wouldn't characterise him as the clear winner.  I didn't see any knock out punches.


I didn't hear any, either (listened on the radio).

Interesting hearing Hudak's ad-libbed promise:  "if I don't keep my promises in the Million Jobs Plan, I'll resign."  If it's an 8-year plan, he's assuming maybe a second term?

Ties in with his promise to have his pay docked if he doesn't meet his financial targets (see attached oath).


----------



## Remius (4 Jun 2014)

I guess his resignation will depend on his math to calulate his success  ;D

I'll take his smoke and mirrors over what the other two are promising any day.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jun 2014)

Economists poke holes in Hudak’s job-creation plan 

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economists-poke-holes-in-hudaks-job-creation-plan/article18881984/

More detail on the smoke and mirrors.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jun 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Economists poke holes in Hudak’s job-creation plan
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economists-poke-holes-in-hudaks-job-creation-plan/article18881984/
> 
> More detail on the smoke and mirrors.



And the rebuttal from the National Post http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/29/terence-corcoran-nothing-bogus-about-hudak-plan/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Economists poke holes in Hudak’s job-creation plan
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economists-poke-holes-in-hudaks-job-creation-plan/article18881984/
> 
> More detail on the smoke and mirrors.



And just as many say he's got a solid plan.

You can't believe everthing that left wing, union supported econimists have to say on the subject. It's a biased opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And the rebuttal from the National Post http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/29/terence-corcoran-nothing-bogus-about-hudak-plan/



And there it is. From the REAL experts that are in the game for money, not the ones that can't add 2+2 because of idealogical reasons.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> And the rebuttal from the National Post http://business.financialpost.com/2014/05/29/terence-corcoran-nothing-bogus-about-hudak-plan/



As well as one from Andrew Coyne: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/28/andrew-coyne-tim-hudaks-bogus-million-jobs-plan-is-no-reason-not-to-vote-for-him/


----------



## Remius (4 Jun 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> As well as one from Andrew Coyne: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/05/28/andrew-coyne-tim-hudaks-bogus-million-jobs-plan-is-no-reason-not-to-vote-for-him/



That wasn't quite a rebuttal...just that his bogus plan is no reason not to vote for him.  He pretty much states that the million jobs is parlour wizardry at best.  

But I prefer his crystal ball to their denials and their side stepping.  Coyne has it right on the money though.

What grates me teh most is neither Horvath or Wynn has specified how they would balance the budget and that they have avoided talking cuts when we know damn well they will have to do as much as Hudak to get thing under control.  Just that they are selling the unions and public service a trojan horse.

At least Hudak is up front about it and isn't dancing around it. 

I'd vote now if there wasn't a risk that something like Hudak being a serial killer or a lizard monster or something else might come up between now and election day  ;D


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jun 2014)

I found this quote amusing 
"If you think taxes are too low, vote for Wynne or Horvath"


----------



## Crispy Bacon (4 Jun 2014)

Standings as of June 2, before yesterday's debate:

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/ontario.html


----------



## Remius (4 Jun 2014)

Well what I would hope to see is maybe some more erosion from the Liberals after Wynn's poor performance last night.  Maybe not towards the Cons but maybe towards the NDP (Horvath may have gained after her performance) to split some voting.  And maybe some undecided folks finally pledging towards Hudak to give him an edge to win.

A minority Hudak government at most (unless a coalition forms) even if the polls go his way after last night.  I can't see an immense jump between now and then.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2014)

I think your province needs to hope for a "BC Scenario" where polls go out the door and the people give a party a clear mandate.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jun 2014)

Attack ads are really getting out of hand:  

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid867119956001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAybGjzqk~,6NfTc6c241F8RVDY60fjAj_JENn4BuUd&bctid=3605738086001


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or you can try The _Globe and Mail's_ "Where the Parties Stand" tool.




And the _Globe and Mail_ has an interesting follow-up on what I believe is the fundamental question: “What is needed to get Ontario’s economy back on track?” Each leader (someone in the campaign, anyway) responds with 800 words or less.

What is a bit interesting is the readers' choices: Hudak: 14% approval; Horwath: 19% approval; and Wynne: 67% approval (at 0700 rs, 5 Jun 14)


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think your province needs to hope for a "BC Scenario" where polls go out the door and the people give a party a clear mandate.




I'm not sure what the polls are saying ... and neither is Kathleen Wynne, I think, if her recent statements, reported in _The Star_, are any indication. Even if the published polls show her on the way to a majority she is campaigning as if she is in second place. Maybe her own polling is telling her something we aren't hearing.

I  suspect she fears the NDP splitting the _left of centre_ vote and allowing PC candidates to come up the middle, as this report in the _Ottawa Citizen__ suggests.
_


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the polls are saying ...


As of this post, it appears on the edge either way, no matter who you're checking:

Slim Liberal majority
Slim Liberal minority
Not-quite-so-slim Liberal minority
Another prediction of a not-quite-so-slim Liberal minority


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or you can try The _Globe and Mail's_ "Where the Parties Stand" tool.




And _CBC News_ has a handy, dandy interactive platform comparison tool, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2014)

The _Globe and Mail's_ editorial board has made its choice, and it may surprise some. The editorial says, in part:

     "... in a perfect world, we’d be urging Ontarians to vote for the non-existent Liberal Progressive Conservative Party: a party that believes in fiscal responsibility as the foundation of government, but not its point; a party that understands
      the necessity of government to build a better society, but also government’s limitations; a party that puts the free market at the centre of its thinking, while acknowledging its imperfections; a party that chooses policies based on evidence,
      not dogma; a party powered by ideas, but still able to feel the pain of real people; a party that favours amelioration over revolution; a party that if entrusted with the stewardship of the once healthy but now mildly ill patient known as Ontario,
      could credibly promise to leave her in better shape.        '

      There are three major parties in this contest, and none of them entirely fits the bill. We do not live in that perfect world. That is not a statement of despair or a call to apathy. Democracy has always been messy and imperfect.
       Elections are hardly ever about choosing between polar opposites, or self-evidently right and unmistakably wrong options, as far apart as noon and midnight. At election time, all choices are relative. At election time, all parties
       are graded on the curve."

                      And

     "And then there are Tim Hudak’s Tories. Are they the ideal alternative? No, far from it. Are they a viable alternative? Yes, barely.

       They deserve praise for taking a hard line with public servants, calling for an across-the-board wage freeze. Union attacks on Mr. Hudak, and support for Ms. Wynne, leave a reasonable apprehension that the Liberals won’t be firm
        in future contract talks. And absent a willingness to stand up to its own supporters, a Liberal government will miss its budget targets. Mr. Hudak also has the right idea on business subsidies: Get rid of them. His impulse runs counter to
        the Liberal tendency, which has been to move ever more deeply into the game of subsidizing businesses in an attempt to protect or create jobs. Several Liberal financial miscues, notably Green Energy, grew out of a mistaken belief that
        government has to get into industrial strategy. The game has long been powered by lobbying and fraught with muck, and the Tories are right to want to find a way out of it.

        But Mr. Hudak is also running on a platform of simplistic slogans. The Million Jobs Plan has been rightly mocked for failures of basic arithmetic. The promise to cut 100,000 government workers contains some reasonable ideas borrowed
        from Don Drummond’s Liberal-commissioned report on right-sizing government, but the rest is just about offering a nice round number for campaign purposes. The pledge to cut red tape by one-third is similarly just a slogan, not a plan to govern.
        The Tory platform is about signalling to the electorate that they are erasing the “progressive” from Progressive Conservative. To govern that way would be misguided, because governing best is not merely about figuring out how to govern less.
        There is much immaturity in the Conservative plan.

       In a perfect world, Ontario voters would have (at least) two excellent alternatives to choose from. They instead have two imperfect choices: a tired Liberal Party that has yet to learn enough from its mistakes, and an untested
       Progressive Conservative Party that needs to moderate and mature. The only way it will do so is if it is given the chance to govern. As for the Liberals, spending some time in the wilderness will allow them to rethink and recover themselves.
       *On balance, in our imperfect world, we choose the Progressive Conservative Party* – but kept on the short leash of a minority government. In two years’ time, if all goes well for the maturing of the Tories and the rebuilding of the Liberals,
       Ontarians could find themselves returning to the polls, facing what the province desperately needs: two much stronger choices."

I agree, broadly, with the _Good Grey Globe_, *but not on holding the PCs to minority status*. Minority government is bad government. There is nothing, ever, to argue in favour of a minority. Minorities cannot do what they were elected to do - for good or ill. All we ever get, in all of recorded history, from minority governments in Canada is destructive compromise - and don't for the love of heaven tell me about _medicare_, that is, still, a nonsensical policy that, almost exactly, explains what is wrong with minorities. Minorities are for stupid people  that's why they are so popular amongst so many Canadians.

Edited to add: 

My, personal dilemma is that I an absolutely certain that:

     1. Ontario needs a new, better government, NOW! The Liberals must be replaced. (Readers might want to note that I am a card carrying Conservative at both the federal and provincial (ON) levels.)

     2. The NDP is not a credible government in waiting.

     3. Tim Hudak is neither _right_ nor _ready_ to be premier of Ontario.

I'm going to vote Conservative on Thursday because *imperative* 1 and judgment 2 outweigh consideration 3. We've had weak, bad premiers before and Ontario has proven to be resilient.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We've had weak, bad premiers before and Ontario has proven to be resilient.


You _know_ the field is thin when even engaged and well-informed voters have to consider this as a factor  :not-again:


----------



## Navy_Pete (8 Jun 2014)

I think the big problem for the Ontrario PCs is that with their big campaign pitches (100k cuts, million jobs etc) they pulled the numbers out of the air to sound good but have lost a lot of credibility when anyone that bothered to read the details found the obvious logic holes/ basic math issues.

I think if they had kept the promises for job growth vague, identified that they would freeze PS wages and look at downsizing (ALL PS, including MPPs should be included if they do that), and a few other things, they could have easily hammered the Liberals for the gas plant and other issues, and a number of other critical failings.  NDP are still suffering from the Rae days, so they could have positioned themselves as the only viable candidate to the incumbents.

Instead they are stuck with this ridiculous campaign promises that they won't admit are just stupid, readjust and come back at it, so they seem to be effectively putting the useless liberals right back in (possible minority?).  

Don't get me wrong, I don't like any of them.  Before the campaign, I was going towards 'not liberals'; now I'm looking for good alternatives outside the big three to register a meaningful protest vote, if I can be bothered at all.  I find it really frustrating, particularily when I know there are a lot of really good, talented people in politics for all the right reasons.  They just rarely seem to be the ones in positions of power or influence, and quietly toil away in the backbenches when the big giant heads and their cabals of policy wonks run amok slowly destroying the country.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jun 2014)

The PC's don't have an issue with numbers. They have an issue with taking on the unions. The unions are pumping money and propaganda into their people telling them that Hudak is gonna fire firefighers and cops and nurses. In fact, he's firing their bosses and managers, leaving more money to hire MORE cops/firefighters/nurses. But anything PC is scary to the union bosses, because they won't get their way automatically like they can after buying Liberal and NDP support with anti-PC ads.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2014)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think the big problem for the Ontrario PCs is that with their [EDIT: providing detail]  I think if they had kept the promises for job growth vague....


Is not the lack of detail (or the focus on Justin Trudeau's hair) "the problem" in the other political threads?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The PC's don't have an issue with numbers. They have an issue with taking on the unions.


  op:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2014)

In and article in the _Globe and Mail_, Adam Radwanski says that both the Liberals and the PCs are seeing victory, albeit a minority, in their own, private polling. Support, he says, is shifting away from Kathleen Wynne's Liberals and towards Andrea Horwath's NDP which benefits the PCs in several key ridings.

What we have seen, over the past few days, has been a very strong Liberal push for _strategic voting_: calling on NDP voters to vote Liberal to prevent a PC/Hudak victory. That, _strategic voting_, has worked, in the past, especially for the Liberals becasue, traditionally, nationally and provincially, we had a fairly clear *left (NDP)* - _centre (Liberal)_ - *right (CPC/PC)* split and the _centrist_ Liberals were, always, best positioned to advocate and take advantage of _strategic voting_. But there is one big risk to a _strategic voting_ campaign: it makes the Liberals look weak and even desperate, and that's my _sense_ of what's been happening over the past few days.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2014)

Latest predictions according to these sites ....
http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/ontario.html
http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/ontario/
http://predictor.hkstrategies.ca/ontario2014/ 
http://www.lispop.ca/Ontarioseatprojection.html 
.... have three out of four estimators calling a hair-slim (one seat) Liberal majority, and one out of four (LISPOP) calling for a close (five seat) Liberal minority.

Remember, though, that the only poll that counts is the one where you vote!


----------



## Crispy Bacon (10 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What we have seen, over the past few days, has been a very strong Liberal push for _strategic voting_: calling on NDP voters to vote Liberal to prevent a PC/Hudak victory. That, _strategic voting_, has worked, in the past, especially for the Liberals becasue, traditionally, nationally and provincially, we had a fairly clear *left (NDP)* - _centre (Liberal)_ - *right (CPC/PC)* split and the _centrist_ Liberals were, always, best positioned to advocate and take advantage of _strategic voting_. But there is one big risk to a _strategic voting_ campaign: it makes the Liberals look weak and even desperate, and that's my _sense_ of what's been happening over the past few days.



www.anythingbutliberal.ca


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2014)

I see Kathleen Wynne's campaign, over the past few days, as does the _Windsor Star's_ Mike Graston ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2014)

Having just come back from my second trip from Alberta, I can say the contrast between the vigour of Alberta and the economic lethargy of Ontario was quite startling.

Of course the election is shaping up to be a contest between the various unions and union front groups and the taxpayers, rather than a contest between political parties, judging from the barrage of union and front group ads (at least 3:1 compared to actual political party ads by a rough count). The message of the union ads os pretty much the same: we will fight to the last taxpayer to keep the expensive wage and benefit packages the Liberals mortgaged the future of Ontario to pay for.

Liberals and NDP supporters will try to say the flood of spending was "investments", but anyone who took Economics 102 knows that borrowing money to pay for current consumption (wages for public service unions) is in _no way_ an investment. By this point our financial picture is so bleak that a new Drummond report would probably suggest spending cuts of over 20% to stabilize the economy, rather than the 17% needed at the time of the last election. Not even the Freedom Party is proposing anything that drastic....

Sometimes we have to make the least worst choice.

Make a choice and vote on the 12th, or never complain abut what happens afterwards.


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Jun 2014)

If the liberals are re-elected (and especially if Chow, gets in as well), I will be making an effort to move to Nevada.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2014)

What I find so amazing about this Ontario election is the outright lies being thrown out there by the Liberals, NDP and unions.  Take for instance the Teachers claiming that Hudak is going to cut the number of Teachers, when he has stated, and then reconfirmed his statements, that there would be cuts to NON-teaching positions, not teaching positions.  Another ad stating that the PCs will cut Day Care makes no mention of the cuts that the Liberals were pushing with Bill 143 prior to the election that would drastically affect the Day Care business in Ontario, basically closing down all non-union Day Care businesses in the province.  

I would say that, if nothing else, this has been a major campaign to totally discredit the Ontario PC party by spreading outright lies to the public scaring them away from voting PC, and re-enforcing my opinions that the Liberals are corrupt liars with only their own interests at heart.   Part of the problem is compounded by the fact that Hudak has been very brief/vague in the disemination of his plan and not breaking it down and making it stupid simple and clear to the electorate.  It has taken some media outlets questioning him for more details and clarification to draw out his ideas of the direction that his party should take.  This has hurt his image and allowed the other political parties and third party interests to promulgate fabricated claims and lies to discredit the PC platform.

Dalton McGuinty, as the leader of the Ontario Liberal party, won two consecutive elections and broke every promise he made during the election within days of being (re)elected.  Unlike the majority of the Ontario public, I remember this and DO hold it against that Party and associate that moral and ethical pattern with all of the Liberal Association and Party.   No way do I intend to go all the way to "Three Strikes and You're Out".  


"Fool Me Once, Shame On me, Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me,..........YOU WILL NOT Fool Me the third time..."


----------



## Journeyman (11 Jun 2014)

Over the past few days I've seen some new election signs up -- white writing on black, so not associated with any party -- simply attacking Hudak.  Most have been stand-alone, but three were affixed to NDP signs.

Knowing the NDP candidate from school (and her mentorship there  : ), the attack ads don't surprise me in the least.


----------



## Remius (11 Jun 2014)

Fear mongering is a sign of desperation.  With a statistical tie in the polls the Liberals are likely seeing a real possibility of losing.  By scaring (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) the undecided and apathetic they hope they'll squeek by.  They likely will.  

The fact is that Hudak has had the initiative from the onset.  They were the first to have a plan and they stuck to the message.  But yeah they could have been a bit more clear on certain aspects.

The Conservatives have run the better campaign but I think they will likely lose this one.

Now imagine this campaign with a far more charismatic type leading it.  Sigh.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Now imagine this campaign with a far more charismatic type leading it.  Sigh.



Dare to dream Sir, dare to dream.

The Liberals are desperate because when others get access to 'stuff', it may not be totally wiped clean.....


----------



## Remius (11 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Over the past few days I've seen some new election signs up -- white writing on black, so not associated with any party -- simply attacking Hudak.  Most have been stand-alone, but three were affixed to NDP signs.
> 
> Knowing the NDP candidate from school (and her mentorship there  : ), the attack ads don't surprise me in the least.



They are up in ottawa as well.  This is illegal third party ads by the Family Workers Coalition.  they don't think they've done anything wrong and are covered by free speech and all that.  They are in clear violation of city by-laws governing this and can be fined up to 5000 per infraction.  Will never happen though.  The mayor is somewhat biased...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Fear mongering is a sign of desperation.  With a statistical tie in the polls the Liberals are likely seeing a real possibility of losing.  By scaring (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) the undecided and apathetic they hope they'll squeek by.  They likely will.
> 
> The fact is that Hudak has had the initiative from the onset.  They were the first to have a plan and they stuck to the message.  But yeah they could have been a bit more clear on certain aspects.
> 
> ...




This is my favourite bit of _fear mongering_:






It's from Vaughn MPP (Liberal) Steven Del Duca. I love the images: Hudak laughing as he walks away from a hospital which is being blown up ...  :

Mr Del Duca has 'apologized' (on _Twitter_)  :loser:


----------



## Remius (11 Jun 2014)

That scene is stolen from a Batman film with the Joker doing exactly that.  In fact that is the scene with Hudak super imposed.


----------



## Remius (11 Jun 2014)

Well the city of Vaughn better start boarding up their houses and prepare for the fires, crime surge and all those stranded children if Hudak ever gets in riding on his pale horse.

He will also kill your dog.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's from Vaughn MPP (Liberal) Steven Del Duca. I love the images: Hudak laughing as he walks away from a hospital which is being blown up ...  :
> 
> Mr Del Duca has 'apologized' (on _Twitter_)  :loser:



That's a scene from the Dark Knight, where they photoshopped out the Joker. I wonder if he had permission from the film studio to use it?


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Jun 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a scene from the Dark Knight, where they photoshopped out the Joker. I wonder if he had permission from the film studio to use it?


  

Well if he didn't, and they (Warner Bros. Legal) didn't know about it before, they do now, as I just emailed them, informing them of it.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jun 2014)

"How my Photoshopped Tim Hudak image ended up in a Liberal attack ad"
http://o.canada.com/news/oddities/how-my-photoshopped-tim-hudak-image-ended-up-in-a-liberal-attack-ad


----------



## DBA (12 Jun 2014)

The liberals and unions going so off the deep end might increase voter turnout among those who lean conservative. Only 49.2% of Ontarians voted in the previous election so even a fairly modest increase in those leaning conservative could swing the election. Those unenthusiastic about voting PC might have become enthusiastic about NOT voting Liberal. They may have also driven off some NDP supporters who might otherwise have done strategic voting. 

Hudak lacks charisma but this time around so does the Liberal leader.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2014)

DBA said:
			
		

> Hudak lacks charisma but this time around so does the Liberal leader.



As does the NDP leader..................this election is like picking a prize from the bottom shelf at a midway carnival game.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jun 2014)

Well.  Hopefully the voters will not elect a corrupt lying...........


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  Hopefully the voters will not elect a corrupt lying...........


.... again  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jun 2014)

Question today is whether a trend of fewer and fewer voters turning out to vote will be set?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> As does the NDP leader..................this election is like picking a prize from the bottom shelf at a midway carnival game.



Thats one thing we can agree on. Hudak had a great platform, just doesn't have the people skills to really sell it.

Then again, there will always be the GTA folks voting Liberal regardless of how many wasted billions they run through.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  Hopefully the voters will not elect a corrupt lying...........



I don't have that hope.  My cousin posted this on FB "Ok, so the Liberals have mucked up in the past... what's done is done" and many other people I know share that sentiment (and yes all in the GTA).   I called her (and others) out that there is a reason that many HR Depts use behaviour based interviewing and follow the maxim "past performance and behaviour is the best predictor of future performance and behaviour".  They follow it because it's pretty accurate most of the time.  Ironically even the OPP (like most police services), use that principle when hiring recruits.  

Needless to say, my list of FB friends is shrinking as I call them out on their poor decision making abilities.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> this election is like picking a prize from the bottom shelf at a midway carnival game.



Stealing that.   :nod:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Question today is whether a trend of fewer and fewer voters turning out to vote will be set?



Possible. the number of people voting in the advance polls is down from the 2011 election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jun 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Possible. the number of people voting in the advance polls is down from the 2011 election.


But 2011 had 11 advance polling days, and this year had 7 - some reports say there were more per day this time.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2014)

In the "it's far too early" department, the Conservative candidate is leading in Dalton McGuinty's old riding of Ottawa South.


Looks like Hudak is toast - with the Liberals leading/elected in 52 seats (per CBC as of this posting) that makes two elections that were his to lose, and he did so.


----------



## Remius (12 Jun 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "it's far too early" department, the Conservative candidate is leading in Dalton McGuinty's old riding of Ottawa South.
> 
> 
> Looks like Hudak is toast - with the Liberals leading/elected in 52 seats (per CBC as of this posting) that makes two elections that were his to lose, and he did so.



Not anymore...

And this is looking like majority territory.


----------



## Remius (12 Jun 2014)

Well.  Ontario deserves everything it has coming to it in the next few years.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2014)

Tories look to have dropped 5% of the popular vote since last time (still early, I know).  I hope the Tories will learn to avoid extremism; I fear they'll double down on intellects even less impressive than Hudak's.

Only the NDP and Greens seem to be showing an increase in their share of the popular vote.


I'm interested to see how Hudak will react - a promise to hold on as leader, or an acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, he's not cut out to be leader...


----------



## Marchog (12 Jun 2014)

I don't want to live here anymore. I have fears for the sanity of my neighbours.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Jun 2014)

Ontario, what is wrong with you? What was Wynne's platform? Did she have a platform besides the scare tactic "Tories will take away nurses and teachers, tories will cost jobs, tories will eat your children, etc"

Why? WHY? I am seriously disappointed with my province, we have our head up our backends and we are too blinded by emotional rants to think logically.

Didn't they notice the HUGE amounts of money wasted by these clowns?

Rant done, I am going to jump off a bridge or make another xtra normal video about this lunacy.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jun 2014)

Time to change my posting preferences. I think I need a break from Ontario until the GTA smartens the @#$@#%$@ up and realizes what the Lieberals are doing to us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jun 2014)

Hey, hey, hey - it's not all bad news.  Mississauga and Oakville got what THEY wanted, no?  >


----------



## Marchog (12 Jun 2014)

I'm stuck here at ground zero, Toronto, with no immediate possibility of escape in any way. Oh the horror. 

Maybe I should just say "eff it" reapply for the regular force and move to mosquitoville, it can't be worse. Sad thing is, I'm only about 1/3 joking.


----------



## KerryBlue (12 Jun 2014)

Marchog said:
			
		

> Maybe I should just say "eff it" reapply for the regular force and move to mosquitoville, it can't be worse. Sad thing is, I'm only about 1/3 joking.



Yep that's my plan, can't stand the liberals and Onterrible anymore....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Jun 2014)

As an old friend of mine said long ago, " Never underestimate the stupidity of the Canadian Voter."  In this case insert Ontario.

Now excuse me as I have more beer to drink as I drown in my sorrows.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Jun 2014)

Yawn  and enough of this  :endnigh: stuff. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. 4 more years of foolishness will put a bullet into the liberal party in Ontario, Hudak and Horwath will be tossed away like broken china and new blood will emerge. 

Don't worry>> stay focused on what is most important to you - your family, your friends, your beliefs, heck even your dog is more important than this one thing. And keep your sense of humour, show leadership, maturity, courage and spirit- these are the things that help us all endure the good with the bad. The end of the world is not imminent just because of this one election, there were actually no good choices this time anyway.


----------



## Marchog (12 Jun 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Yawn  and enough of this  :endnigh: stuff. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. 4 more years of foolishness will put a bullet into the liberal party in Ontario, Hudak and Horwath will be tossed away like broken china and new blood will emerge.
> 
> Don't worry>> stay focused on what is most important to you - your family, your friends, your beliefs, heck even your dog is more important than this one thing. And keep your sense of humour, show leadership, maturity, courage and spirit- these are the things that help us all endure the good with the bad. The end of the world is not imminent just because of this one election, there were actually no good choices this time anyway.


Wise words. At least it'll cause the other parties to rethink things and (especially the PCs) not trot out a robotic leader that can barely even get the support of their own natural base. That said, if what the Liberals have done recently can't put a bullet in them, the pessimist in me says nothing will. What more would it take? I ask that non-rhetorically.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2014)

I agree with whisky601 (I know he misspells _whisky_, it's only a venal sin).

This is Ontario and Canada, not Latin America, and what matters is that Ontario is living on borrowed money and it must be repaid ... soon. The bond market will speak and Premier Wynne will oisten, in fact she'' jump like an obedient dog, just as will any other Canadian leaders, even Quebec leaders ... eventually.

Premier Wynne will, once the dust has settled, and while we are all preoccupied with our summer vacations, announce that balancing the budget is priority 1 and she deeply regrets that, despite all her promises, she will not reintroduce her last budget, she will raise taxes ... she will not _this_ and she will _that_ and the other thing, too.

The good news is that the PC Party will get rid of Tim Hudak; it is even possible that it will learn from its mistakes and that it will elect a moderate, centrist ... please see my comments, elsewhere, about why US politics and the US culture wars are neither welcome in nor applicable to Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2014)

I see ON has decided to go with the "budget will balance itself" strategy.

BC teachers are getting ready to strike, but I suppose they're going to have to keep playing second fiddle to ON teachers as "best paid in Canada" for a while longer.


----------



## Marchog (13 Jun 2014)

> it is even possible that it will learn from its mistakes and that it will elect a moderate, centrist ... please see my comments, elsewhere, about why US politics and the US culture wars are neither welcome in nor applicable to Canada.


Hudak did not run on a socially conservative platform in any way, I'm confused as to why you're blaming "culture wars". Socons stayed home this election. He did run on a quasi-libertarian hack-and-slash platform though, and look where it got him.


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with whisky601 (I know he misspells _whisky_, it's only a venal sin).



LOL.

"Whiskey" is Jackspeak for a tactical grid position on the Westerly part of Canada's 3 oceans. "Whisky" is something that you and I would drink, and have, so far as I can recall


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jun 2014)

There it is folks. Ontario is Toronto, the rest of us are just country bumpkins that only deserve a passing glance. Toronto gets what it wants. Get ready for *our* gas to take a jump so that McWynne can give TO the transportation infrastructure *it* wants.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Jun 2014)

He's gone

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/ontario-election-2014-tim-hudak-to-step-down-as-pc-leader




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The good news is that the PC Party will get rid of Tim Hudak; it is even possible that it will learn from its mistakes and that it will elect a moderate, centrist ... please see my comments, elsewhere, about why US politics and the US culture wars are neither welcome in nor applicable to Canada.


----------



## X Royal (13 Jun 2014)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> He's gone
> 
> http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/ontario-election-2014-tim-hudak-to-step-down-as-pc-leader


What do you expect when the PC's kept flogging the same dead horse (2 elections) who couldn't win in a no horse race.
OK Wynne does look a little horsey.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2014)

Well, when I'm done in the Forces, my future course is now set: Alberta or perhaps Saskatchewan.

Pity, I really like Kingston and had been thinking about this as a future home and base of operations....


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Jun 2014)

The Liberals still red handed from a corruption scandal and an electorate and even their own party thinking of Horvath as a petty opportunist how could you lose?  Extremist dogma over sound financial planning. Don't cut for cuttings sake and don't cut faster than growth. The solution in Ontario is temporarily raising taxes and cutting at slightly less than the economic growth rate until the budget is balanced. A solution that has never been tried. Harris cut income taxes by 30% and only cut expenses by a fraction of that. The province never recovered and Hudak was held accountable.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2014)

If the Liberal's own Duncan report said they needed to cut 17% just to stabilize the budget, then I suggest we are far past the point that "small" cuts will help at all. Indeed, since the report was ignored by McGuinty and his successors, who continued running huge deficits, the needed cuts will actually have to be 20% or more. Since growth is virtually non existent, your prescription of minuscule cuts that might balance the budget in a century or two is meaningless in any real sense.

And lets face it, when London lost over a thousand jobs in rapid succession due to large companies either leaving or downsizing because Ontario wasn't competitive (Kelloggs, Caterpillar and Cargill), raising taxes by any amount is simply going to increase the parade of jobs and capital heading to greener pastures (remember Alberta and Saskatchewan? Why do you think I am researching these places rather than Quebec or Nova Scotia?).

Face it Nemo, while the Unions beat the taxpayers at the ballot box, taxpayers can vote with their wallets and feet every day. Not everyone is going to stick around to be forced to pay for undisciplined spending on current consumption, green fantasies and crony capitalist payouts.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Jun 2014)

No provincial government can do much about globalization. Those jobs left because the US is trying to emulate Mexico. Lower wages, fewer environmental controls and rampant corruption allowing financial donations to outweigh the electorate's votes. You seem to think this condition is better than what we have. I disagree. I like a strong middle class, not just rich and poor. Unions are not the problem and the electorate clearly saw through that ruse.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Face it Nemo, while the Unions beat the taxpayers at the ballot box, *taxpayers can vote with their wallets and feet every day. Not everyone is going to stick around to be forced to pay for undisciplined spending on current consumption, green fantasies and crony capitalist payouts.*



Submitted several applications for positions in Las Vegas, and a couple of cruise lines.  Really really wish, I could stay here for the next 4 years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2014)

The _Globe and Mail_ "gets it" in an editorial. Indeed, the first pargraph says it all:

     "The two leading parties in the Ontario election ran campaigns focused not on the middle of the electorate, but on the fringes. This election was the Progressive Conservative Party’s to lose, and that Tim Hudak did. He mistakenly chose to
      run a campaign designed to motivate the Conservative base. The hard-right platform failed to win over anyone else. He did, however, succeed in frightening some voters into shifting to the NDP and Liberals. Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals
      also aimed at a voting base, albeit not their own. The Liberals drove their campaign bus on the left side of the road, the better to pick up frustrated NDP supporters, including NDPers afraid of a Hudak government. In a few key ridings,
      it worked. But to govern successfully, and to give the province a chance to climb out of the fiscal ditch, the next government has to stop focussing on the edge of the road. As premier, Ms. Wynne is going to have to move back
      toward the centre lane."

No one who matters - and that would be bond buyers - cares who promised what; no one who matters - bond buyers again - cares what the people of Toronto or Ontario or Canada want; those who matter - the bond buyers - will set the agenda. Much of what Tim Hudak said, after you got past the slogans and numbers, made and still  makes good, practical sense ... it it what any province (read Ontario and Quebec) that chooses to live on credit must do. If you want to see the future of Ontario, look at Italy; if you want to see the future of Quebec look at Spain. All four 'states' will, eventually, dig themselves out, some (Ontario) will, most likely, do it more quickly and in a less emotionally wrenching way than will the others.


----------



## CombatDoc (13 Jun 2014)

I fear that in economic terms, "Onterrible" will live up to its nickname.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Jun 2014)

From todays Toronto Star editorial page:


But the new Wynne government will also have to come to grips with Ontario’s worrisome fiscal reality.


The province has a $300-billion debt and its deficit of $12.5 billion will jump in the next year with new spending. To avoid a credit-rating downgrade, Wynne must spell out more precisely how her government intends to balance the budget within the three years it has pledged. Will Wynne play Hudak-lite and cut public service jobs or government spending? So far she has offered few details.


Inevitably, the Liberal government will face its own hard choices. That will almost certainly mean confrontations with public sector unions. Their leaders should not confuse voters’ rejection of Hudak’s deep cuts with complacency in the face of stubborn government deficits. Wynne has a mandate to govern and to balance the books – and that will mean asking some to take less.


It will be a hard road to navigate. But Wynne has shown a sure touch in the premier’s office and rare political skill in engineering this victory.


http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/06/12/kathleen_wynnes_victory_sends_a_strong_message_editorial.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There it is folks. Ontario is Toronto, the rest of us are just country bumpkins that only deserve a passing glance. Toronto gets what it wants. Get ready for *our* gas to take a jump so that McWynne can give TO the transportation infrastructure *it* wants.




But, in an article in the _Globe and Mail_, Marcus Gee argues that the promises cannot be relied upon. Mr Gee says that "the rejoicing we will hear from the city [Toronto] over the victory of Ms. Wynne and the subduing of Mr. Hudak’s Huns may prove premature."

It's the same old problem: money. Toronto, like Ottawa, like Windsor, and so on, wants more _More_, *MORE* and Queens Park simply cannot borrow that much more.


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Jun 2014)

If anyone is interested, you can get close to 50 acres and a beautiful home in certain parts of the USA for less than a townhome in your average Ontario city… 

Willing to sub-divide land at a fair price for the right person  


Cheap beers and AR-15 practice every weekend guys!


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There it is folks. Ontario is Toronto, the rest of us are just country bumpkins that only deserve a passing glance. Toronto gets what it wants.


True, but that's not news to those of us living north of the 705 area code.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (13 Jun 2014)

Disgusted, ashamed, and disappointed. Hope everyone has their $3400 set aside for the Liberal Pension Plan!


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Jun 2014)

Recceguy I am looking your way. 

 Obama may be less than ideal but I would trust the Americans I've served with on average more than the Canadians. Michigan is basically free these days…


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2014)

One further ( and, I hope, final) comment:







This guy, Peter Wallace, the Secretary of the Cabinet matters at least as much as any minister except Wynne, herself.

My guess is that Wynne wants him in his role as "Doctor No" because she can manage her larger, often left leaning caucus ~ and break election promise after election promise ~ by telling them, and the voters, that it is the big bad financial wolves, not the Liberals, who are cutting jobs, freezing wages and with-holding promised money.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2014)

I cannot resist posting the _Globe and Mail's_ Brian Gable's opinion:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/taking-action-for-our-veterans/article18949202/


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> One further ( and, I hope, final) comment......


You wouldn't be a betting man, would you?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested, you can get close to 50 acres and a beautiful home in certain parts of the USA for less than a townhome in your average Ontario city…
> 
> Willing to sub-divide land at a fair price for the right person
> 
> ...



Sounds good.  I awoke this morning thinking I was having a nightmare about the Liberals winning a majority government.  After three coffees, I am convinced I am awake and it really did happen.  This confirms my thoughts as I age that the majority of people in this province are morons.  The older I get, the stupider I think people are.  

I now suggest that we change the saying of Ontario's population centered on Toronto from "The Center of the Universe" to "The Triangle of Stupid".  Like the Bermuda Triangle anything that enters the Triangle will disappear without a trace.  OPP investigations into Gas Plant Scandal, Government emails, ORNGE, etc. will disappear into thin air.  Hard earned incomes will disappear into thin air through higher taxes, fuel costs, Hydro costs, etc.  Jobs will move to the US.  People with brains will migrate to Alberta.  Yup.  We now live in a province that prides itself as being a "Have Not Province".  THE TRIANGLE OF STUPID.

Do you have anything larger than 5.56?


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with whisky601 (I know he misspells _whisky_, it's only a venal sin).



Venal?  Was he bribed?  I think you meant venial....   



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, when I'm done in the Forces, my future course is now set: Alberta or perhaps Saskatchewan.
> 
> Pity, I really like Kingston and had been thinking about this as a future home and base of operations....



My plan is not retiring in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Venal?  Was he bribed?  I think you meant venial....



 :-[  :-[   :-[

Damn Bill Gates and autocorrect!  :rage:


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> My plan is not retiring in Canada.



Turks & Caicos ?


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sounds good.  I awoke this morning thinking I was having a nightmare about the Liberals winning a majority government.  After three coffees, I am convinced I am awake and it really did happen.  This confirms my thoughts as I age that the majority of people in this province are morons.  The older I get, the stupider I think people are.
> 
> I now suggest that we change the saying of Ontario's population centered on Toronto from "The Center of the Universe" to "The Triangle of Stupid".  Like the Bermuda Triangle anything that enters the Triangle will disappear without a trace.  OPP investigations into Gas Plant Scandal, Government emails, ORNGE, etc. will disappear into thin air.  Hard earned incomes will disappear into thin air through higher taxes, fuel costs, Hydro costs, etc.  Jobs will move to the US.  People with brains will migrate to Alberta.  Yup.  We now live in a province that prides itself as being a "Have Not Province".  THE TRIANGLE OF STUPID.
> 
> Do you have anything larger than 5.56?




Anything for you George. If you can find something big enough to drive, I'm sure I can figure out how to make it go bang. Hopefully we can find someone else to back us up, sleeping 1 in 2 gets old fast  

I was born and bred here in Ontario but sometimes you have to observe the way the wind is blowing and adjust…


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Turks & Caicos ?



LOL!  No.  Central America seems pretty likely.   :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Anything for you George. If you can find something big enough to drive, I'm sure I can figure out how to make it go bang. Hopefully we can find someone else to back up us up, sleeping 1 in 2 gets old fast
> 
> I was born and bred here in Ontario but sometimes you have to observe the way the wind is blowing and adjust…



In Texas you can legally buy a tank, licence it and drive it on public roads.  Sleeping on the back deck can be therapeutic ( engine heat off the deck is very comforting on an arthritic back. )   Not sure on how legal it is to have 105mm ammo, and whether you need a licence to carry  ;D , but you will not have to worry about 'Road Rage" ( the other guys would )   >

Any more Dvrs and Gnrs interested?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> LOL!  No.  Central America seems pretty likely.   :nod:




Moe

I have a friend who left the Regiment years ago and started up a small Computer company.  Ontario and Canadian taxes gradually caused him to downsize and downsize his small business to the state that he was working in his basement with no employees (At his peak, he had a couple locations in Pembroke and up to five employees).  He finally had enough and moved to Panama.  He is now in Columbia and loving it.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Prepare for the next string of broken promises once the Liebrals get slapped into reality.


http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F06%2F12%2Fmatt-gurney-cheer-up-tories-wynne-will-impose-austerity-for-you-she-has-no-choice


----------



## observor 69 (13 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be a betting man, would you?



I think you are showing admirable restraint in the face of the comments being made.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jun 2014)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I think you are showing admirable restraint in the face of the comments being made.


I was just commenting on the hope of ERC that the comments would end soon.   I have no doubt that this thread will go on as long as "pips & crowns."


... regardless of my thinking that the results in both topics aren't particularly good.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

I find it interesting that I have not seen anything but negative comments online, and heard nothing but negative comments on Talk Radio, on the election results.  Makes one wonder.

Now I voted, and am disappointed with the results, but with the amount of negative comments, I am wondering how many of those people did not exercise their rights to vote.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that I have not seen anything but negative comments online, and heard nothing but negative comments on Talk Radio, on the election results.  Makes one wonder.
> 
> Now I voted, and am disappointed with the results, but with the amount of negative comments, I am wondering how many of those people did not exercise their rights to vote.


If the (still unofficial) numbers from Elections Ontario can be extrapolated to the commenters, a bit less than 1/2 didn't vote.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jun 2014)

Well, the negative comments here could be due to you all being a bunch of grumpy old nay-sayers    op:



......not being upbeat, considerate, and nurturing like me.    :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, the negative comments here could be due to you all being a bunch of grumpy old nay-sayers    op:
> 
> 
> 
> ......not being upbeat, considerate, and nurturing like me.    :nod:



Just being a 'realist'; something that the Liberals don't seem to be.


I am noticing a lot of comments of people who are seriously starting to contemplate voting with their feet and moving out of Ontario.


----------



## Remius (13 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just being a 'realist'; something that the Liberals don't seem to be.
> 
> 
> I am noticing a lot of comments of people who are seriously starting to contemplate voting with their feet and moving out of Ontario.



I think most of those people saying that are not really meaning it.  The election result won't  make people leave.  Lack of jobs, high taxes etc etc will make people leave.

I'm seeing a lot words like disgust and shame.  These are not words I use.  The democratic process did what it did.  People exercised their right to vote (or didn't) and the province has spoken.

Frustration is what I feel.  More so than any other election I've voted in.  And here is why:

I'm generally a non-partisan centrist and vote on the issues for the most part.  In that context;

1) The attack ads were the worst I've seen catering to fear and misleading information.  The hypocrisy here is that the people that voted Liberal here will likely be the ones criticising this at the federal level when their champion gets subjected to this kind of thing.

2) The message is that corruption doesn't matter.  The Liberals didn't deserve to win this.  They earned  a break from leading but this province didn't care about any of that.  They will now think they are invincible.

3) We don't want honest politicians.  Say what you want about Hudak, but he put his cards on the table.  How many times have we heard that people are tired of lies and dishonesty.  Well you had someone tell like it is and since most didn't want to hear it they listened to the rainbows and lollipops line from proven promise breakers.  

Despite my frustration though there are some observations.  The economy needs to be fixed and likely the Liberals will have to take action no matter what they promised.  I fully expect the unions to turn on them but they will get nothing but smiles from me.  You get what you deserve.  If I was the conservative opposition leader I wouldn't be leaping to any of their defenses either.  I would support whole heartedly the government and in fact call for them to further cut slash and balance the books.

Also note that except for twice in the last 100 years, the government in Ontario has never matched the one that is in Ottawa.  if the trend continues the the CPC will form the next governement (I realise that it might seem like voodoo but there may be a balancing act that the voters in Ontario subconciously accomplish).

So yeah, very frustrated.  So much so that I am buying a provincial PC membership.  It's the only meaningful thing I can think of doing that will have any impact.


----------



## Marchog (13 Jun 2014)

> I think most of those people saying that are not really meaning it.  The election result won't  make people leave.  *Lack of jobs, high taxes etc etc will make people leave.*


*
Yes. Exactly, and that's what most of the people saying they feel like leaving (such as me) mean. *


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2014)

People who didn't get the result they hoped for in an election are the ones most likely to blow off steam in comments.

ON still has some of the lowest provincial tax rates in the country.  Avoid the unnecessary battle until it becomes necessary.  Give it a couple of years.  Maybe the horse will learn to sing.

Sometimes, "you caught it, you clean it" is a just result.


----------



## Remius (13 Jun 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ON still has some of the lowest provincial tax rates in the country.  Avoid the unnecessary battle until it becomes necessary.  Give it a couple of years.  Maybe the horse will learn to sing.



Actually were pretty much middle of the pack on that.

The problem lies with our debt and more importantly our deficit.  Without cuts to programs and jobs you have to raise taxes.  Raising taxes will drive productive jobs away.  Same with gas taxes, corporate taxes etc etc.  All this in turn raises hydro, gas etc etc.  

At a quarter of a trillion dollars we have more debt than all other provinces combined, more debt than South Korea with only a fraction of their population...

Anyways, taxes won't be where they are for very long once the piper comes to get paid.


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I think most of those people saying that are not really meaning it.  The election result won't  make people leave.  Lack of jobs, high taxes etc etc will make people leave.



Probably.  But the moment CBC declared it (only website that worked properly at my work), I started sending out applications to American companies (mostly in Las Vegas, casino's tend to hire a lot of foreigners).  I don't want to wait until the bottom falls out.


----------



## Remius (13 Jun 2014)

And if the numbers are to be believed then 1.4 million people depend on their salaries coming from the provincial coffers not counting anyone that is federally employed.  None of those people will likely leave unless cut.  

I don't foresee a huge exodus at all.  When Obama was elected, plenty of Republican supporters where very vocal about leaving the US and coming to Canada.  I don't think that happened then either.  

I'm sort of lucky that my job isn't dependant on the province and that I will likely be moving out of my riding (one that will likely never ever change colours).  

We'll see how the tune c hanges when (it is when and not if) the hammer falls.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't foresee a huge exodus at all.



Perhaps not.  It is to be noted though that the Oil Patch in both Alberta and Saskatchewan, once the domain of so many expatriate Maritimers, is now home to many expatriate Ontarians.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The election result won't  make people leave.  Lack of jobs, high taxes etc etc will make people leave.



Funny how you don't seem to think one is not connected to the other. Some people will leave early because they see the direction the wind is blowing, and have the smarts or ability to get out _before_ the iceberg hits the Titanic. The ones who are forced out later will have a terrible time of it, losing much of the equity when forced to "fire sale" their homes and having much less accumulated savings and capital to finance their new start wherever they choose to go.

Reread the story of how Detroit went from the richest per capita city in the United States to bankruptcy in four decades, since the same story is being written large here.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Jun 2014)

Actually Ontario has  the lowest provincial income tax at 5.05% on the first 40k and 9% on the next 40k. Alberta is a flat 10%. Saskatchewan's is  11% on the first 43k and 13% on the next 80k. Quebec is 16% on the first 41k and 20% on the next 40k. Don't  let facts get in the way of a good rant though, continue.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There it is folks. Ontario is Toronto, the rest of us are just country bumpkins that only deserve a passing glance. Toronto gets what it wants. Get ready for *our* gas to take a jump so that McWynne can give TO the transportation infrastructure *it* wants.



This mornings Kingston Whig had a nice colour map showing how Ontario voted. In a nut shell; northern Ontario NDP; southern Ontario CPC; and urban centers Liberal. If I remember correctly three - four Liberal seats in Thunder Bay, nine or so in/around Ottawa, Kingston, and the rest in the GTA/local area. And the NDP picked-up a few in the Toronto area also. 

And the front page of the National Post had a breakdown of seats the parties won and the percentage of the vote. The Liberals with 57 seats and 37.9 % of the vote and the PCs 27 seats and 31.1% of the vote. The Liberals got approximately seven per cent more votes than the PCs, but got double the seats - go figure.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Actually Ontario has  the lowest provincial income tax at 5.05% on the first 40k and 9% on the next 40k. Alberta is a flat 10%. Saskatchewan's is  11% on the first 43k and 13% on the next 80k. Quebec is 16% on the first 41k and 20% on the next 40k. Don't  let facts get in the way of a good rant though, continue.



And I am sure you factored in all the other factors, such as cost of living, property taxes, HST/GST, etc. to boot.......But let's not let a good rant be wasted.




In the end, I look at it as the Ontario electorate legitimizing 'Political corruption'.  :dunno:   :-\


----------



## Coastalchaos (13 Jun 2014)

Don't kid yourself.  The Canadian population has been legitimizing corruption provincially and nationally since confederation.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Jun 2014)

For those interested, the province broken down by ridings and how they voted:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/12/ontario-election-2014-results-a-live-riding-by-riding-breakdown-of-the-vote/


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jun 2014)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> This mornings Kingston Whig had a nice colour map showing how Ontario voted. In a nut shell; northern Ontario NDP; southern Ontario CPC; and urban centers Liberal. If I remember correctly three - four two Liberal seats in Thunder Bay, two NDP seats around T.Bay, nine or so in/around Ottawa, Kingston, and the rest in the GTA/local area. And the NDP picked-up a few in the Toronto area also.


FTFY  ;D  As others have said, based on population numbers, Ontario=GTA+everybody else.



			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> And the front page of the National Post had a breakdown of seats the parties won and the percentage of the vote. The Liberals with 57 seats and 37.9 % of the vote and the PCs 27 seats and 31.1% of the vote. The Liberals got approximately seven per cent more votes than the PCs, but got double the seats - go figure.


Part of the "magic" of first-past-the-post, I'm afraid.  Now, if we want to see number of seats based on percentage of votes cast, there's this option - but that comes with its own problems, too.  Also, based on who else likes the idea, I'm guessing it may not get much traction here  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2014)

It's amazing how he wants to hold onto his job when he was so eager to toss 100,000 out of theirs......

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/16/some_tories_pushing_to_dump_tim_hudak_immediately.html



A defiant Tim Hudak is trying to remain at the helm of the Progressive Conservatives until a new leader is elected — despite angry caucus members urging him to go.

In the wake of Thursday’s humbling defeat at the hands of Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, the Tories met for almost four hours in an emotionally charged meeting at Queen’s Park. 
Hudak emerged from the closed-door session insisting he was sticking to his timetable and serving as leader until his successor is chosen, which could take many months.


“I have no regrets,” he told reporters when asked about the controversial pledge to eliminate 100,000 public sector jobs over four years.
“We could all do Monday morning quarterback . . . I’m proud of the campaign we ran.”
The Tory chief — who earns $180,886 as leader of the official Opposition, a $64,336 premium above the base $116,550 salary of an MPP — did not sound like he was in a hurry to leave.

MORE AT LINK


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2014)

The public service loses approx. 50,000 jobs yearly to attrition x two years = 100,000 jobs. The very high majority of those jobs were to be struck from middle management (you like those guys, right Bruce?), special committees and liberal sugar daddy organizations like the Office of the Chief Prevention Officer and the College of Trades.

I see no problem with Hudak maintaining his stature, just as he stated, until the *Party* decides his successor, just as it should be. I'm sure they're well on top of it and have plans in the making to elect a new leader. The Party decides, not Hudak.

A few rabble rousers that want a rudderless ship, like the one the federal liebrals ran under interim leader Bob Rae, should be taken aside by the Party Whip and told the facts of life on how a democracy works, including within the rules of the Party.

The election is over. Toronto got what they wanted. You can stop with the attack ads. At least until the next time your union spends your dues on them and tells you how to vote.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> It's amazing how he wants to hold onto his job when he was so eager to toss 100,000 out of theirs......
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/16/some_tories_pushing_to_dump_tim_hudak_immediately.html
> 
> A defiant Tim Hudak is trying to remain at the helm of the Progressive Conservatives until a new leader is elected — despite angry caucus members urging him to go.



 ???

So what?

Who's interpreting this as "defiant"?  Some journalist who wants to make a name for them-self with their mastery, or butchery, of the English language?

He said he is going to step down.  He says he is going to remain at the helm until a new leader is elected.  Sounds like "commons sense" to me.  What am I missing here?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Jun 2014)

The fact that he got his ass handed to him in an election a poorly-trained monkey could have won..........it's called 'integrity' George.  Look it up.....
Umm, RG?  You're in the same Union I am, did you ever get told to vote a certain way straight out??   No, neither did I.......

Mr. Hudak was one of the back room morons that killed Mike Harris and he's still killing my party of choice today, it's just time to go, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (18 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The fact that he got his *** handed to him in an election a poorly-trained monkey could have won..........it's called 'integrity' George.  Look it up.....
> Umm, RG?  You're in the same Union I am, did you ever get told to vote a certain way straight out??   No, neither did I.......
> 
> Mr. Hudak was one of the back room morons that killed Mike Harris and he's still killing my party of choice today, it's just time to go, nothing more, nothing less.



What good would it serve for him to go now? That would require the party to appoint an interim leader only to have that person relinquish the title in the fall (most likely, winter at the latest).  All that leader would be doing is serving as a figure head for the Wynne government to ram through their majority-imposed budget bill, then the House rises for the summer, and when they return the PCs will (probably) have a new leader.

The leader serves at the will of the party's members.  Guess what: the members won't be meeting until at least the fall.  Hudak has already said he's resigning.  He's just the lame duck leader until a new one is elected.  Nothing is accomplished by having him step down now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jun 2014)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The fact that he got his ass handed to him in an election a poorly-trained monkey could have won..........it's called 'integrity' George.  Look it up.....
> Umm, RG?  You're in the same Union I am, did you ever get told to vote a certain way straight out??   No, neither did I.......
> 
> Mr. Hudak was one of the back room morons that killed Mike Harris and he's still killing my party of choice today, it's just time to go, nothing more, nothing less.



No, they did not tell us who to vote for, but they sure as hell told us who not to vote for. Same diff. I despise the fact that they use my dues to attack my party of choice.

And Hudak will go, not when journalists want him to, not when some back room boys (or girls) want him to, but when the *PARTY* decides it's time for him to go.

If you don't like how the Party (not Hudak) is handling it, take out a membership and voice your concerns through your riding association.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (18 Jun 2014)

There you go: Tim Hudak is done July 2.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

I'll be curious to see how the markets react to the Liberal budget set to be tabled and if by running this deficit budget, Ontario's credit rating will drop yet again.  I read somewhere that a credit drop will cost us an additional 500 million a year in interest on top of the 10 Billion in interest we pay now.  I wonder if that has been factored in.


----------



## acen (19 Jun 2014)

I heard Kathleen Wynne yesterday on the radio and she said that ontarians had nothing to worry about if the credit rating dropped. That wasn't her concern, that was for the credit agencies to deal with. That means we're going to be fine...right?  :

Wake me in 2018 or when the province defaults, whichever comes first.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jun 2014)

I think this should be a good indicator that the GTA IS NOT the "Center of the Universe"; but the "Center of the Triangle of Stupid".  Like the Bermuda Triangle, all hope that goes into the "Triangle of Stupid" disappears without a trace.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

acen said:
			
		

> I heard Kathleen Wynne yesterday on the radio and she said that ontarians had nothing to worry about if the credit rating dropped. That wasn't her concern, that was for the credit agencies to deal with. That means we're going to be fine...right?  :
> 
> Wake me in 2018 or when the province defaults, whichever comes first.



That's likely the line she'll be using but I'm sure she'll need to factor it whether she likes it or not.  My gut tells me that the budget after next, we'll be in for some real austerity...


----------



## jpjohnsn (19 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think this should be a good indicator that the GTA IS NOT the "Center of the Universe"; but the "Center of the Triangle of Stupid".  Like the Bermuda Triangle, all hope that goes into the "Triangle of Stupid" disappears without a trace.


Yep, pretty much all the major cities in Ontario went Grit and those that didn't went most NDP; all of Northern Ontario, save TBay went NDP but it's all Toronto's fault.

Barrie, a riding so conservative it elected the only Reform MP ever in the eastern half of Canada ousted a long-time, PC MPP in favour of a Liberal candidate who didn't enter the race until almost 2 weeks in; and another safe PC seat, Newmarket-Aurora also went from blue to red.

But yep, it's all the fault of the T dot.  :

Seems to me that it's that thin belt of blue across the middle of the province that believes it's the centre of the universe...


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Yep, pretty much all the major cities in Ontario went Grit and those that didn't went most NDP; all of Northern Ontario, save TBay went NDP but it's all Toronto's fault.
> 
> Barrie, a riding so conservative it elected the only Reform MP ever in the eastern half of Canada ousted a long-time, PC MPP in favour of a Liberal candidate who didn't enter the race until almost 2 weeks in; and another safe PC seat, Newmarket-Aurora also went from blue to red.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but the road to power is the GTA.  GTA has 47 of the 107 seats.  The Liberals won 39 of those.  With Toronto alone and the NDP and PCs splitting the rest of the province they could still have a minority government.  Eastern Ontario (the next largest district) only has 12 seats and they were split 6 Liberal and 6 PC.  

The Greater Toronto Area overwhelmingly voted Liberal.  So yes, in large part it was T-dot's doing.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> But yep, it's all the fault of the T dot.  :



Not all of T Dot. Just the ignorant ones that voted Lieberal. I also include the 20 or so thousand in Kingston that voted for the Liberals again, after our old MPP had done absolutely nothing for the riding in years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the road to power is the GTA.  GTA has 47 of the 107 seats.  The Liberals won 39 of those.  With Toronto alone and the NDP and PCs splitting the rest of the province they could still have a minority government.  Eastern Ontario (the next largest district) only has 12 seats and they were split 6 Liberal and 6 PC.
> 
> The Greater Toronto Area overwhelmingly voted Liberal.  So yes, in large part it was T-dot's doing.



Good synopsis.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jun 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the road to power is the GTA.









    *The facts will just confuse him.... *


----------



## jpjohnsn (20 Jun 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *The facts will just confuse him.... *


No, no, no.  I understand the facts.  Who wins Toronto wins Ontario, that's pretty much a given.  My dispute is the notion Toronto deserves to be singled out for scorn when what happened in Toronto is reflected in pretty much every urban centre throughout the province - even in ridings that should have been a no-brainer for the PCs to hold.  In more than a few ridings, the PC candidate only won by the skins of their collective teeth.  

Tim Hudak blew the election - pure and simple.  He snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so completely that if he was a boxer, he'd be under investigation for the possibility of taking a dive.   Blaming the voters or calling the stupid doesn't change that fact.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Tim Hudak blew the election - pure and simple.



So the fact that nearly every union in the province were actively engaged in a fear mongering campaig AGAINST him, with no limit to how much they could spend, that had nothing to do with the PC defeat at all.  He was screwed no matter what, against that sort of attack.  Tell the truth and get lynched, by people who only want to hear fairy tales and have sunshine blown up their @$$.  Run a campaign like wynne, and refuse to give concrete answers on anything, and the narrative would have been he has a hidden agenda.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jun 2014)

I've been following this and in about a year or so Manitoba will have a general election. I can foresee the unions siding with the current ruling party (NDP) against the PC party. The claims will be "they fire thousands of nurses" and other tripe. The accusations will stick.
The unions will trot out the fact that the leader of the PC party lives in a very sumptuous home....and in Manitoba nothing brings out the knives like success, especially within the perimeter highway (Winnipeg). He who wins Winnipeg will form the government.
The NDP will bribe Manitobans with their own money, tell outrageous stories about the Conservatives, and get away with it.


----------



## jpjohnsn (20 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> So the fact that nearly every union in the province were actively engaged in a fear mongering campaig AGAINST him, with no limit to how much they could spend, that had nothing to do with the PC defeat at all.  He was screwed no matter what, against that sort of attack.  Tell the truth and get lynched, by people who only want to hear fairy tales and have sunshine blown up their @$$.  Run a campaign like wynne, and refuse to give concrete answers on anything, and the narrative would have been he has a hidden agenda.


If Hudak had explained the twin pillars of his platform properly (i.e. the million jobs and the plan to draw down the public sector by 100,000) PROPERLY, they wouldn't have had the ammunition they so successfully used against him.  He decided to go with quick and easy soundbites and then made no effort to follow up.  He left that to his opponents.  

Don't blame the tigers for eating you if go out of your way to carefully craft a three-piece suit out of strip sirloin and then do a jig in front of them.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If Hudak had explained the twin pillars of his platform properly (i.e. the million jobs and the plan to draw down the public sector by 100,000) PROPERLY, they wouldn't have had the ammunition they so successfully used against him.  He decided to go with quick and easy soundbites and then made no effort to follow up.  He left that to his opponents.
> 
> Don't blame the tigers for eating you if go out of your way to carefully craft a three-piece suit out of strip sirloin and then do a jig in front of them.



1) Define properly.
2) You honestly believe and expect that the unions and by extension the lazy ill informed voters, would have honestly listened to any lengthy explanation of those points?  His explanation could have been in a tome the size of "War and Peace", and the only thing people would hammer on is 1 Million Jobs, 100,000 cuts. 
3) The unions don't require ammuniton.  They will attack any party (governing or not), that isn't completely compliant with thier demands and wishes.


----------



## jpjohnsn (20 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> 1) Define properly.
> 2) You honestly believe and expect that the unions and by extension the lazy ill informed voters, would have honestly listened to any lengthy explanation of those points?  His explanation could have been in a tome the size of "War and Peace", and the only thing people would hammer on is 1 Million Jobs, 100,000 cuts.
> 3) The unions don't require ammuniton.  They will attack any party (governing or not), that isn't completely compliant with thier demands and wishes.


Sorry, my mistake.  Hudak ran the perfect campaign but the electorate was just too stupid to realize it.  Sounds just a touch too much like Parizeau blaming money and the ethnic vote.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If Hudak had explained the twin pillars of his platform properly (i.e. the million jobs and the plan to draw down the public sector by 100,000) PROPERLY, they wouldn't have had the ammunition they so successfully used against him.  He decided to go with quick and easy soundbites and then made no effort to follow up.  He left that to his opponents.
> 
> Don't blame the tigers for eating you if go out of your way to carefully craft a three-piece suit out of strip sirloin and then do a jig in front of them.



Aside from a few hiccups he ran a good campaign.  Stayed on message, took the iniative and won the debate.  But he never connected with the electorate.  Putting numbers to his plan may have contributed yes as opposed to saying things like 10% reduction or reduce public sector to 1.2 million jobs or whatever.  Third party funding was a major issue though and one that the provincial electoral officer has agreed needs to be addressed.

Money wins campaigns.  Or at least it can really help.  When a party fights against a lot of third party money that essentially is free advertising for the opponents its hard to effectively and fairly compete.  This became a fear mongering campaign from the Liberals and any organisation that was against Hudak.  Unions in particular or coalitions of unions.  Remember that political parties raise their money from donors whereas unions raise it through mandatory levies.  As a union member I have very luittle say as to how my money is spent (especially on non union activities).  

So while it is easy to critiicise him after the fact (I don't even like the guy myself), I can't see what more he could have done short of playing dirty and not being honest.  We all say we hate that sort of stuff but when politicians ARE honest we don't like what we hear and vote for the liars and dirty players. 

It is a career choice I'm glad I never made nor will I likely ever entertain.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Sorry, my mistake.  Hudak ran the perfect campaign but the electorate was just too stupid to realize it.  Sounds just a touch too much like Papineau blaming money and the ethnic vote.



I think you meant to say Parizeau. 

I'm not saying he ran a brilliant campaign, just that the other side and opponents of any type of austerity platform played a much dirtier game with more smoke and more mirrors.


----------



## The_Falcon (20 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Sorry, my mistake.  Hudak ran the perfect campaign but the electorate was just too stupid to realize it.  Sounds just a touch too much like Papineau blaming money and the ethnic vote.



You can be sarcastic, or you can answer my questions and explain your reasoning and thought process.  YOU are the one who said he didn't run his campaign "properly".  I want to know what your "proper" campaign would have been.  I also want to know if you honestly think having lengthly detail messages would have been in any way effective given the 24/7-instant/twitter media word western politics inhabits.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Jun 2014)

Not from Ontario but:

The 1,000,000 jobs was pie in the sky and unjustifiable, as was proven.
A freeze on civil servants would have been as good a talking point as the perceived 100,000 layoffs.
Hudak's personality seems a bit odd, don't know what, but odd.


----------



## jpjohnsn (20 Jun 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You can be sarcastic, or you can answer my questions and explain your reasoning and thought process.  YOU are the one who said he didn't run his campaign "properly".  I want to know what your "proper" campaign would have been.  I also want to know if you honestly think having lengthly detail messages would have been in any way effective given the 24/7-instant/twitter media word western politics inhabits.


Okay...

Promising a million jobs and making no effort dispel the notion, that  this implies better than 100% employment (in that there are fewer than 1 million people out of work in the province).  The idea is laughable but not what the plan is actually about.  It hardly takes a huge tome to explain what he actually meant.  It was hoping a quick slogan would suffice.

Instead of saying "we'll reduce numbers by attrition", etc, he went with the far snappier "cutting 100,000 jobs" hoping that the basic resentment people have against 'comfy government jobs' would suffice to rally the electorate.  There was so much else he could have talked about that would have met a fair more receptive ear but he didn't chose that.   

LBJ said that 'for every job you cut you lose 5 votes'.   I also believe that no one really believes a politician when they promise to create jobs.  

Hudak did both on steroids.  

He could have talked about his transportation plans for the GTA.  He could have talked about his plan to help universities prepare people better for jobs, he could have done any number of things but he led with nice slow pitch across the plate that a child could have hit out of the park.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2014)

Two campaigns ago he was pillored by the MSM and his opposition for being too covert, wishy washy and too general in his talking points. That's why everyone said he lost.

This time those same groups say he was too honest and forthright. That his solid platform, that he came out with right away (the other two still had no platform on 12 June) was too much for people to take. He was too brutally honest and made no bones about the tough choices that had to be made. Totally opposite of the previous time. Now, they say that's why he lost this time.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The hilarious thing about it all, is that if McWynne sees any way out of this liebral mess she helped create, she's going to have to do it using Hudak's platform. :rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2014)

>Tim Hudak blew the election

Voters decide elections.  If the election was "blown", voters blew it.

Politicians routinely lie (choose a less inflammatory verb if you wish).  Do you suppose this is shocking news to most voters?  Is it shocking news to anyone here?

Obviously the magnitude of Hudak's claims were ridiculous.  But was it the magnitude or the direction of his vector that mattered?  Most people did what people always do - follow the most comforting lies.

All sorts of people are writing things along the lines of "of course Wynne is going to have to govern differently than promised".  So what stopped them from understanding that Hudak would have to govern differently than promised?  Oh, blame the unions, etc.  No.  Blame themselves.

Whatever else happens, there isn't going to be a bailout from the feds.  Debt servicing costs can't really go any lower.   The US economy isn't setting growth records.  ON can't print its own money.  The fact that jobs requiring low to moderate levels of skill have been disappearing (on net) with each successive recent recession has attracted plenty of notice.

My guess is that ON can paper over the problem for a few years.  But with the onset of the next recession or a jump in debt servicing costs, the hard choices will be imminent if no-one has attempted to wrestle them down to size earlier.  ON gets another kick at the can in four to five years.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jun 2014)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Instead of saying "we'll reduce numbers by attrition", etc, he went with the far snappier "cutting 100,000 jobs" hoping that the basic resentment people have against 'comfy government jobs' would suffice to rally the electorate.



The Conservatives actually said the reductions would be through attrition, but people were too lazy to read it for themselves, plus the Liberals, and the unions lied that that the cuts would include police offices, health care workers, etc when the Conservatives said they wouldn't.


----------



## Crispy Bacon (21 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Two campaigns ago he was pillored by the MSM and his opposition for being too covert, wishy washy and too general in his talking points. That's why everyone said he lost.
> 
> This time those same groups say he was too honest and forthright. That his solid platform, that he came out with right away (the other two still had no platform on 12 June) was too much for people to take. He was too brutally honest and made no bones about the tough choices that had to be made. Totally opposite of the previous time. Now, they say that's why he lost this time.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2014)

Sadly, my wife did not tell me this story until today, but evidently while I was away at EX MR14, she went to a political event hosted by Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health minister. She questioned the minister as to why *we* were being forced to pay for services which were listed for my mother in law after surgery but which were never actually delivered (getting dressings changed, physio, and so on). Since the bill ran over a thousand dollars, she was justifiably irate. (further talking to my wife revealed that trying to get answers from the health care system makes Rogers customer service seem fast and first rate...)

The minister dismissed the question by blandly stating "I have no difficulty getting health care" or words to that effect. This *F*U* response simply reinforces the notion that health care for Ontarians is for the rich and politically connected, the rest of us can scratch out whatever we can from our declining standards of living. 

I certainly hope that Alberta's health care system isn't as dysfunctional...


----------



## stealthylizard (22 Jun 2014)

I've used health services in BC and Alberta, and I have never received a bill for care received.  The more I learn about Ontario......  I was always under the notion it was the greatest place in Canada.  Maybe my ability to understand sarcasm needs some improvement.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I certainly hope that Alberta's health care system isn't as dysfunctional...



This is from 2010. Perhaps things have changed since then.

"Albertans have the highest out- of- pocket spending on health care in the nation. Even accounting for the elimination of health care premiums, Albertans still pay 13% more than other Canadians for so-called ‘extras’ to the health care system.

Within health care spending, dental and eye care, nursing homes, and ambulance fees stand out as big- ticket items for average families. Eye exams for adults were de-listed in the mid 1990s and dental care has never been included in Alberta’s public health care plan. Another area where Albertans paid significantly more was for ‘other medical services,’ which include nursing homes and ambulances. This coincides with a campaign to downgrade long term care homes to assisted living homes, un-bundling services, and transferring costs on to seniors and their families. Alberta’s ambulance charges are among the highest in Canada. Fees vary by municipality: for example, Edmonton charged $344 for an ambulance in 2007. A family with a child experiencing an asthma breathing crisis in Edmonton would pay $344 for an ambulance. By contrast, the same ambulance would cost a BC family $80."
http://parklandinstitute.ca/media/comments/alberta_families_pay_most_in_canada_for_health_education_and_utilities

By comparison, ambulance service in Ontario is $45.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, my wife did not tell me this story until today, but evidently while I was away at EX MR14, she went to a political event hosted by Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health minister. She questioned the minister as to why *we* were being forced to pay for services which were listed for my mother in law after surgery but which were never actually delivered (getting dressings changed, physio, and so on). Since the bill ran over a thousand dollars, she was justifiably irate. (further talking to my wife revealed that trying to get answers from the health care system makes Rogers customer service seem fast and first rate...)
> 
> The minister dismissed the question by blandly stating "I have no difficulty getting health care" or words to that effect. This *F*U* response simply reinforces the notion that health care for Ontarians is for the rich and politically connected......



Marie Antoinette - " let them eat cake."


----------



## The_Falcon (22 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, my wife did not tell me this story until today, but evidently while I was away at EX MR14, she went to a political event hosted by Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health minister. She questioned the minister as to why *we* were being forced to pay for services which were listed for my mother in law after surgery but which were never actually delivered (getting dressings changed, physio, and so on). Since the bill ran over a thousand dollars, she was justifiably irate. (further talking to my wife revealed that trying to get answers from the health care system makes Rogers customer service seem fast and first rate...)
> 
> The minister dismissed the question by blandly stating "I have no difficulty getting health care" or words to that effect. This *F*U* response simply reinforces the notion that health care for Ontarians is for the rich and politically connected, the rest of us can scratch out whatever we can from our declining standards of living.
> 
> I certainly hope that Alberta's health care system isn't as dysfunctional...



This same minister (and wynne) both told a 12 year old girl with a rare form of Cystic Fibrosis (Madi Vanstone), to basically pound salt to HER FACE, there is no money for the one drug, keeping her (and small handful others) alive.  After weeks of bad press and the drug company saying "hey we're willing to work out the payment details", has OHIP finally gotten on board.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, my wife did not tell me this story until today, but evidently while I was away at EX MR14, she went to a political event hosted by Deb Matthews, the Ontario Health minister. She questioned the minister as to why *we* were being forced to pay for services which were listed for my mother in law after surgery but which were never actually delivered (getting dressings changed, physio, and so on). Since the bill ran over a thousand dollars, she was justifiably irate. (further talking to my wife revealed that trying to get answers from the health care system makes Rogers customer service seem fast and first rate...)
> 
> The minister dismissed the question by blandly stating "I have no difficulty getting health care" or words to that effect. This *F*U* response simply reinforces the notion that health care for Ontarians is for the rich and politically connected, the rest of us can scratch out whatever we can from our declining standards of living.
> 
> I certainly hope that Alberta's health care system isn't as dysfunctional...



Well my Mother was diagnosed and within 3 weeks was having her nine hour cancer surgery and is now into her fourth week in hospital and almost everything has been first-rate for her.  I guess your mileage may vary..............better hurry up and grab that Alberta-bound bus.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (22 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I certainly hope that Alberta's health care system isn't as dysfunctional...



Despite all the whining you hear from certain quarters, in my experience, it is wonderful.  We've had a lot of stuff done with reasonable wait times.  I had my heart roto-rootered 2 days after a mild heart attack.  They've been good to me.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jun 2014)

YMMV indeed. My mother in law had to wait almost a year to see a specialist to get put on the waiting list for joint replacement surgery (which was another six months). Although she was supposed to receive assisted care, we simply never received it (just an endless list of excuses when my wife was calling and demanding to know where these people were and what they were doing) and for some things (like getting surgical dressings changed) just shrugging your shoulders isn't an option; we had to hire someone to do that.

Since joint replacement is fairly "routine", we don't have the emotional trigger that that young lady with CF had to pressure politicians or the press (imminent death), but I hardly think death by infection of untended wounds is a better way to go.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> YMMV indeed. My mother in law had to wait almost a year to see a specialist to get put on the waiting list for joint replacement surgery (which was another six months). Although she was supposed to receive assisted care, we simply never received it (just an endless list of excuses when my wife was calling and demanding to know where these people were and what they were doing) and for some things (like getting surgical dressings changed) just shrugging your shoulders isn't an option; we had to hire someone to do that.
> 
> Since joint replacement is fairly "routine", we don't have the emotional trigger that that young lady with CF had to pressure politicians or the press (imminent death), but I hardly think death by infection of untended wounds is a better way to go.


Not enough home-based care has been a problem since:
1)  the Harris government cut hospital beds BEFORE ensuring enough home care was available (remember these guys, who could _order_ hospital closures, but only _suggest/recommend_ changes to other parts of the system?), and
2)  subsequent Liberal governments didn't do enough to crank up home care to the level needed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jun 2014)

We don't have a _heath care_ system. We have a medical treatment insurance system. Like all insurance schemes it must, sooner or later, balance costs and fees. In Canada we have a _single payer_ system - taxes are required to be the source money for all insured services. The 'bean counters' in various provincial finance ministries are all facing the exact same problem: demand grows and grows and grows (because the service is perceived to be 'free') but there must be some limit to the costs that are acceptable. But public (media) pressure focuses on 'newsworthy' items like a little girl and a miracle drug; home care is a lot less sexy. Anyway, home care is _preventative_ maintenance and, while we all know that PM is best, we also all know that you have to pay for preventive maintenance up front, before its benefits become apparent in reduce 'repairs.' But there's no money for up front preventive maintenance so we focus on the most newsworthy repairs ... sounds a lot like infrastructure (roads and bridges) maintenance, doesn't it?

There is a really easy, really simple solution to Canada's health care woes. It is the same solution that is used in every other OECD country, the overwhelming majority of which have lower overall health care costs and much better health care outcomes: more, new, money. The *only* source of more, new money is the private sector. The Canadian health care medical treatment insurance scheme is unsustainable in its current form but Canadians, *stupidly*, love it.

Two choices:

     1. Breed better smarter Canadians ... let's agree that's not an option;

     2. Commit, nationally and provincially, political _hari kari_ and reform the system so that it looks like e.g. Singapore's or Norway's or even France's. 

As Dame Thatcher often said:






TINA


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2014)

Keeping with tradition, it appears the new government ran on one platform but will govern on another.  According to the Good Grey Globe, their union allies who spent millions on the campaign are now being offered as a reward wage settlements of... zero.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/matthews-hoskins-get-big-new-roles-in-ontario-cabinet-shuffle/article19301790/



> Ms. Matthews will be in charge of tough negotiations with public-sector unions, where she will be responsible for holding the line on labour costs by getting workers to accept contracts with no wage increases.



Imagine if that had been on the table during the campaign...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jun 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Keeping with tradition, it appears the new government ran on one platform but will govern on another.  According to the Good Grey Globe, their union allies who spent millions on the campaign are now being offered as a reward wage settlements of... zero.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/matthews-hoskins-get-big-new-roles-in-ontario-cabinet-shuffle/article19301790/
> 
> Imagine if that had been on the table during the campaign...



Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jun 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Keeping with tradition, it appears the new government ran on one platform but will govern on another.  According to the Good Grey Globe, their union allies who spent millions on the campaign are now being offered as a reward wage settlements of... zero.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/matthews-hoskins-get-big-new-roles-in-ontario-cabinet-shuffle/article19301790/
> 
> Imagine if that had been on the table during the campaign...



Unions and union front groups like "Working Families" spent something like $300 million to defeat the PC's, and still get the PC platform. Classic.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Unions and union front groups like "Working Families" spent something like $300 million to defeat the PC's, and still get the PC platform. Classic.



I'm not sure how much they spent, but they must have expected some payback, and indeed they are getting some payback, to put it in sarcastic Maritime talk. What next, they may ask, a cut of 100,000? The next couple of years are going to be critical for the financial health of Ontario and I question if Ms Wynne and her cronies have the guts to put the province's house in order. 

That giggling you hear in the background is OPSEU leader Smokie Thomas in his "I told you so" t-shirt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how much they spent, but they must have expected some payback, and indeed they are getting some payback, to put it in sarcastic Maritime talk. What next, they may ask, a cut of 100,000? The next couple of years are going to be critical for the financial health of Ontario and I question if Ms Wynne and her cronies have the guts to put the province's house in order.
> 
> That giggling you hear in the background is OPSEU leader Smokie Thomas in his "I told you so" t-shirt.




Actually I think that, despite her own and her party's _instincts_, Premier Wynne will have little choice because:

     First: See, this ... there is always a _shadow government_ pushing (now and again even pulling) governments on to the _right_ (fiscally sane) path; and

     Second: Of course, the bureaucracy is being pushed by ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Please remember that the bond market isn't interested in democracy or Premier Wynne's platform or why you and I voted as we did ... it just wants to *must* be paid it return on investment. (I say "must" because we are not Argentina or Brazil.)


Edited to add:

And the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports *"Wynne names a Minister of 'No'"*. The article says: "There’s nothing subtle about Premier Kathleen Wynne’s switch from the caring, optimistic, “investing” politician she was on the campaign trail to the cautious, thrifty premier she’ll have to be if she wants to have a province worth governing in four years ... By naming her most trusted lieutenant, Deb Matthews, to run a newly constituted provincial treasury board ... Wynne is showing she’s as serious as she can be about holding back her government’s spending. That’s the only way to balance the provincial budget and ultimately get Ontario’s debt under control ... It [Matthews' portfolio] means being Minister of No. No pay increases, no service expansions beyond what’s already been promised in public. “There’s no money, so ‘No’” — over and over and over again."


----------



## The_Falcon (24 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually I think that, despite her own and her party's _instincts_, Premier Wynne will have little choice because:
> 
> First: See, this ... there is always a _shadow government_ pushing (now and again even pulling) governments on to the _right_ (fiscally sane) path; and
> 
> ...



Only problem is her "Minister of No" Deb Matthews, was Health Minister during much of the ORNGE screw up.  So I am not holding my breath that she will be a competent manager in this role.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2014)

[sarc]I can't see why unions should be unhappy.  Continued employment with no raise is preferable to terminated employment.[/sarc]

(Some studies exist which claim employees would rather see layoffs than wage freezes.  I suppose part of the reason is that employees with seniority in a tightly constrained workplace are happy to trade off the jobs of junior employees in order to continue receiving compensation increases.  But young adults haven't thrown over the left/centre-left parties yet despite the increasing degree to which the interests of the young are being sacrificed to serve the interests of the aging, so I don't expect them to ever do so.)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jun 2014)

Much of OPSEU is still under a four year wage freeze from the last contract. Now the liebrals want to extend that to eight?

Eight years without a raise. Not one penny. 

Benefits were also slashed last time. Not much left there to cut.

If they give OPSEU back its Factor 80, instead of the 90 they forced the union into, the would get rid of tons more people, more than the approx. 50,000\ yr they currently lose to attrition in the Public Service.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2014)

During the "Decade of Darkness" the CF went seven years without a pay increase.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> During the "Decade of Darkness" the CF went seven years without a pay increase.



Yup, and lots of gas, rations, MSA stores, etc went missing to make up parts of the shortfall.

Besides, we're talking two different governments, different circumstances and times, etc. None of which lends credence to your assertion as being a valid discussion point or comparison.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jun 2014)

Perspectives differ.  I'd gladly trade 8 years of no increases counted from 2008 for a restoration to status quo ante 2008.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jun 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Perspectives differ.  I'd gladly trade 8 years of no increases counted from 2008 for a restoration to status quo ante 2008.



No argument there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually I think that, despite her own and her party's _instincts_, Premier Wynne will have little choice because:
> 
> First: See, this ... there is always a _shadow government_ pushing (now and again even pulling) governments on to the _right_ (fiscally sane) path; and
> 
> ...




And here it is, from the horse's (Moody's) mouth: "Rating Action: Moody's assigns negative outlook to Ontario's ratings, affirms Aa2 ratings."


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2014)

When the US lost their AAA rating the response was for the Administration to threaten to take various forms of action against Moody's. I wonder if the Liberals will try the same stunt?

We should start a pool for when Ontario defaults...


----------



## Crispy Bacon (3 Jul 2014)

And here's the first (of many) credit downgrade...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> And here's the first (of many) credit downgrade...




It's a change in _outlook_, not in the actual _rating_, which remains at Aa2. As a general rule a change in _rating_ should have been signaled by an earlier change in _outlook_, to give the company or government ample warning and an opportunity to change course.

Here is a look at Moody's rating process and scale.


Edited to add: See, also, this, "Ontario needs ‘credibility’ on spending plans, economists warn."

I _think_ Premier Wynne needs to keep her balanced budget promise. I think her civil service and the Ontario business community, not just the bond rating agencies, will *demand* no less.

I think readers must remember that no one, no one who really matters anyway, gives a fiddler's f_ _k about what you or I (Ontario voters) think or about how you voted or why you voted the way you did. The reason you don't matter is: It's not your money; it hasn't been for years and years and years; you and I, as Ontarians, are living off borrowed money and we need to start paying it back.

We need to spend less on _social_ programmes that include hospitals, prisons, fire departments, schools, welfare, police and, and, and ...

We can, even should, borrow (long term) to repair and build real _infrastructure_ (roads, bridges and airports, not stadiums and arenas) in order to _stimulate_ the economy. It is not silly to say cut spending from one envelope and borrow to fund spending in another ... it's not always obvious, but there is 'good' and 'bad' spending and, unfortunately, the spending the voters like and want is, broadly, bad spending.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2014)

Freeing ourselves from the consequences of a Liberal government can take many forms. This company is offering a low cost solar water heating system which can go a long way to offset the excessively high energy bills that Ontarians pay (for those who choose to invest in such a system):

http://www.avalanche-energyinc.com/product.html



> ThermalSquare - Your Solar Hot Water Heater
> ThermalSquare is a solar thermal collector that captures the sun's energy to generate hot water for your home to save you money. ThermalSquare’s patent-pending collector delivers the free solar energy to your existing hot water heater saving you  more than $300 a year on your water heating bills. Are you curious how we are able to save you that much money? Be sure to check out the How It Works page where we explain our design.
> 
> After listening to homeowners just like you, we learned that you want to do your part to help the environment but couldn’t find a solution that had a low initial investment and a short payback period. From the beginning we have focused on creating that product that would meet your needs and ThermalSquare was the result of months of engineering work. Want to know how we compare to the competition? Then head over to the page where we describe Our Advantages.
> ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jul 2014)

There are numerous variations, but a DYI can always do something like this;

http://www.instructables.com/id/Cheap-Solar-Water-Heater-for-your-Home-300/

I've seen an industrial install of basically the same set up as a steam generator, and it was enough to run a lot of steam driven equipment in a big factory.

Might not be practical for the winter, but even up here in Ottawa, I can see that being good for about 6-8 months a year to at least reduce to overall costs of heating water.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2014)

Pretty interesting. As a non concentrating collector it does work on an overcast day (while the focusing collector would not work nearly as well). I was rather interested in the performance difference between the insulated and uninsulated pipes (although I'm not sure if he realized the "dust" inside the florescent light tube is a mercury containing compound). 

For a DIY guy here I would most certainly suggest using copper or steel piping to make the manifold, rather than PVC pipe, and the caveats for draining the system when it gets cold are very important indeed. Raising the temperature to 550C is pretty impressive, and would supply most of the hot water needs for a house (perhaps only a dishwasher would need supplementary heating), or at industrial scale, preheat water for steam generation and save a ton of money.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ..... would supply most of the hot water needs for a house (perhaps only a dishwasher would need supplementary heating).....


I'm picturing someone of a 'survivalist/disconnect from the grid' mindset insisting on having a dishwasher -- the "Bear Grylls - Paris Hilton show" perhaps.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2014)

Disconecting from the grid is hard. Uncoupling and having a much looser connection so you are not so dependant is entirely possible. Like most things, the closer you get to 100% the more difficult and expensive it becomes. Spending $300 to $1500 on a solar hot water system and cutting back on the @ 13% of your energy bill that goes to hot water seems like a very cost efficient step.


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Pretty interesting. As a non concentrating collector it does work on an overcast day (while the focusing collector would not work nearly as well). I was rather interested in the performance difference between the insulated and uninsulated pipes (although I'm not sure if he realized the "dust" inside the florescent light tube is a mercury containing compound).
> 
> For a DIY guy here I would most certainly suggest using copper or steel piping to make the manifold, rather than PVC pipe, and the caveats for draining the system when it gets cold are very important indeed. Raising the temperature to 550C is pretty impressive, and would supply most of the hot water needs for a house (perhaps only a dishwasher would need supplementary heating), or at industrial scale, preheat water for steam generation and save a ton of money.



I did think the suggest usage of florescent lighting bulbs was a fairly bad indication.  I had actually thought it was a different one when I looked at it quickly, was on the same site.  The concept is still sound but the details were poor.  My apologies for not reading it more closely before posting though.  Someone did point out in the comments about the mercury dust though; one of the nice things about the site is that there are a lot of discussions and a surprising amount of expertise, so there is a lot of knowledgeable peer reviews on it.

I think I probably would have used copper piping for the actual collector panel itself and some kind of insulated cheaper piping (pvc? steel?) for the risers.  I've seen a few variations for the box; one fellow used corrugated steel he painted black for the backing , insulated the box to keep the heat in, and used a glazing quality acrylic for the glass front.  Whatever you do it's a pretty simple set up, and can be set up with no moving parts.

Curious what the payback time would be; would be interesting to see how much less your hot water heater would cycle on with this preheating the water for you.  Might also be great for an infloor heating system where you have a large amount of water at a lower temperature or preheating water for a 'hot water on demand' system


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> People who didn't get the result they hoped for in an election are the ones most likely to blow off steam in comments.
> 
> ON still has some of the lowest provincial tax rates in the country.  Avoid the unnecessary battle until it becomes necessary.  Give it a couple of years.  Maybe the horse will learn to sing.
> 
> Sometimes, "you caught it, you clean it" is a just result.




Blowing off steam in online _fora_ like Army.ca is pretty harmless, but blowing off highly partisan steam in _public_, in print, draws some attention if one is either of both *a)* an extreme partisan blowhard, and/or *b)* not a very good writer. See the reviews (at the bottom of the page) of this book, for example.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a pretty good analysis of the revenue dilemma facing Premier Wynne and Ontarians:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/kathleen-wynne-left-with-few-options-to-fix-ontarios-revenue-problem/article19813010/#dashboard/follows/


> Ontario is left with few options to fix its revenue problem
> 
> CHRISTOPHER RAGAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Not everyone will like Prof Regan's idea of a carbon tax, but not everyone likes the idea of any particular tax.

He is right that corporate taxes, while wildly popular, are unproductive, even counterproductive. In the end you and I, individually, must and *will* pay *all* of the tax bill, including corporate taxes (which we will, always, pay eventually). What's needed are efficient taxes - those which cost least to collect and are hard to evade.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jul 2014)

The article starts from a false premise.

Ontario does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.


----------



## SonaSonic (2 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Blowing off steam in online _fora_ like Army.ca is pretty harmless, but blowing off highly partisan steam in _public_, in print, draws some attention if one is either of both *a)* an extreme partisan blowhard, and/or *b)* not a very good writer. See the reviews (at the bottom of the page) of this book, for example.



While I have not read the book, from some of the media attention surrounding it, it seems to be quite well-researched from a non-partisan, academic perspective.  A Google search reveals that one of the commenters, Justin Arjoon, is an NDP riding association President and was a campaign manager for the same party; an NDPer calling a Conservative biased isn't exactly new or surprising  :blotto:


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2014)

Bumped with something on the Ontario Conservative leadership front ....


> Transport Minister Lisa Raitt remains tight-lipped on whether she's considering a potential bid to lead Ontario's Progressive Conservatives.
> 
> Asked whether she's thought about running, Raitt said Thursday she'll continue to represent the riding of Halton, west of Toronto, any way that she can.
> 
> ...



Draft Lisa page here, Draft Lisa Twitter feed here.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Aug 2014)

SonaSonic said:
			
		

> While I have not read the book, from some of the media attention surrounding it, it seems to be quite well-researched from a non-partisan, academic perspective.


Yet, when I go to the Amazon page, it's got 5-stars; one reviewer giving 5-stars (with the in-depth analytical review of  "Incredible!"  Yep, that's the extent of it).  The 2 x one-star reviews apparently don't get factored into the math.

well-researched ....non-partisan.... academic.   Incredible!   

Forgive me if I don't rush out to buy it (or support it online _without_ actually having read it) based on a one-word review and "media attention."


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Aug 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yet, when I go to the Amazon page, it's got 5-stars; one reviewer giving 5-stars (with the in-depth analytical review of  "Incredible!"  Yep, that's the extent of it).  The 2 x one-star reviews apparently don't get factored into the math.
> 
> well-researched ....non-partisan.... academic.   Incredible!
> 
> Forgive me if I don't rush out to buy it (or support it online _without_ actually having read it) based on a one-word review and "media attention."



Would you like to provide citations to provide academic credibility for your comments?

Jut kidding, bud, I checked Amazon as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Aug 2014)

Well what author wouldn't call his own book really, really good.
Since the author has a couple of different accounts here telling us it's a good read.


----------



## Scott (5 Aug 2014)

And banned him again - two times.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Aug 2014)

Scott said:
			
		

> And banned him again - two times.


So let me get this straight..... the author created multiple accounts here (and used fake names apparently on Amazon.ca) to say how awesome his book is?
       :stars:

And the author fancies himself a politician?  Great.   :brickwall:


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2014)

Maybe he's part of the reason Ontario has had so many years of inept, even corrupt Liberal "leadership:" The Progressive Conservatives fell into the hands of the barbarians. Ontario is not a complex social construct: the _mushy middle_ - socially _laisser faire_, economically conservative - swings towards whichever party is most like it. For most of my lifetime that was the PCPO (Drew, Frost, Robarts, Davis and, and, and ...) but, recently, the PCPO moved away from the centre and left the field open to the Liberals.

Don't get me wrong, I was, still am a Mike Harris fan; he was exactly what Ontario needed in his time. He did his job, Ontarians were grateful for both *a)* what he did, and *b)* for his leaving. The socially conservative lunatic fringe, exemplified by Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier, has to be tossed onto the trash heap of history, where it belongs, if we ever want a return to s competitive two party system, where ideas and policies count. Premiers McGuinty and Wynne never had to campaign on ideas; it was enough that they weren't Conservatives.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong, I was, still am a Mike Harris fan; he was exactly what Ontario needed in his time. He did his job, Ontarians were grateful for both *a)* what he did, and *b)* for his leaving. The socially conservative lunatic fringe, exemplified by Tim Hudak and Randy Hillier, has to be tossed onto the trash heap of history, where it belongs, if we ever want a return to s competitive two party system, where ideas and policies count. Premiers McGuinty and Wynne never had to campaign on ideas; it was enough that they weren't Conservatives.



...you're still my hero.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2014)

Anyone who still thinks that Ontario suffers from a "revenue problem" might consider why the Liberals are giving electrical energy away at a loss....

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/12/02/ontarios-power-trip-province-lost-1-2-billion-this-year-exporting-power/



> Ontario’s Power Trip: Province lost $1.2-billion this year exporting power
> Parker Gallant | December 2, 2013 | Last Updated: Dec 3 8:00 AM ET
> 
> That’s a cost $250 for every average ratepayer
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2014)

Another DIY idea, this time used to purify water, although in principle it can be used as a water heater as well:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/small-magnifyig-glass-burn-ants-six.html#more



> *Small Magnifying Glass burns ants - Six foot lens can make safe drinking water for the worlds poor and save millions of lives per yaer*
> 
> Millions of people die every year from diseases and pathogens found in unclean water, and they can’t help it because that’s all they have. Either they drink it or they die.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2014)

In the long, long battle to do what she must do, Premier Wynne wins one and appears to be losing another.

One of her problems is that many, probably most Ontarians will agree with an aviation fuel surtax and many will feel sorry for public service workers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Aug 2014)

I can pretty much bet that the major airlines are all figuring ways of reducing stops in Ontario (especially where they have to buy fuel).

I'll bet both the Winnipeg and Montreal Airport Authorities, however, welcome the tax!


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Aug 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the long, long battle to do what she must do, Premier Wynne wins one and appears to be losing another.
> 
> One of her problems is that many, probably most Ontarians will agree with an aviation fuel surtax and many will feel sorry for public service workers.



Of course most Ontarians will agree with the tax, because most just assume it will only affect those who travel frequently, and have no consequence on them at all.  The fact that Pearson is the largest air cargo hub in the country (and one the main ports of entry for cargo via air), will go completely unnoticed by them, as they continue to buy their crap on amazon, ebay, et al, and they start wondering why their shipping costs have gone up, and they won't put 2 and 2 together.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2015)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is about Ontario, but it applies to _conservatives_ all across Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-pcs-need-to-focus-on-economics-not-sex-ed-if-they-want-to-govern/article23209661/


> Ontario PCs will never govern by fighting the culture wars
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




John Ibbitson speaks the truth: Ontarians, indeed Canadians at large, even in Alberta, are *not* social conservatives and they *will not become* social conservatives ... we, especially "new Canadians" in  the suburbs are _more_ conservative on some issues than we were a generation ago, but Canadian are not, in any meaningful numbers, opposed to abortion or gay marriage and so on ~ the touchstone issues for the religious right.

Social conservatives do, of course, have a perfect right to speak out, to make their case .... but when they do they need to be drummed out of the mainstream Conservative movement and made to fend for themselves in the political wilderness. To keep them in the Conservative fold is to guarantee Liberal domination in Queens Park and Ottawa.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2015)

Elections have cansequences. This open letter in the FP shows that *we* can have a much better electrical system in Ontario (cheaper, more cost efficient), if the government applied some market principles. Given that they are already implimenting part of the PCOP's election platform by freezing civil service wages and attrittion, breaking the beer store and LCBO wine monopoly etc. there is a [small] chance that these ideas may be implimented as well. Write your MPP:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ontarios-power-trip-dear-minister-heres-how-you-can-stop-power-price-hikes



> *Ontario’s Power Trip: Dear Minister, here’s how you can stop power price hikes*
> Parker Gallant | April 1, 2015 4:34 PM ET
> More from Parker Gallant
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2015)

_Red Ed_ Clark is not everyone's idea of a "Nature red in tooth and claw" capitalist, in fact, an earlier _Globe and Mail_ article said:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/how-tds-red-ed-clark-became-a-force-in-canada/article10713002/





> Mr. Clark ... first gained notoriety as a fresh-faced deputy minister in the Trudeau government who orchestrated the National Energy Program in 1980, a push to give Ottawa greater control over the energy sector that made him a lightning rod for criticism in the oil patch.
> 
> He was dubbed “Red Ed.” The name has stuck as an easy – some would say simplistic – descriptor of his supposedly left-leaning days in the federal bureaucracy. After all, critics said, his doctoral thesis in economics at Harvard was about Tanzanian socialism.
> 
> When he found himself out of favour in Ottawa in the Mulroney era – after winning the Outstanding Civil Servant of the Year award in 1982 – he surprised many by jumping to the private sector, at Merrill Lynch Canada.



Mr Clark rose up though the (higher) ranks, doing one especially difficult job with skill and grace under pressure, and eventually took the reigns of TD, arguably Canada's best run bank. He and his far more _conservative_ colleague Don Drummond, also a former senior civil servant, were, in fact, powers on the global banking stage.

Anyway, "Red Ed" or not, it appears, from this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that, despite having very, very (ridiculously) restricted terms of reference,* he gave Premier Wynne precious little room to manoeuvre: she was, finally, forced to act against her own and her party's _nature_ and accept that markets (private companies) are "better," more efficient, offer better returns to shareholders than bureaucracies:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/hydro-one-privatization-was-not-natural-for-ontario-liberals-clark-says/article24017305/


> Hydro One privatization was ‘not natural’ for Ontario Liberals, Clark says
> 
> JANE TABER AND ADRIAN MORROW
> TORONTO — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If Premier Wynne had listened to Don Drummond (who wrote the first report telling the ON premier that the Liberal Party's "loony lefty" policies were (still are) foolishly driving ON into deep economic doo-doo) then, perhaps, this whole exercise would have been more _comfortable_.

But Premier Wynne, like Premier McGuinty, are from the "tax and spend," "big government knows best," essentially _social-democrat_ Liberal Party and they do not, cannot listen to anyone who speaks truth to power.

Kathleen Wynne is a remarkable and intelligent woman. But, she's a fool. She's a fool because she is unwilling to learn anything new. And she's a fool because she surrounds herself with people very, very much like her. Many of us, in the military, learned, from experience, that a _diverse_ team often (usually) works best, especially when strong team members challenge the leader's ideas. Premiker Wynne's team ~ her cabinet and her own office ~ are all clones of her and that's a recipe for failure.


_____
* Which is why her "beer" policy is so terminally stupid.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2015)

Freezing civil service pay and benefits

Selling beer and wine in grocery stores

Privatizing Hydro One

The Ontario Liberals are discovering the truth of the two statements:

"The facts of life are conservative" and "The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money". (Margaret Thatcher.)

Who says Tim Hudak lost after all? His policies are being enacted by a majority government


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Apr 2015)

Premier Wynne is still trying to raise revenue ... there is _*always*_ some revenue to be raised, but the margins get finer and finer as time goes on. 

The simple fact, and _I assert_ that it is both simple a fact, is that Ontario, and all the other provinces and the national government and most city governments, too, spend too much. They spend money they cannot raise. They borrow and then they spend to pay the interest on the debt. It's madness; utter madness. Spending, especially social spending, must stop growing, then it must be cut back.

I'm not arguing for a return to the high Victorian era of debtors' prison and workhouses but I am arguing that we need to "get real" and remember that even Jesus taught that we will always have the poor with us. We can alleviate the plight of the poor but *we cannot eradicate poverty* itself and it is beyond foolish to try.

The fact, and once again I suggest that it is a fact, that we need the temporary foreign worker programme because, in part, many, many Canadians will not do hard, unpleasant, dirty work for low wages but that we have massive social welfare budget tells me that our system is broken.

I do not have answers but I am convinced they must include things like "workfare" where one can draw both _*some*_ social assistance and work at a low wage job ~ low wage jobs can and do lead to better jobs. _*Maybe*_ we need to think about the 1930s again ...












... does anyone recognize these building from Kingston, Trenton and Calgary? What they all have in common is that they were built in the 1930s by people employed under the _Public Works Construction Act_ (1934) which was designed to create jobs for the growing army of the unemployed.

We don't have an "army" of unemployed, but we do have a few regiments of them, and a few brigades of the "underemployed." Social spending is not good _Keynsian_ economics. Most people only read one half of John Maynard Keynes prescription; he also said that spending must be turned off in good times and we all understand that it is politically nearly impossible to turn off social programmes. Construction and maintenance of infrastructure (public works), on the other hand, can be switched on and off as Keynes suggested.

Now, it will be argued that unions will not longer tolerate this sort of things, but _labour_ unions are a fast fading part of the economy ~ public sector unions, unionized teachers and clerks are powerful, but traditional organized labourers are become increasingly rare.

What are "good" public works?

     Urban transit systems

          Repair of bridges and overpasses

               Restoration of public buildings
                    
                    Cleaning up lakes and rivers

                            And of course the list can go on and on.

What is not "good" spending is to pay _able_ people to sit home and watch TV when there is work than can be done.

In good time there are jobs and we ought not to have to import anyone except skilled workers. In tough times we may have to "make work" to allow people to earn their keep.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2015)

You would first have to break the unions or, at least, diminish their power to near zero. This would also include closing loopholes on election advertising and political contributions through second party entities, they set up themselves, to bypass the rules.

Any attempt at giving jobs to the underprivileged, in the areas where unions believe only they have the sole right to participate, will end up in civil unrest and the unions demanding part of the meager wages, for membership, from the workfare participants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You would first have to break the unions or, at least, diminish their power to near zero. This would also include closing loopholes on election advertising and political contributions through second party entities, they set up themselves, to bypass the rules.
> 
> Any attempt at giving jobs to the underprivileged, in the areas where unions believe only they have the sole right to participate, will end up in civil unrest and the unions demanding part of the meager wages, for membership, from the workfare participants.




That's one, obvious, route, but ... some pretty smart economists are asking governments to consider issuing long term (50 year) bonds to finance equally long term infrastructure maintenance projects. The target is the _underemployed_ who have some skills and a willingness to work. The problem is that you have to have a lot of project going, all at once, to really create new jobs. First you have to give decent, full time, adequately paid work to the _underemployed_ then demand (for labour) will kick in and there will be new jobs, at lower wages, for the unemployed who have never worked, including new entrants to the labour market.

The problem is fairly narrow: young men who left school with inadequate skills and knowledge. Two generations ago, when i was a youngster, there were jobs for them: in mills, in factories, in construction. Technology and wages killed many of those jobs but we didn't find a way to keep those young people ~ overwhelmingly boys ~ in schools and even if they stayed we had nothing useful to teach them. (When I went to high school most of my classmates were in the so called general (vocational) scheme that led them towards useful employment (at age 16, after 10th grade., in many cases) I was in the "academic" programme, which led towards university, it was already, over a half century ago, dominated (by about 5:4 if my high-school class photo is a good guide) by the girls.)

Those young men, school leavers or graduates of the "general" programme used the be the backbone of our industrial economy. But now we are making the transition to a service (knowledge) economy and there are not enough jobs for the young (mostly) men who leave school with too little academic foundation.

Fifty+ years ago young men and women who graduated from high school in the so called "academic" programme but did not wish to go on to university could, just for example, get a job in a bank. _*Officially*_, as far as I can tell, most banks still require only a high school graduation but, in practice, I was told by a very reliable source, a BComm is the norm ~ because everyone the bank hires as an entry level teller is seen as a potential branch manager and the banks have ten applicants for every job; they can, and do, pick and choose. Fifty+ years ago the industrial/manufacturing sector was twice as large a _share_ of the Canadian economy as it is today. See, e.g. this. Services - often moderately skilled but low paid jobs, account for over 75% of the jobs, but natural resources, logging and mining, mainly, are our second largest _product_ in value. But resources, while rich, provide very few jobs, even though the jobs are good, especially for young men, and well paid.

It is one sector that has the most problems in Canada: young, underemployed men. That is the sector which can be helped most effectively by spending on infrastructure. The question is: how do we pay for that spending?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2015)

I am all for workfare and some of the responsibility has to be shared by the recipients.

If you are a second or third generation welfare recipient family, you should be cut off to break the chain. I don't care if they have to pick up trash on the highways for their money.

I'm tired of working, so the government can take MY money, and give it to those that won't.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...a willingness to work.



That, right there, is the biggest part of the problem. 

In my work I see a many, many, fit and able young men and women who don't work, and have no intention of working because we pay them adequately not to.


----------



## ballz (19 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is one sector that has the most problems in Canada: young, underemployed men. That is the sector which can be helped most effectively by spending on infrastructure. The question is: how do we pay for that spending?



I disagree that spending on infrastructure is the answer at all. Spending on infrastructure does nothing to help the economy. If we need certain infrastructure, than certainly, we should pay for it to be constructed. But we shouldn't construct infrastructure with the goal to "stimulate" the economy. Infrastructure spending is the product of a productive economy, a productive economy is not the product of infrastructure spending.

Stimulus spending does not cause an economy to actually start producing things. It only inflates the currency. If someone were to suggest that we double all public sector wages for a month, because they will then take that money and spend it, which is "stimulating" the economy, we would tell them to go pound sand for very good reasons. In the case of building infrastructure in the hopes of creating jobs, it is the exact same idea, except we do get an extra bridge or a new road or something, but we don't end up with an economy that is "back on track" at all.

All those "very smart economists" are drinking the same Keynesian Kool-Aid and its literally driving governments off the famous "bridge to nowhere."


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2015)

How to pay for a national public works/infrastructure program is a twofer:

For the actual product (rebuilt and repaired roads, bridges, railway tracks, pipelines etc.), bonds with maturities matched to the expected lifetimes of the products is a good idea; most of these assets will be providing a payout for the general economy for at least 25 years on average (things like transit don't have as long a life due to demographic changes; your light rail tracks might be servicing a nice neighbourhood today, but even 10 years from now...), but there must also be very strong control over what "qualifies"; spending infrastructure monies of hockey arenas, "performing arts centres", bike trails and so on is a diversion of money from the productive economy.

The "short term money" should be from the current social welfare budget to pay the actual wages. The government is already committed to paying this out as welfare, support payments etc., so we might as well demand we get some value from that money. I'm kind of seeing the governments using some sort of temp agency or contractor arrangement; for every person they place in a national infrastructure job, they get "x" dollars, of which most pays the wages and benefits and some remains with the placement agency. The incentive, of course, is they will bust their butts rounding up people and placing them in a job.

The other issue is to prevent some sort of endless dependency by either lower levels of government or recipients of national infrastructure jobs. Perhaps making this a 5 year project, or doing a running rollout (rebuilding the TC-1 going from the Maritimes to BC, moving funds and jobs from province to province as the highway is rebuilt might be a model, with other projects moving with the highway project itself), but smart people can think of their own solutions.

And here is an interesting counterpoint from a longer article which suggests that true infrastructure investment does have a positive effect on the economy, which is why it is actually _opposed_ by certain factions in the current political class (this may also explain the enthusiasm for funding clearly non infrastructure projects out of infrastructure funds):

http://unionwatch.org/desalination-plants-vs-bullet-trains-and-pensions/



> *Desalination Plants vs. Bullet Trains and Pensions*
> by ED RING on APRIL 7, 2015 · 6 COMMENTS
> 
> Current policy solutions enacted to address California’s water crisis provide an object lesson in how corruption masquerading as virtue is impoverishing the general population to enrich a handful of elites. Instead of building freeways, expanding ports, restoring bridges and aqueducts, and constructing dams, desalination plants, and power stations, California’s taxpayers are pouring tens of billions each year into public sector pension funds – who invest 90% of the proceeds out-of-state, and the one big construction project on the table, the $100B+ “bullet train,” fails to justify itself under virtually any credible cost/benefit analysis. Why?
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Teachers Union may be the first to be weened of the Wynne Government Kool-Aid.   ;D










I think the Ontario Teachers have already realized that they have no friends in Premier Wynne's Ontario ...


----------



## cavalryman (6 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think the Ontario Teachers have already realized that they have no friends in Premier Wynne's Ontario ...



Something about a petard one hoists oneself on? ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 May 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Something about a petard one hoists oneself on? ;D



I was thinking more along the lines, "You dance with the ones who brung you."


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2015)

Who's the happiest person in Ontario this afternoon?
.
.
.
.
          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    Premier Kathleen Wynne
.
.
.
_I think_ the Conservative Party of Ontario (PCPO) has just voted with its heart and not its head. Patrick Brown is a formidable organizer and campaigner but, yet again, the leader of the PCPO is _*too* conservative_ for, broadly, _progressive_ Ontario,

My guess is that a PCPO led by Christine Elliott could have defeated Premier Wynne's Liberals last year and that Ms Elliott could do so in the next election. Mr Brown is young, attractive, essentially unknown and a pro-life _activist_ and fairly hard-line _social conservative_. Dalton McGuinty defeated Ernie Eves, John Tory and Tim Hudak and then Kathleen Wynne defeated Mr Hudak for a second time ... Eves and Tory were social _moderates_ but Hudak was a _social conservative_ and Ontario rejected his party twice.

Ontario is, broadly and generally, a socially _liberal_ place and it was, until about 1970, fiscally _conservative_. Big spending, often ill considered big spending, came into vogue with (PC) Premier Bill Davis,  and after him David Peterson and Bob Rae continued to overspend. Mike Harris slowed things but then it was time for McGuinty and Wynne. Ontarians are, now, feeling very "entitled to their entitlements' and they are not afraid of big, punishing deficits. It's pretty clear that Mr Brown will be out of step on the _social_ issues; his fiscal position is unknown ~ he's not overly active, he's a member of the Standing Committee on Health and was, previously, a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He has been active in promoting free trade with Asia, so that's a plus.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Who's the happiest person in Ontario this afternoon?
> .
> .
> .
> ...


 :nod:

<parochial note to new Ontario Conservative leader>
If you really want to reach out to Northern Ontario, saying you've been to "Emu" when you meant "Emo" doesn't help.
</parochial note to new Ontario Conservative leader>


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2015)

Further to Patrick Brown ... it's a good example of _activist_ politics and it's why I have argued over the years for going "back to the future" and having party leaders elected by their parliamentary/legislative caucuses, not by the party, at large, as is done in the UK.

Now the argument against this is that it is _elitist_, but the argument for it is twofold:

     First:     Who is better positioned to select the leader, party members in their ridings or the elected parliamentary/legislative caucus who must work for the leader?

     Second: It prevents the party from being highjacked by single issue or politically narrow _activists_, as I would argue, was done in the PCPO in 2015.

We recognize the danger of _activists_ in law ~ under the Elections Act* party leaders must sign the nomination papers of candidates selected by local associations as a _check_ against candidates who might have been selected locally but who are not acceptable to the party at large.

I believe Patrick Brown ran a socially conservative _activist_ campaign and used his own _socially conservative_ followers to marshal support right across the province. As I said, above, he's a formidable organizer and campaigner but I _fear_ he is the wrong leader for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.


_____
* § 66 (1) (a) (v) and http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can/bck&document=index&lang=e


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Who's the happiest person in Ontario this afternoon?
> .
> .
> .
> ...




DAMN!

Every time there is a photo of Kathleen Wynne smiling, it means she has introduced a new tax.

What new tax (of fee) did she announce now?

She says she is not raising taxes.  Fine.  However, she introduces new fees and taxes.......Excuse me....You dummy, we are now paying more taxes and fees......The taxes may not have gone up, but the number of taxes have increased.  Same thing Kathleen!


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2015)

Michael Den Tandt of the _Nation Post_ offers this pithy advice on _Twitter_:

     "All ON PCs have to do to win is offer responsible economic management. That's all. They do that they win."

_I suspect_ he's right. But I also _suspect_ that the _activists_ who campaigned so hard for Patrick Brown will put intense pressure on him and his inner circle to stress their _social_ agenda, not "responsible economic management," and Premier Wynne might ride that to another term in Office in 2018.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 May 2015)

I don't know very much about Mr Brown. In fact my first hand knowledge comes from a charity hockey game at the North Grenville Community Centre between a local pick-op team and the CPC caucus team coached by the PM. The best player on the ice from either team was Patrick Brown, which doesn't qualify him for anything except maybe a follow-on career as a Zamboni driver.

Don't forget, back circa 1994 or 1995 I saw Peter Mansbridge suggest that Mike Harris was too conservative to ever win an election in Ontario.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I don't know very much about Mr Brown. In fact my first hand knowledge comes from a charity hockey game at the North Grenville Community Centre between a local pick-op team and the CPC caucus team coached by the PM. The best player on the ice from either team was Patrick Brown, which doesn't qualify him for anything except maybe a follow-on career as a Zamboni driver.
> 
> Don't forget, back circa 1994 or 1995 I saw Peter Mansbridge suggest that Mike Harris was too conservative to ever win an election in Ontario.




I don't _know_ anything about him either: other than the documented facts about his committee work (not economic), his _community outreach_ (excellent with the Indo-Canadian and Philippines-Canadian communities, à la Jason Kenney) and his evident ability to organize and campaign very, very effectively.

I _think_ Mike Harris was "too conservative" for Ontario, but after Bill Davis, David Peterson and Bob Rae Ontarians wanted needed Mike Harris: they_ wanted_ Leslie Front/John Robarts but that sort of "adult leadership" wasn't available. Mike Harris' "common sense revolution," with its explicit promise to both cut taxes and get spending under control (he did balance the budget, by slashing and offloading social services, and cut taxes, but it wasn't pretty (in an economic sense) nor was it really popular), was on offer and Ontarians took it because, as Mrs Thatchers always said: "This Is No Alternative."

Now, it may be that Patrick Brown, or his inner circle, can figure out "responsible economic management" and IF they can then _I believe_ Ontarians will vote for it. Ontarians will not vote for _social conservatism_ ~ it can be a (small) part of a package, but the wrapping paper and the big bow on that package must be sound fiscal policy ... _in my opinion_.


----------



## foresterab (13 May 2015)

I debated putting this in the Alberta election thread because to me there is little difference between oil and gas royalties and mineral royalties...but the story seems to be the same:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mining-for-more-how-much-is-mining-really-worth-to-ontario-1.3063642

_Ontario has collected about 1.5 per cent in royalties on the billions of dollars worth of ore extracted in the province over the past decade, but critics say that's not enough for the loss of non-renewable resources, a CBC News investigation supported by Michener-Deacon shows.  "One and a half per cent! That's like 10 times less than a tip at a restaurant. Can't we require that they tip us 15 per cent for using and extracting our resources?" says Ugo Lapointe of Mining Watch Canada.

'Can't we require that they tip us 15 per cent for using and extracting our resources?'- Ugo Lapointe, Mining Watch Canada
In Ontario, companies pay a mining profits tax on precious and base metals. When the company makes money, it's supposed to pay this so-called royalty.
Critics say precious and base metals are Crown assets and that the province should get the best deal possible as compensation for the loss of non-renewable natural resources. But the mining industry and government officials argue that mining is a uniquely expensive enterprise and that focusing on royalties distorts the big picture.

Defending royalty regime
The province's overall mining regulations are fair, says Ontario Mines Minister Michael Gravelle. He argues the province is doing well attracting new investments for exploration and the level of the mining tax is not a priority. "Mining taxes are obviously one part of it, but the value for us are the jobs, are the indirect economic benefits that come from the jobs," he says.

Mining companies to face more transparency
The CBC and Michener-Deacon investigation analyzed several of the benefits often cited about mining in Ontario, including jobs, and royalties.  Figures from Statistics Canada show that direct employment in the mining sector accounts for less than half a per cent of Ontario's overall job picture, compared to 11 per cent in manufacturing.  Another comparison shows that for the last five years, the City of Toronto collected as much in annual parking fines as the province did from more than a dozen gold and nickel companies.

In 2008, with record gold prices, the province received just over $231 million in royalties, the highest payment in 12 years of examined data. In 2014, the province's take dropped to $11 million. CBC News has learned that the province refunded money to several companies last year.


"It's so discouraging. It's so out of this world," says Lapointe, who has nearly 20 years of exploration experience in the mining industry. "Now we learn that Ontario government paid back — gave cheques to companies? Ridiculous."

Confusing rebate
The reasons for the refund are unclear. CBC News consulted two tax experts to review the government's written explanation. They say the answer is confusing.
"Companies  have their hands in the candy jars and they want more candies and at some point someone needs to step up and stop them and say enough!" Lapointe says.
The low rate is not disputed by the industry. Chris Hodgson, the head of the Ontario Mining Association and a former Progressive Conservative MPP who served as minister of both Northern Development and Natural Resources, says the money collected from the mining tax isn't a make it or break it situation for Ontario's coffers.  "It's not a lot of money to the province," says Hodgson. "It's just a small number. It doesn't register in our document because it's so small compared to other levels of revenue … You take a look at our taxation in Ontario and it's obviously working. Companies are investing money in Ontario and they're not investing in other places in Canada to the same rate."

Dennis Howlett, head of Canadians for Fair Taxation, says when corporations don't pay their share of taxes, the burden falls to ordinary citizens.  Low rates attract mines
"Ontario has one of the lowest mining taxation rates in the world. Now that's one of the reasons we have so many mining companies headquartered in Ontario. We're almost like a tax haven for mining here in Canada," Howlett says.  "Every politician I know is terrified that the companies will just take their ball and go home. In the case of the diamonds and the minerals they can't — you cannot take our gold deposits or our diamond pipes out of the country. We can let you empty them, but you can't take them away," says economist David Robinson, also a professor at Sudbury's Laurentian University.In 2009, the auditor general in Quebec stirred a thorny debate after revealing  that several companies had not paid any mining royalties in that province. In the last Ontario election, only the Green Party included raising mining taxes and royalties in its platform._  

Now minerals are a little tougher to match because Ontario (and several other Canadian provinces) has a spectrum of minerals that are mined, each of which has slightly different techniques and refining demands.   But there appears to be a) some wild swings in royalties collected and b) maybe puts some of the discussion on the Ring of Fire exploration/development program into better perspective when Ontario starts looking for federal monies to pay for the mining access infrastructure needed.


----------



## foresterab (13 May 2015)

And a second article on the issues of minerals:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/diamond-royalties-a-closely-guarded-secret-in-ontario-1.3062006
_[/Ontario's only diamond mine is known for its exceptional quality stones, but according to official documents, the provincial government made more money on salt royalties in 2013-14 than diamonds.

De Beers Canada, which owns the only diamond mine in the province, paid $226 in royalties while salt netted the province $3.89 million in royalties.  The diamond royalty stirred a huge debate when the Ontario government suddenly introduced it in 2007. Then-premier Dalton McGuinty promised it would enrich all Ontarians. He promised the money would be used to hire more nurses and keep class sizes small in schools. There is nothing about the diamonds coming out of that mine that should be secret. Why on earth does it matter?

- David Robinson, Northern Ontario economist 
The real value has been a closely guarded secret, by government and the company, until the CBC-Michener-Deacon investigation.  That secrecy has baffled many experts consulted by the CBC, including accountants, and auditors.  "It's hard to believe that in a jurisdiction like Ontario there would be this lack of transparency," says Paul Zimnisky, an independent diamond analyst, based in New York.  The government says it has to protect proprietary information for the province's single diamond company and De Beers does not report information on royalties. A confidentiality clause in Ontario's Mining Act means that diamond royalties never show up in government public accounts.  In interviews, neither current Mines Minister Michael Gravelle nor former mines minister Rick Bartolucci were aware of any details about diamond royalties.

■How CBC found the secret diamond royalty

By studying public documents for a 12-year period from 2002 to 2014, the CBC found the diamond payments mixed in with salt royalties. 
The Ontario government has confirmed that it has been recording diamond and salt payments together. The province also mistakenly broke its own secrecy provision with respect to the diamond royalty by releasing via email figures for 2013-14 — the $226 paid by De Beers.   

Digging into public documents

Studying the public documents reveals that De Beers paid little or nothing for most of the seven years its Victor mine has been in production in Northern Ontario, about 90 kilometres west of Attawapiskat. De Beers does not dispute the $226 figure for the last fiscal year. Tom Ormsby, De Beers vice-president of external and corporate affairs, says the company started to pay millions in 2014. He also noted that the company is "surprised" that the province has revealed information that is supposed to be confidential.  He says it's unfair to look at royalties six years into the operation.  "One has to look at mining investment over the lifetime of the property. Very few are profitable out of the gate. They have to pay off the investment first," he said.

"We are exiting the capital write-down period, so additional royalty is now going to skyrocket because we're exiting that period of investment."  De Beers was blindsided by the government's 2007 decision to impose a royalty.  "We were shocked. We were floored," Ormsby recalls, noting the company had already spent close to $1 billion to develop the remote mine.  "We were blindsided. We were eight months away from putting the first ore through the plant," Ormsby says.  "We felt the diamond royalty was unfair. We still think it is unfair," says Ormsby. "If you open up a gold mine, right next door to our Victor mine in Northern Ontario," it will be treated differently.

Province stood firm on royalties

McGuinty, as premier, held firm on royalties: "Those diamonds belong to the people of Ontario," he said during a debate in the Ontario legislature.  "We're prepared to do what it takes to ensure that we strike the appropriate balance between ensuring that we are competitive — and that we continue to have the necessary revenues that help us get class sizes down, that help us hire more nurses, that help us put in place more MRIs and more CT scans."

Gravelle told CBC he doesn't know if, when or how much De Beers Canada has ever paid in royalties.  "I don't have that information. It's not information that I've sought or looked for. My understanding is that's it's confidential information in terms of public accounts in terms of the diamond royalty," the mines minister said.  The diamond royalty is different than the mining profits tax on precious and base metals in Ontario. Gold and nickel companies, for example, pay depending on how much money the companies make.  

Why so secretive?
"There is nothing about the diamonds coming out of that mine that should be secret. Why on earth does it matter?" says David Robinson, one of the most influential economists in Northern Ontario.  "The big secret is we don't know how much money is coming out and going to the public. And the thing about that is. if we don't know how much is coming in Ontario, in a pretty well developed legal regime, what's happening in Nigeria, what's happening in Zimbabwe?" said Robinson, a professor at Sudbury's Laurentian University.
Not all diamond royalties are kept secret. Lucara, a Canadian-listed company with one mine in Botswana, openly discloses what it pays in its financial reports. In 2014, 10 per cent or $26.6 million was paid to the government of Botswana.
i]

Now a person can argue that there is a certain amount of infrastructure cost that a corporation gets tax credits for (cough*oilsands*cough) but at the same time not have a public disclosure of the production and accounting makes a person wonder.   Especially when a peer corporation paid apparently more royalty money to Botwana's government than Ontario got from the mining industry in total royalties (see previous post).   But $226/year....that doesn't even pay for the accountant reviewing the file._


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2015)

Wait for it .... MORE politicians!


> Ontario is proposing changes to the provincial election system that would ensure Ontarians are represented fairly in the legislature.
> 
> Premier Kathleen Wynne announced today that the government will introduce an election reform bill. If passed, the Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 would increase the number of provincial ridings in southern Ontario from 96 to 111 for the election scheduled in 2018. This would align with the new federal boundaries, and would better reflect population shifts and increases. Most new ridings would be in areas that have seen substantial population growth, such as Toronto, Peel, York, Durham and Ottawa.
> 
> ...



More details re:  proposed election changes:


> Ontario is proposing changes to the provincial election system that would ensure Ontarians are represented fairly in the legislature, enhance the integrity of the election finance system and move the fixed election date from fall to spring.
> 
> The government will adopt a number of recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. Today it will introduce the Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015, and this fall it will move ahead with additional measures.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Who's the happiest person in Ontario this afternoon?
> .
> .
> .
> ...




And, according to a story in the _Ottawa Citizen_, Christine Elliott has resigned as a MPP, to a chorus of well wishes from political friends and foes alike, and she will, "stay active in her community helping people with disabilities."

(One wonders, idly and parenthetically, only, is she's interested in taking a run at federal politics.)


----------

