News   Jan 27, 2021
 315     0 
News   Jan 27, 2021
 594     1 
News   Jan 27, 2021
 1.7K     8 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
I see Mulroney becoming the darling of the press. I'm interested to see her win to radically change the place, but there's no mistaking that she's become the darling of the press. Not every press, but many. It has a degree of 'adoration' to it, our Catherine. Except Caroline works for a living...

Edit to Add: Whoops! Best I clarify, "Catherine" being the Princess, not Kathleen the Kut-throat of Queens Parked...
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,753
Reaction score
13,180
Location
Toronto/EY
I mean no disrespect to Ms. Mulroney, she certainly has a great education/C.V. and may well be a fine candidate, party leader or even premier (though the latter is surely premature to judge).

But I am rather put off by the fawning press coverage.

I certainly don't expect it to be scurrilous or otherwise vindictive; but a modicum of restraint; awaiting clear and informed pronouncements on policy, and ideals would seem in order.
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,748
Reaction score
1,311
Oh, believe me, I know. I just find it humorous that their situations are technically similar, albeit Mulroney coming from the champagne end of the spectrum while Douggie-poo's "elitist political dynasty" is more of the cheap, home-brewed moonshine version. (I still laugh whenever I think of his harridan mother's Bizarro-Land delusions of her slackjaw clan being like a Canadian answer to the Kennedys!) Of course, like Trump, it's Ford's money that makes him a part of the Elite, even if only as a junior member. But his pretensions at speaking for 'the little guy' is just that. We all know he views the poor and working class/lower middle classes as props to discard once they've served their purpose.

"We may be elites, but we *worked damn hard* to get where we are. It wasn't just handed to us on a silver platter."
(Of course, the Ford dynasty is viewed as a unit, rather than as individuals--that is, it's Doug Sr.'s legacy they're upholding, and never mind if the younger generations are making a *harrumph* hash of it)
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,748
Reaction score
1,311
I see Mulroney becoming the darling of the press. I'm interested to see her win to radically change the place, but there's no mistaking that she's become the darling of the press. Not every press, but many. It has a degree of 'adoration' to it, our Catherine. Except Caroline works for a living...

Funny; being bombarded by shelter and subway advertising has led me to think of Caroline's potential for being labelled as the "Workin' Moms" candidate

 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
I certainly don't expect it to be scurrilous or otherwise vindictive; but a modicum of restraint; awaiting clear and informed pronouncements on policy, and ideals would seem in order.
You and I both. I have to be candid: I find her physically highly attractive. Nuff said on that, but I'd be a fool to be waylaid by that attraction. I want to know the goods, and she'd appreciate that, being a successful business woman.

However! We (you, collectively, Northern and I) are the minority. Looks and appearances is everything to many. Am I being cynical? Taken a glance at TV, the social media or advertising lately?

For all the talk of "liberation"...I gotta tell you, we were a hell of a lot further ahead in Seventies and Eighties in being aware of what we were getting into, and world and social events. Without "Fake News" being an issue...

Let's just agree, Northern, that so far what we know of her is 'slick and glossy'. Sounds like lipstick, doesn't it? I've been combing the news for interviews and her actually getting emotional expounding an issue. Either she's incredibly well-managed and disciplined to remain 'on script'...or there might be nothing!

That being said, effectively, no-one has really made a substantive case on anything yet either. I'm reminded of the term "Phoney War" but who knows, maybe the artillery is being moved in behind lines...
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
Funny; being bombarded by shelter and subway advertising has led me to think of Caroline's potential for being labelled as the "Workin' Moms" candidate

Dammit, I've been trying to figure out who Caroline reminds me of. It's not Reitman, but very, very close, albeit the sensible and considered older sister. I've tried for the life of me to relate to whatever that program is about, I have friends in post-production and direction on parallel productions, and I have to be honest with them: I don't find it funny, I don't know what it is, but watching that, no wonder so many of them are strung out of anti-depressants, social media, and dating apps that couple them up with heartache in the name of Liberation.

The irony is that they think they're attractive. Which brings us back to the PR campaign for Mulroney. She actually is attractive by accomplishment and demeanour. But she still has to deliver the product...

Edit to Add: The common factor, justified or not: "Entitlement". Some have earned it, some assume it. And some flaunt it.

Just tried giving it one more chance watching it. I lasted four minutes. Yuck....
 
Last edited:

Palma

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
2,346
Reaction score
187
Remember when Jim Flaherty was in tears over the Crack Video admission?
But I think that had more to do with the fact he had cancer and it came back while the public did not know & of course got emotional thinking of his own circumstances with his family and how things may end up for him
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
2,421
Location
Parkdale
I just got off the phone with EKOS, asking me all sorts of leading questions about the current provincial government. Damn, I have to say my "Strongly Support" levels for hypothetical government policies was through the roof with some nice "Strongly Oppose" thrown in, thankfully so I didn't come off as a stooge.
Of course it started with the obligatory "Would you say, generally, that the province is headed in the right direction or would you say it is headed in the wrong direction?"

Among other things being thought of are: various versions of enhanced public support of tertiary health insurance for Ontarians (they had various, redundant options); increasing GO train service now while previously introduced service upgrades are being implemented over a longer period of time; increasing access to primary healthcare practitioners during evenings and weekends; many, many ideas about increasing home care; increasing pharmacare to include more people (again, they presented various age groups); a (bullshit, in my opinion) 37K$ loan to first-time home buyers to use for down payment with the terms including no interest and no payments for five years; a ridiculous moratorium on auto insurance increases for a year that would lead to higher costs after (is this their new maths?); pre-school for all children from age 2.5; childcare costing no more than 10% of a family's income; 4 week increase to a second parent for parental leave; hot lunches for all elementary school students and on.

Apparently the Liberals are cooking up an election platform by way of phone committee. They forgot to ask if I would vote fore them (no). I guess they only wanted to know if I supported their policy proposals.

Some of the questions made me laugh. Like the one about if "creating" jobs would improve my view of the government to which I replied with a laugh and "Governments don't create jobs, bud."

I also felt kind of stupid describing myself as working class to a guy who makes maybe half my wage with that question being right after the question about my income range, but I'll always consider myself working class as long as I brave the elements and break my back working with my hands so that people with too much money on their hands have somewhere nice to live.

Edit: I just realised that I'm a bit simple with my statement about government not creating jobs. Government can create jobs in a command economy but also in a free market economy by hiring public service employees. Having a government that creates jobs though is bad joo joo.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
9,753
Reaction score
13,180
Location
Toronto/EY
I just got off the phone with EKOS, asking me all sorts of leading questions about the current provincial government. Damn, I have to say my "Strongly Support" levels for hypothetical government policies was through the roof with some nice "Strongly Oppose" thrown in, thankfully so I didn't come off as a stooge.
Of course it started with the obligatory "Would you say, generally, that the province is headed in the right direction or would you say it is headed in the wrong direction?"

Among other things being thought of are: various versions of enhanced public support of tertiary health insurance for Ontarians (they had various, redundant options); increasing GO train service now while previously introduced service upgrades are being implemented over a longer period of time; increasing access to primary healthcare practitioners during evenings and weekends; many, many ideas about increasing home care; increasing pharmacare to include more people (again, they presented various age groups); a (bullshit, in my opinion) 37K$ loan to first-time home buyers to use for down payment with the terms including no interest and no payments for five years; a ridiculous moratorium on auto insurance increases for a year that would lead to higher costs after (is this their new maths?); pre-school for all children from age 2.5; childcare costing no more than 10% of a family's income; 4 week increase to a second parent for parental leave; hot lunches for all elementary school students and on.

Apparently the Liberals are cooking up an election platform by way of phone committee. They forgot to ask if I would vote fore them (no). I guess they only wanted to know if I supported their policy proposals.

Some of the questions made me laugh. Like the one about if "creating" jobs would improve my view of the government to which I replied with a laugh and "Governments don't create jobs, bud."

I also felt kind of stupid describing myself as working class to a guy who makes maybe half my wage with that question being right after the question about my income range, but I'll always consider myself working class as long as I brave the elements and break my back working with my hands so that people with too much money on their hands have somewhere nice to live.

Edit: I just realised that I'm a bit simple with my statement about government not creating jobs. Government can create jobs in a command economy but also in a free market economy by hiring public service employees. Having a government that creates jobs though is bad joo joo.

On the policies in question, my thoughts;

1) Pharmacare expansion is desirable and makes sense; but no one is going to propose a full-out rollout unless they propose new taxes to go with.
As such, incremental expansion is likely. For me, what makes the most sense are coverages that pay for themselves, or come close; or which clearly reduce an economic barrier.
My prescription on a 2-year basis, cover out-patient cancer drugs, as this keeps people out of hospital for chemo. Cover contraception, the payoffs are obvious. Reduce or remove the deductible ($100) for seniors drug coverage, as that is a much larger barrier than small co-pays spaced throughout a year.

Further expansion as monies, and political courage, permit.

2) Auto Insurance freeze. Nonsense, and I say that as someone with a clean driving record who pays too much. The answer to excessive costs is to better tackle fraud (replace cash w/care wherever possible, and that care must be delivered by licensed health professionals); plus eliminate arbitrary criteria from insurance calculations, out w/sex, age, location. Limit it to driving record, car type, years experience.

3) Loans to prospective homeowners. Nonsense. So they can get deeper in debt and buy what they can't afford? Plus nothing for renters (ie. folks more likely to need the help). Pfft.
Work on reducing costs and taking the heat out of the market. Forbid companies from buying (residential) condominiums, prohibit anyone from owning more than 2 single-family dwellings in the GTA, raise the down payment to 10% across the board, eliminate minimum parking requirements for apartments/condos.

4) Parental Leave, I'm all in favour of higher income replacement levels; California is moving to 70%, Quebec is at 75%, as well as greater access to the program for part-timers. BUT, its a Federal program, leave it to them.

5) Hot lunch program, not really a fan, I admit I've seen the French (France) program and its great, but pricey and requires kitchens and chefs at every school. There are simply better investments for health and poverty reduction. The U.S. program is abysmal serving unhealthy crap; that's the last thing we need for kids.

6) Expanded access to childcare, sure. I'm iffy on income-contingent caps, seems convoluted, but I'd keep an open mind. I think a uniform rate for everyone, or a higher rate for upper-middle income earners and higher is probably simpler, but more families could use help and it does recover at least some costs through higher labour-force participation.

7) Transit: By all means make some investments in GO, the most practical short-term ones being extending LSW to Hamilton, and finishing as much rollout as is feasible for hourly, 2WAD service on the K-W, Barrie and Stouffville corridors; But.....Relief Line, Relief Line, Relief Line

8) Pre-School; in a word, 'no'. Expensive, and based on studies I've seen, utility vs cost. Childcare for those who need it, but let's not extend academics to toddlers.

*****

Strictly on the politics:

Pharmacare is polling very well; expanding it plays well.

Other Healthcare: really need to match the Tory platform of expanding medical device coverage and raising reimbursement to 80% (from 75) and offering low-income dental care to seniors. Can't have the PCs running to your left.

Congestion/Transit: Remains and issue, the challenge is that the long timelines on past promises have created many cynics. This makes what you can get out the door between now and June 1st or so, critical. If I can't touch it /feel it now, not sure I buy what you're selling is very big w/the electorate.

Kill Drive Clean: Doesn't achieve anything anymore, its just a hassle, people will like this one.

Childcare: Will sell well, but limited demographic, hard to deliver quickly.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,642
On the policies in question, my thoughts;

1) Pharmacare expansion is desirable and makes sense; but no one is going to propose a full-out rollout unless they propose new taxes to go with.
As such, incremental expansion is likely. For me, what makes the most sense are coverages that pay for themselves, or come close; or which clearly reduce an economic barrier.
My prescription on a 2-year basis, cover out-patient cancer drugs, as this keeps people out of hospital for chemo. Cover contraception, the payoffs are obvious. Reduce or remove the deductible ($100) for seniors drug coverage, as that is a much larger barrier than small co-pays spaced throughout a year.

Further expansion as monies, and political courage, permit.

2) Auto Insurance freeze. Nonsense, and I say that as someone with a clean driving record who pays too much. The answer to excessive costs is to better tackle fraud (replace cash w/care wherever possible, and that care must be delivered by licensed health professionals); plus eliminate arbitrary criteria from insurance calculations, out w/sex, age, location. Limit it to driving record, car type, years experience.

3) Loans to prospective homeowners. Nonsense. So they can get deeper in debt and buy what they can't afford? Plus nothing for renters (ie. folks more likely to need the help). Pfft.
Work on reducing costs and taking the heat out of the market. Forbid companies from buying (residential) condominiums, prohibit anyone from owning more than 2 single-family dwellings in the GTA, raise the down payment to 10% across the board, eliminate minimum parking requirements for apartments/condos.

4) Parental Leave, I'm all in favour of higher income replacement levels; California is moving to 70%, Quebec is at 75%, as well as greater access to the program for part-timers. BUT, its a Federal program, leave it to them.

5) Hot lunch program, not really a fan, I admit I've seen the French (France) program and its great, but pricey and requires kitchens and chefs at every school. There are simply better investments for health and poverty reduction. The U.S. program is abysmal serving unhealthy crap; that's the last thing we need for kids.

6) Expanded access to childcare, sure. I'm iffy on income-contingent caps, seems convoluted, but I'd keep an open mind. I think a uniform rate for everyone, or a higher rate for upper-middle income earners and higher is probably simpler, but more families could use help and it does recover at least some costs through higher labour-force participation.

7) Transit: By all means make some investments in GO, the most practical short-term ones being extending LSW to Hamilton, and finishing as much rollout as is feasible for hourly, 2WAD service on the K-W, Barrie and Stouffville corridors; But.....Relief Line, Relief Line, Relief Line

8) Pre-School; in a word, 'no'. Expensive, and based on studies I've seen, utility vs cost. Childcare for those who need it, but let's not extend academics to toddlers.

*****

Strictly on the politics:

Pharmacare is polling very well; expanding it plays well.

Other Healthcare: really need to match the Tory platform of expanding medical device coverage and raising reimbursement to 80% (from 75) and offering low-income dental care to seniors. Can't have the PCs running to your left.

Congestion/Transit: Remains and issue, the challenge is that the long timelines on past promises have created many cynics. This makes what you can get out the door between now and June 1st or so, critical. If I can't touch it /feel it now, not sure I buy what you're selling is very big w/the electorate.

Kill Drive Clean: Doesn't achieve anything anymore, its just a hassle, people will like this one.

Childcare: Will sell well, but limited demographic, hard to deliver quickly.
You seem to have realized a big problem.
Many very bad policies are politically popular. Is that the Liberals fault for proposing them or is it the public's fault for believing in them.
 

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
2,421
Location
Parkdale
Not the Libs, EKOS are non-denominational, albeit they might sell the results to anyone who wishes to buy the complete details, including analysis.

This is what you answered to:
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/02/04/new-ekos-cp-polling-explores-populist-sentiment-canada/

No, it was EKOS Research. They get hired by third-party firms on behalf of political strategists. Trust me, I've grilled them on several occasions about who the benefactor is and followed the shady crumb trail.

That poll you linked to is not what I was answering questions to last night, but is interesting.
 
Last edited:

SunriseChampion

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
6,377
Reaction score
2,421
Location
Parkdale
@Northern Light, you have brought up a good point in your thoughts. That being that the policies proposed in the questions I was asked had no mention at all about cost. None. I spent half the time complaining to the guy that the questions were ambiguous, non-sensical, not costed, redundant to others, and had quite a laugh with how simplified they were. The only mention of any sort of cost was a series of questions about the deficit and whether or not I thought different types of government spending were justification for a deficit. For example, "Do you strongly support, oppose, etc...a deficit of 4 billion if it is used to help business succeed in Ontario?" or "...is used to pay for public services?" etc.

To be honest, I had to tell the guy that while I may support some of what he was asking me about, it really would depend on how much it would cost and where the money would come from, none of which was addressed. Obviously, they couldn't be getting into too much detail for a poll done for political strategists because it would be onerous to go over fine detail with people on the phone who, I imagine, are hard enough to entice to take your polls in the first place.

....and don't worry, my answer to whether or not I supported funding the DRL was something along the lines of "Fuuuuuuuu, yeah!....stroooooooooongly support!"
 

Irishmonk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
1,870
Reaction score
726
Location
Hanoi, VN
So, the Liberals have great policies that are boosting the economy and helping millions of the most in need people--not to mention building infrastructure that will benefit future generations (esp GO RER)--but, somehow, Ontario is heading in the wrong direction and Kathleen Wynne is the anti-Christ. I just don't get the visceral rage people have towards the Liberal Party and Wynne in particular. As far as I'm concerned she's the best premier we've had since Bill Davis.
 

Top