2014 Ontario Provincial Election

[Bayer]

Question to put out there...

How are others reconciling the Liberal track record of scandals and wasted funds (gas plants, Ehealth, ornge etc), and what would essentially be rewarding them for these things by casting a vote for them?

In my case the answer is simple; I vote for the future, not the past. What is done is done, and the party has a new leader. The only problem I have with the Liberals is that they should propose tax increases beyond those that were originally announced, as it is painfully obvious that we need them.

 

[nfitz]

Since the start of the election I have been trying to get an answer to what the plan was to eliminate the deficit in two years after this "one time" increase to $12.5B. Despite repeated attempts to find out how the Liberal party planned to eliminate a $12.5B deficit in two years while telling us that Hudak eliminating a $11.3B deficit in two years would be devastating to Ontario I came up empty.

The spending/revenue is clearly laid out in the budget. It relies on revenue to continue to increase at the current rate, and to hold down program spending to increase at a somewhat lower rate, closer to inflation, combined with the tax increase on the rich. Presumably a combination of wage freezes, and small program cuts.

I think you are missing the point about the Hudak cuts. If Hudak had simply said he'd balance the budget a year early, by cancelling the Liberal infrastructure programs, then it wouldn't be a big deal. He's also promised huge tax cuts as well. It's these additional tax cuts that require the massive cuts to teachers, increased class sizes, and cuts to health care workers.

Removing the Greenbelt?

Perhaps an issue that deserves more discussion. Shame that it didn't come into play during the debate, especially given that ALL the questions came from communities just on the other side of the Green Belt from Toronto (Guelph, Ajax, Newmarket, Cobourg, Peterborough, and Waterloo).

 

[jje1000]

Not trying to convince or move you but the fear of a moving deadline on the DRL should have been assuaged by the promise to resign if he did not balance the budget in 2 years.....no?

I don't believe any of that either. Hudak isn't ever going to resign. He'll find ways of working away the deficit, even if it means hiding it as the old Harris government did after they promised no deficits.

Of course, this ties into my perception that the Hudak that will govern will be much different than the Hudak that you're seeing on the campaign trail. Given his presence in the Harris government that cancelled transit expansion throughout this city, privatized key public assets and unilaterally imposed amalgamation despite a majority opposition all in the name of deficit reduction, I feel that similar tactics will happen down the road. I feel that he may simply declare that funding for the DRL will come... someday...

The sale of Highway 407 was not in itself wrong. Even though I believe that provincial taxpayers were short-changed on the deal, the sale still resulted in the completion of critical links along the route at minimal cost to taxpayers. The big problem was what the Harris government did with the funds raised.

As the sale took place, a few months before the 1999 provincial election, the money raised ($3.1 billion) was placed into general revenues. As a result, the Harris government was able to claim that they had balanced the budget after just four years in power, and after inheriting a “massive fiscal mess” from the previous Rae administration.

I also rank getting the budget back in order a key priority, but in this case, transit matters more to me. We are about to potentially see transit drastically improved from its current state in this city, and I do not want to see it slip away from our hands.

 

[TOareaFan]

The spending/revenue is clearly laid out in the budget. It relies on revenue to continue to increase at the current rate, and to hold down program spending to increase at a somewhat lower rate, closer to inflation, combined with the tax increase on the rich. Presumably a combination of wage freezes, and small program cuts.

aside from the fact that the same economists that we are reminded daily are critical of Hudak's job plan have also cast serious doubts on this plan......revenue growth alone can't wipe out a $12B shortfall......and that is before you factor in the impact to personal spending and corporate taxation of the new pension plan. People cannot spend the money that will be taken off of their pay cheques and companies can't be taxed on the amount their profits are reduced (one example.....at their recent annual meeting Magna announced that none of their next 23 plants will be located in Ontario....they cited two reasons, the cost of energy and impact of the new retirement plan.....they estimate on their current Ontario labour force it will cost them $38 million annually). This is not intended to debate the merits of this pension plan.....but to suggest a new forced saving on individuals and a new payroll tax on employees will not impact revenue growth is simply naive.

As for the tax on the "rich", as I said, it is already in the current budget and we have been advised the annual collection (assuming the "rich" do not change their actions to reduce the impact of the tax) is around $600 million and that still produces a $12.5B deficit.

I think you are missing the point about the Hudak cuts. If Hudak had simply said he'd balance the budget a year early, by cancelling the Liberal infrastructure programs, then it wouldn't be a big deal.

That would not be enough to balance the budget......we either have to increase revenues (raise taxes) or cut spending. Both he and Wynne have passed on the first option.....he is going to implement the second.

He's also promised huge tax cuts as well.

After the budget is balanced.

It's these additional tax cuts that require the massive cuts to teachers, increased class sizes, and cuts to health care workers.

No.....it is the search for balance that needs those cuts.....where they will be is yet to be determined but, yes, there will be cuts to education workers and if I was an OPA worker today I would be spending time on Workopolis

 

[Tewder]

In my case the answer is simple; I vote for the future, not the past. What is done is done, and the party has a new leader. The only problem I have with the Liberals is that they should propose tax increases beyond those that were originally announced, as it is painfully obvious that we need them.

If you ignore the past though are you not doomed to repeat it? In other words, if you vote Liberal willfully and knowledgeably despite the track record of waste/corruption do you really get to complain if they continue to mismanage funds?... and why would you really expect things to change?? Wynne was not the party leader but the leader does not act in isolation, she was part of the governing regime... and the definition of idiocy is repeating the same thing expecting a different result, no?

... and to your last point, is it not difficult to assess whether tax increases truly are needed given the gross mismanagement of funds over such a long period of time (the Ontario Auditor General claims $1billion waste associated with Ehealth alone)?

You are right, by all means the Liberals should be voted out of office, but the alternatives are either not good enough, or blatantly harmful. Neither am I convinced the other two parties would be any less prone to scandals than the Liberals (Horwath and Hudak were in favor of moving the gas plants for instance), at least Wynne has apologized and declared her commitment to preventing this stuff again.

I am willing to stomach the Liberals for a few more years if it means that transit in Ontario continues moving as planned and the PC and NDP sack their leaders and reevaluate their platform. Then maybe next election we can face an electoral choice that doesn't involve "voting for the least harmful party".

If Hudak's vow to quit (failing to create 1 million new jobs) is dismissed as a campaign stump promise, how is Wynne's 'apology' really any more sincere?... In fact, isn't it less so? Why should we expect a party that has been entrenched in power for eleven years to willfully reform itself and to deliver on promises (transit or otherwise)? If anything isn't it more likely that the corruption, cronyism, inertia etc already in place would likely only just get worse? 11 years in power already! Why is transit/infrastructure in such a bad state? The Liberals were the ones governing for 11 years!


For me transit is a priority too, and I prefer the Liberal transit promises... my concern is that the promises are 'smoke and mirrors', a tactical divisive issue they bargained would keep people on board despite the corruption and waste... and that without some 'time off' they cannot be trusted to deliver on their promises... and if they don't i'll have nobody to blame given the public knowledge of their track record.

 

[nfitz]

aside from the fact that the same economists that we are reminded daily are critical of Hudak's job plan have also cast serious doubts on this plan...

Is there a reference for this? A couple of ultra-right wing economists made this comment. But I'm not sure it's all the same ones.

...revenue growth alone can't wipe out a $12B shortfall

Of course it can't. No one has said it would. You also have the taxation increases on the rich and business that have already been announced. And controls on spending increases.

....and that is before you factor in the impact to personal spending and corporate taxation of the new pension plan.

Why would you factor in something that's not going to happen for 3 years ... which is about when the deficit would be gone?

People cannot spend the money that will be taken off of their pay cheques and companies can't be taxed on the amount their profits are reduced (one example.....at their recent annual meeting Magna announced that none of their next 23 plants will be located in Ontario....they cited two reasons, the cost of energy and impact of the new retirement plan.....they estimate on their current Ontario labour force it will cost them $38 million annually). This is not intended to debate the merits of this pension plan.....but to suggest a new forced saving on individuals and a new payroll tax on employees will not impact revenue growth is simply naive.

That's just Stronach making political comments to influence the election. $38 million is fraction of the extra health-care costs they'd have to pay if they were to locate in the USA.

That would not be enough to balance the budget......we either have to increase revenues (raise taxes) or cut spending. Both he and Wynne have passed on the first option.....he is going to implement the second.

And repeat the Harris cuts. Who would be crazy enough to want to inflict that kind of damage and death on Ontario again.

No.....it is the search for balance that needs those cuts.....where they will be is yet to be determined but, yes, there will be cuts to education workers and if I was an OPA worker today I would be spending time on Workopolis

You think that that Hudak is going to gut the Ontario Hydro that the PC party created in the first place? Ontario Hydro has been out-of-control for decades. Ultimately they have the upper hand ... we can't survive without electricity, and they have their fingers on the plug. Sure it's an issue - but it's hardly a political issue. No party has ever succeeded on this one!

Personally I'm basing my vote on transit. And there's quite clearly only one choice on that one, given that the Tories are cancelling many transit infrastructure projects, and the NDP seems to be decreasing spending from about the $3 billion a year the Liberals are promising, to about $250 million.

I could have voted for Horwath if she'd had even the semblance of a plan - but she doesn't.

And I could have voted for the Tories if they had a decent plan, and a competent leader. Personally though, I don't see how anyone has the ethics or morals to vote for a bigot like Tim Hudak.

 

[TOareaFan]

Is there a reference for this? A couple of ultra-right wing economists made this comment. But I'm not sure it's all the same ones.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/0530-elxn-chianello

Of course it can't. No one has said it would. You also have the taxation increases on the rich and business that have already been announced. And controls on spending increases.

Again, the tax on the "rich" produces a relatively small amount of money....and it is already in the budget that has the $12.5B deficit....so I am not sure how it can then be exhibited as a measure that will eliminate the deficit.

Why would you factor in something that's not going to happen for 3 years ... which is about when the deficit would be gone?

Because businesses making investment decisions, the ones that may lead to revenue growth, are factoring it in.

That's just Stronach making political comments to influence the election. $38 million is fraction of the extra health-care costs they'd have to pay if they were to locate in the USA.

http://www.thestar.com/business/201...ts_for_canada_cites_ontario_energy_costs.html

Yep...I am sure that only Magna is concerned about this and they really aren't concerned but the CEO of a publicly traded company would rather lie at an annual meeting than see the Liberals re-elected....yep, that's the ticket!

And repeat the Harris cuts. Who would be crazy enough to want to inflict that kind of damage and death on Ontario again.

Personally I'm basing my vote on transit. And there's quite clearly only one choice on that one, given that the Tories are cancelling many transit infrastructure projects, and the NDP seems to be decreasing spending from about the $3 billion a year the Liberals are promising, to about $250 million.

and, personally, I was willing to run the risk on the Liberals based on the transit plan if their deficit elimination plans had an ounce of meat, or credibility, to them.

I could have voted for Horwath if she'd had even the semblance of a plan - but she doesn't.

And I could have voted for the Tories if they had a decent plan, and a competent leader. Personally though, I don't see how anyone has the ethics or morals to vote for a bigot like Tim Hudak.

Calling a significant portion of Ontario population unethical or immoral is not a good approach to debate

 

[Bayer]

If you ignore the past though are you not doomed to repeat it? In other words, if you vote Liberal willfully and knowledgeably despite the track record of waste/corruption do you really get to complain if they continue to mismanage funds?... and why would you really expect things to change?? Wynne was not the party leader but the leader does not act in isolation, she was part of the governing regime... and the definition of idiocy is repeating the same thing expecting a different result, no?

... and to your last point, is it not difficult to assess whether tax increases truly are needed given the gross mismanagement of funds over such a long period of time (the Ontario Auditor General claims $1billion waste associated with Ehealth alone)?

Many problems they have had were with arms-length agencies such as EHealth which were poorly supervised. I don't hold them directly responsible for the mismanagement. As for the power plants, which opposition parties wanted to cancel as well, it was obviously wasteful. The plants should have been built regardless of local opinion, or more suitable locations should have been found in the first place.

The amounts in question are small considering the provincial budget. Saying we don't need tax increases because some money was mismanaged would be incorrect. Again, our program spending is the lowest per capita in the country, we have needs in the areas of infrastructure and health care, and our taxes are low compared to other provinces.

My main problem with the Conservatives is that their ideology is destructive. Anyone promising tax cuts does not act in the public interest.

 

[TOareaFan]

Many problems they have had were with arms-length agencies such as EHealth which were poorly supervised. I don't hold them directly responsible for the mismanagement. As for the power plants, which opposition parties wanted to cancel as well, it was obviously wasteful. The plants should have been built regardless of local opinion, or more suitable locations should have been found in the first place.

The amounts in question are small considering the provincial budget. Saying we don't need tax increases because some money was mismanaged would be incorrect. Again, our program spending is the lowest per capita in the country, we have needs in the areas of infrastructure and health care, and our taxes are low compared to other provinces.

My main problem with the Conservatives is that their ideology is destructive. Anyone promising tax cuts does not act in the public interest.

Funny that because when Wynne was asked what part of her shared legacy with Dalton McGuinty she is most proud of she listed one thing....tax cuts! She chose not to answer the other half of the question (what part of her shared legacy is she most ashamed of).

 

[nfitz]

Calling a significant portion of Ontario population unethical or immoral is not a good approach to debate

I disagree. Only a bigot knowingly votes for a bigot. Surely publicizing Hudak's bigotry is good approach.

 

[TOareaFan]

I disagree. Only a bigot knowingly votes for a bigot. Surely publicizing Hudak's bigotry is good approach.

ok...I cringe as I ask this....other than Minister Murray in 2010 accusing Hudak of being a bigot.....an action which he later admitted was a mistake and he apologized for.....how is Mr Hudak a bigot....I need you to show me facts...because by extension of our conversation you have just called me a bigot.

 

[spider]

ok...I cringe as I ask this....other than Minister Murray in 2010 accusing Hudak of being a bigot.....an action which he later admitted was a mistake and he apologized for.....how is Mr Hudak a bigot....I need you to show me facts...because by extension of our conversation you have just called me a bigot.

Nfitz don't need no stinkin' facts because he is NFITZ, BIGOT HUNTER and above such pedestrian restraints,.

 

[nfitz]

ok...I cringe as I ask this....other than Minister Murray in 2010 accusing Hudak of being a bigot.....an action which he later admitted was a mistake and he apologized for.....how is Mr Hudak a bigot....I need you to show me facts...because by extension of our conversation you have just called me a bigot.

Hudak's homophobic position has been well documented in the media. We don't really need to rehash this do we? Surely everyone is aware of this?

Nfitz don't need no stinkin' facts because he is NFITZ, BIGOT HUNTER and above such pedestrian restraints,.

Excuse me for having morals and ethics, unlike anti-family Tim Hudak.

 

[TOareaFan]

Hudak's homophobic position has been well documented in the media. We don't really need to rehash this do we? Surely everyone is aware of this?

no not everyone is aware of "it" why don't you point to some links of produce some evidence.

Excuse me for having morals and ethics, unlike anti-family Tim Hudak.

No one is trying to convince you to vote for the PCs but while you are producing the homophobic evidence bring on the anti-family evidence too.

 

[nfitz]

no not everyone is aware of "it" why don't you point to some links of produce some evidence.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ology_from_tim_hudak_on_homophobic_flyer.html http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/10/tim_hudak_defends_controversial_anti-liberal_flyer_/ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ontario-pcs-grilled-over-flyer-called-anti-gay-1.1115219 http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=182959

No one is trying to convince you to vote for the PCs but while you are producing the homophobic evidence bring on the anti-family evidence too.

Cuts to education. Anti-gay.