2014 Ontario Provincial Election

[TOareaFan]

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

Unless I have mis-clicked/mis-read those are all stories about the conflict between the PCs interpretation of a TDSB guidebook and how they got the word out about the TDSB policy.

They mocked the policy/procedure not being gay. At the time, the only part of he TDSB guideline I took offence to was the whole idea that parents not be consulted but we are in trouble in a society if we can not debate/discuss how subjects are taught/presented to children and when.

Some PC candidates at the time were ham fisted and incorrect on how they communicated their concerns about the TDSB guidelines (and likely paid a political price for that) but criticizing a policy does not make you a homophobe.

If that makes me a homophobe/bigot in your eyes, I and a lot of people I know would be surprised.

Cuts to education. Anti-gay.

Cuts to education don't make someone anti-family. Again, we should be able to have reasonable discourse about how we offer and fund all of our services without resorting to name calling. Is Kathleen Wynne and her party anti-youth because in my mind they are taking on so much debt without a reasonable plan to change that that there is going to be no future for them in a province that has to expend an ever increasing and difficult to manage amount of its revenue just servicing the debt? Of course not. Each party is proposing what they think are the best policies for the present and future of the province....it does not make them "anti-anything".

 

[nfitz]

Unless I have mis-clicked/mis-read those are all stories about the conflict between the PCs interpretation of a TDSB guidebook and how they got the word out about the TDSB policy.

They mocked the policy/procedure not being gay. At the time, the only part of he TDSB guideline I took offence to was the whole idea that parents not be consulted but we are in trouble in a society if we can not debate/discuss how subjects are taught/presented to children and when.

Some PC candidates at the time were ham fisted and incorrect on how they communicated their concerns about the TDSB guidelines (and likely paid a political price for that) but criticizing a policy does not make you a homophobe.

Going through the entire campaign, without correcting to the press that your not anti-gay DOES make you a homophobe.

If that makes me a homophobe/bigot in your eyes, I and a lot of people I know would be surprised.

If your willing to white-wash homophobia, your just as bad, if not worse, than an actual homophobe, as presumably you'd know better.

Cuts to education don't make someone anti-family. Again, we should be able to have reasonable discourse about how we offer and fund all of our services without resorting to name calling.

To great extent, I'm making fun of the ultra-right-wing's "pro-family" code word. Obviously gay marriage isn't anti-family either ...

Is Kathleen Wynne and her party anti-youth because in my mind they are taking on so much debt without a reasonable plan to change that that there is going to be no future for them in a province that has to expend an ever increasing and difficult to manage amount of its revenue just servicing the debt? Of course not. Each party is proposing what they think are the best policies for the present and future of the province....it does not make them "anti-anything".

I completely fail to comprehend your paranoia with the debt. We're still not near the combined Ontario/Federal debt levels of the mid-1990s, and it's not going to take much more to completely eliminate the deficit. At the same time transportation in Toronto is near paralyzed. We need infrastructure so that we can continue to grow.

 

[MisterF]

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?

You're assuming that mismanagement and corruption are unique to this party. The reality is that every government has its scandals, mismanagement, waste, and patronage. The current federal government is experiencing this, as did the previous provincial government. That's also true in the private sector, and, really, any kind of leadership. Based on every government in history, to expect the next government to be any better in these matters is naive.

For me it really comes down to which party has the platform and policies I agree with most. Or disagree with least.

 

[jje1000]

Tim Hudak rejects economists’ criticism of his math on million jobs plan: ‘I know I’m right’

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...is-math-on-million-jobs-plan-i-know-im-right/

Yes, Hudak knows he's right. Will this translate to the Hudak government doing every it can to appear correct?

 

[Tewder]

You're assuming that mismanagement and corruption are unique to this party.

Not at all, i'm assuming the opposite. I'm assuming that a previous party has already been punished for perceived corruption and waste etc. that went on under their watch, which is why they are the 'previous' party, not the incumbent.

The reality is that every government has its scandals, mismanagement, waste, and patronage. The current federal government is experiencing this, as did the previous provincial government. That's also true in the private sector, and, really, any kind of leadership. Based on every government in history, to expect the next government to be any better in these matters is naive.

I agree completely. It is equally naive to ignore that the longer a party is in power the more corrupt and wasteful it gets. This is somewhat axiomatic. The Liberals are now asking for a 15-year mandate based on all sorts of promises and transit visions and so on, but it begs the question why only now? What happened on these things during the 11 years of the mandate they've already had. This is really how we should be judging.

 

[MisterF]

Not at all, i'm assuming the opposite. I'm assuming that a previous party has already been punished for perceived corruption and waste etc. that went on under their watch, which is why they are the 'previous' party, not the incumbent.



I agree completely. It is equally naive to ignore that the longer a party is in power the more corrupt and wasteful it gets. This is somewhat axiomatic. The Liberals are now asking for a 15-year mandate based on all sorts of promises and transit visions and so on, but it begs the question why only now? What happened on these things during the 11 years of the mandate they've already had. This is really how we should be judging.

You may need to back up your claim that a party gets more wasteful and corrupt the longer it's in power. Are the Wynne led Liberals more corrupt than the McGuinty led Liberals were 5 years ago? What specifically makes this so?

As for what happened over the last 11 years on transit, I'm genuinely perplexed by the implication. Maybe you haven't noticed all the transit construction happening around the GTA lately? This government has achieved more for transit in the last 11 years than any other in a generation.

 

[RC8]

The fact that the Liberals are holding to the we will balance the budget commitment tells me that they know fine well that this is a very, very, important commitment to make. The fact that they are not willing to tell us how they get there tells me we won't get there and, sorry, their best chance to get my vote was lost last night.

Look, Ontario's budget situation really is not that bad. We are better off than literally every single Canadian province in terms of the efficiency of the services we provide.

The Conservative plan will considerably damage the economy, wreck families, destroy the environment, and get rid of our chances to get decent transit built in this and other large Ontario cities.

I don't know of a single contemporary well-reputed urban planner or economist who would support what Hudak proposes. He has framed the issue of the budget as if it was huge, but in reality it isn't. Back at the turn of the century conservatives warned that the construction of Old City Hall would bankrupt the City of Toronto and that their grandchildren would be paying that debt... the truth is that they were wrong, and conservatives are wrong today when they say the province is in a precarious financial situation.

Hudak and his friends want to come into power to help themselves, and the budget/overspending narrative is just an attempt to terrify people into voting for them. We have nothing to be scared of. We can afford to fix our society right now.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/06/06/a-very-bad-day-for-wynne-as-hudak-closes-the-gap-ekos/

 

[Admiral Beez]

Look, Ontario's budget situation really is not that bad. We are better off than literally every single Canadian province in terms of the efficiency of the services we provide.

Efficiency of delivery is not the issue. The issue is that we cannot afford the services we get. We must either cut services or increase revenue (taxes).

Do we need to be spending 10% of our provincial budget on economic development, natural resources and the environment? I don't know - what's in that wide bucket? For that matter, what's in that 16% for social services? We need some money, so it's got to come from somewhere.

If the province was a household, you couldn't continue to live in the red, and that 16% going to interest charges on the debt would need to be addressed and eliminated through either a dramatic cut in expenses, or a dramatic increase in short term revenue (through either selling of assets or an immediate poll tax). If we don't return to balanced budgets and eliminate that debt, this will just get worse....

 

[TOareaFan]

^sometimes the charts/graphs that are used by economics folks can confuse us regular people because they slap lines on graph paper and only to them is it clear/easy to understand what they are trying to demonstrate never mind what the results are.

The debt to GDP table though is really easy and clear. The direction of the line tells you the relative growth rates of the economy and the debt. From 1999-2007/08 we were, with a couple of bumps, growing our economy faster than our debt. So our ability to service the debt was improving with each year. After a couple of (understandably) very steep reversals of that trend...we are back to a steady increase in the ratio of Debt to GDP....we are growing our debt faster than the economy is growing. Intersting that the in '90s we were very concerned about debt and all governments (of all political parties) took notice and action.....yet the ratio of debt to GDP never exceeded 32%........the Chart shows it was over 35% by the end of fiscal year 2012/2013 and is now around 38 or 39%.

Our fiscal position is worsening....quite dramatically so.....but, never mind, it will fix itself

 

[StatGeek]

Why I will probably vote Liberal. I find Hudak plan to be way too hardcore right-wing ideology that I will never feel comfortable voting for him, I also have to say I find a lot of conservatives personality towards people (anti-union, really anti-middle class) CEO making billiions and not spreading it around is no problem in their mind, but a teacher or a firefighter or anybody with union security is wrong? Also their constant support of Ford left a bad taste in my mouth, I can't trust that. I would consider voting NDP but they become the worse in left-wing populism (just as bad as RW populism) willing to risk a ultra conservative government for Horwath personal gain in calling this election and don't really hear any planning or vision from them except "lower taxes/insurance rates" I don't love the Liberals, but they are the only option for me.

Newest poll update. Ranked by most success in 2011
Forum (May 27) Libs 36v... PC 36^... NDP 20=... Grn 7^
Abacus (May 31) Libs 37^... PC 30v... NDP 24v... Grn 7^
Nanos (May 26) Libs 38..... PC 31.... NDP 24..... Grn 5
Ekos (Jun 5) Libs 34v... PC 35^... NDP 32^... Grn 8=
Ipsos (May 29) Libs 34^... PC 36^... NDP 23v... Oth 6^

Kind of surprise that there been no other polling this week except for the daily Ekos. That is a pretty big switch into Ekos (5 point lead to PC by 1) but I would like to see if this trend happens on any other poll or see another Ekos poll just to make sure it's not a single poll anomaly. For now my result stay unchanged with Libs 37, PC 33, NDP 22, Grn 7. But if the debate did as much damage as they claim they did or if the gas plant investigation picks up during election week, which would be suspicious in my mind could change these numbers around.

Did anybody see the gross and unsettling Toronto Sun cartoon. I will not post it or even link it. But it portrays Wynne glasses broken and glass shattered with bloody teeth on the floor. It has almost universal criticism on twitter and their comment section. It was messed up and not your normal "cartoon violence" that Donato lazily normally portrays.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I would rather be called a bigot and vote for a party that is lead by Tim Hudak whom I am as vocal a critic of as anyone here, than vote for a Wynne Liberal government in Ontario. That is how bad I feel their policy is. And my vote is based on the budget policy not on previous McGuinty government scandal or E-health or Gas Plants etc.

 

[RC8]

^sometimes the charts/graphs that are used by economics folks can confuse us regular people because they slap lines on graph paper and only to them is it clear/easy to understand what they are trying to demonstrate never mind what the results are.

The debt to GDP table though is really easy and clear. The direction of the line tells you the relative growth rates of the economy and the debt. From 1999-2007/08 we were, with a couple of bumps, growing our economy faster than our debt. So our ability to service the debt was improving with each year. After a couple of (understandably) very steep reversals of that trend...we are back to a steady increase in the ratio of Debt to GDP....we are growing our debt faster than the economy is growing. Intersting that the in '90s we were very concerned about debt and all governments (of all political parties) took notice and action.....yet the ratio of debt to GDP never exceeded 32%........the Chart shows it was over 35% by the end of fiscal year 2012/2013 and is now around 38 or 39%.

Our fiscal position is worsening....quite dramatically so.....but, never mind, it will fix itself

It is nowhere near as bad as you are being led to believe it is. It's not that it doesn't need to be fixed, it does, but the misguided urgency with which Hudak wants to tackle the issue is nothing but a smokescreen for implementing policies with completely different objectives.

The graph only shows something typical of major recessions in service-based economies (as opposed to resource exploitation-based ones), it's not showing the results of 'overspending', and you will see that federal debt follows the exact same pattern. Ontario's debt:GDP ratio is equivalent to that of 3 or 4 other Canadian provinces, and is 10 points below that of Quebec... except we are actually the leanest government per capita of the bunch.

Hudak's plan is more likely to lead to a serious financial crisis than Wynne's, by reducing revenue sources and putting people out of work. It has absolutely zero economic integrity. It is the financial equivalent to Rob Ford's transit plan.

Please study the subjects in depth or consult people who have and hopefully you'll see through this. The gross simplifications of reality current conservatives love to base their policies on are first and foremost intentional attempts to misinform the public. Look no further than the MILLION JOBS PLAN, or how Ford saved us a BILLION DOLLARS. Same math.

 

[nfitz]

I would rather be called a bigot and vote for a party that is lead by Tim Hudak whom I am as vocal a critic of as anyone here, than vote for a Wynne Liberal government in Ontario. That is how bad I feel their policy is. And my vote is based on the budget policy not on previous McGuinty government scandal or E-health or Gas Plants etc.

Ignoring that Tim Hudak is a bigot, and anyone who knows that and vote for him is a bigot ...

Surely the bigger issue is the damage that Hudak will do to the province. The Harris cuts set the province back years, and created a fiscal imbalance, where it's not possible to to provide the necessary services with almost the lowest income taxes in the country. Combine that with our lowest corporate taxes, and the deficit/debt issue was created by Harris - McGuinty failed to fix this by putting taxes back to a sustainable level.

Combine that with bigger class sizes, and more cuts to healthcare, and how can one justify that.

And then there's transit. The Liberals have put their neck on the line with massive infrastructure for transit. Safe to say, if they don't at least get a minority government, we'll never see anything like this again in our life times.

 

[jje1000]

Newest poll update. Ranked by most success in 2011
Forum (May 27) Libs 36v... PC 36^... NDP 20=... Grn 7^
Abacus (May 31) Libs 37^... PC 30v... NDP 24v... Grn 7^
Nanos (May 26) Libs 38..... PC 31.... NDP 24..... Grn 5
Ekos (Jun 5) Libs 34v... PC 35^... NDP 32^... Grn 8=
Ipsos (May 29) Libs 34^... PC 36^... NDP 23v... Oth 6^

Quite the range there, for all we know, there will be winners and losers in the polling industry this election.

It is nowhere near as bad as you are being led to believe it is. It's not that it doesn't need to be fixed, it does, but the misguided urgency with which Hudak wants to tackle the issue is nothing but a smokescreen for implementing policies with completely different objectives.

This is what I really fear. Harper's been doing this ever since he got his majority, destroying the census, attacking public servants and decreasing government transparency. Who knew this would happen before he got his government? I thought he was doing rather decently beforehand.

And as far as I can see, the Harper and Hudak governments would be joined at the hip, as John Baird's involvement with Hudak shows. I imagine that they would be able to access the federal coservative's voting lists and war room info. I don't need anymore public assets sold, or cuts to happen to our municipalities.