2014 Ontario General Election

[jpjohnsn]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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:

:goodpost:

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."