News   Sep 17, 2019
 283     0 
News   Sep 17, 2019
 479     3 
News   Sep 17, 2019
 444     0 

2019 Ontario Liberal Leadership Race / Rebuild

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,228
Reaction score
1,525
I just can’t go through another term of DoFo, but the Ontario NDP has used all its powder and their federal destruction this October will show Ontarians that the NDP has no legs. But with the Libs in disarray, another four years of DoFo is assured. I would have jumped st the chance to vote for an Elliot Govt, or even Brown.

Unless the Libs find someone extremely charismatic and effective, and do it soon.
 
Last edited:

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,228
Reaction score
1,525
Like it or not, the Liberals are electable and the NDP aren't.
I think that should be the “Ontario Liberal are consistently electable, and the NDP aren’t”.

Yes, the Ontario NDP had its fluke, one-time success under Rae, but once is not evidence of repeatability. Of the 32 Ontario provincial elections since confederation the Liberals have won 17.

As for Liberal recovery, it’s noteworthy that in 1985, the PCs, having run the government from 1943 to 1985, were heavily defeated in the 1985 election, being reduced from majority to five seats, very similar to where the Liberals find themselves today. It took the PCs ten years to recovery to defeat the NDP in 1995.

Much like the 2018 election, the PCs grabbed the chance to replace a very unpopular government (Rae’s NDP we’re suffering through a recession, but they were also amateurs), but the PCs could only last for two terms before the Liberals returned. And that’s what I predict will happen now in Ontario, two terms of Ford and then we return to the Libs.

IMO, Ontarians vote for PC when they’re pissed off and a little envious of their neighbours (teachers, civil servants, anyone with a government pension) or whomever the PCs identify as “the other” we should rally against. But that only lasts so long, as the public perception of Hudak’s firing of the civil service proved, where candidates were met at the doors with comments like, I’d vote PC but my sister is a nurse, or my son is a teacher, etc.

The Libs will be back. The NDP, not.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,642
Reaction score
1,407
Unfortunately that's a big part on why Doug Ford got his majority. Kathleen was despised almost everywhere and she was misguided enough not to listen (to be fair she had a history of not listening to people in general whether that be her advisers, or Ontario residents).
Instead of complaining about Wynne, Liberals should thank their lucking stars that they managed to win 3 elections that they deserved to lose. Instead of focusing on the 4th one they actually lost, they should concentrate on why they govern so poorly that they didn't deserve to win any of the past 4 elections.
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,412
Reaction score
1,039
As for Liberal recovery, it’s noteworthy that in 1985, the PCs, having run the government from 1943 to 1985, were heavily defeated in the 1985 election, being reduced from majority to five seats, very similar to where the Liberals find themselves today. It took the PCs ten years to recovery to defeat the NDP in 1995.
They won 52 seats in 1985, not 5--and in fact, they had more seats than the Libs (but the Libs had more votes, and leveraged that into an NDP-propped minority government).

The *real* PC catastrophe was under Larry Grossman in 1987, when they were reduced to 16 seats and 3rd place. Mike Harris actually managed to raise the seat total to 20 in 1990, despite the party being hampered that year by meagre resources and federal Mulroney-backlash spillover...
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
The Liberals really lost of sight of the folks who swing elections: middle class suburbanites. Programs were entirely targeted at the lower end of the income spectrum. Infrastructure built was great and all, but not tangible to the majority of swing voters. And then they gave away quite a bit to teachers and other public servants, for very little in return.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,228
Reaction score
1,525
The Liberals really lost of sight of the folks who swing elections: middle-class suburbanites. Programs were entirely targeted at the lower end of the income spectrum. Infrastructure built was great and all, but not tangible to the majority of swing voters. And then they gave away quite a bit to teachers and other public servants, for very little in return.
Giving away free tuition was a dumb idea. People had already come to accept that covering a portion of their children's education was just another part of raising the kids. Of course, some folks and students couldn't afford it, and they did something else with their lives, such as college or trades. But there were no votes to be gained by offering to cover 100% of the cost of something the electorate was used to paying for. And that promise was all borrowed money, money the electorate's government did not have to give.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,228
Reaction score
1,525
What about Jane Philpott? Trudeau and the federal Libs won't like the provincial Libs taking their castoffs, however she may have the cred to win in 2022.

The Alberta NDP is not looking to their federal counterparts for support in this current election, mostly due to incompatible positions on pipelines. Nor has the BC NDP ever looked to Ottawa NDP for insight or support.

Philpott as a medical doctor, and former federal minister of health and treasury board head has the credentials to lead on economic and health care, matters key to Ontarians.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
3,824
Location
Toronto/EY
The Liberals really lost of sight of the folks who swing elections: middle class suburbanites. Programs were entirely targeted at the lower end of the income spectrum. Infrastructure built was great and all, but not tangible to the majority of swing voters. And then they gave away quite a bit to teachers and other public servants, for very little in return.
While being fiscally conservative, I am equally a supporter of a robust (but cost-efficient) social safety net.

I think 'universal' measures in a social safety net such as pharmacare or publicly insured dental care, amongst other program options are broadly popular.

The challenge of course being that if you implement them all at once, that would be fairly costly; and mean growing debt a noticeable tax hike, or cuts elsewhere.

I happen to feel that middle option could be perfectly reasonable to most people, but the Liberals seem scared of a tax hike.

Raising HST, as 5 other provinces already have (Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI and NFLD), especially earlier in their mandate would have wiped out the deficit, lowered total debt and made programs like that easier to deliver.

Instead they chose to rack up debt, making their future options ever less palatable.

In turn they chose to deliver pharmacare in drips and drabs and only after first threatening to raise the deductible paid by seniors.

In so doing, they show people not only pain, but the prospect of pain, resulting from growing debt; while receiving relatively little near-term benefit.

Polling data has long established that most Canadians have a high tolerance to support of various social programs, so long as they imagine that they get some benefit of these themselves.

The Liberals problems were less about losing touch w/where the electorate was.........as engaging in a mix of mismanagement (see hydro file); pandering to certain lobby groups at the expense of popular and good public policy (see retaining drive clean, or delaying beer/wine convenience); coupled w/political cowardice. It leads to the problem of a party being seen, fairly or otherwise to stand only for itself instead of having clear principles.
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
3,824
Location
Toronto/EY
Giving away free tuition was a dumb idea. People had already come to accept that covering a portion of their children's education was just another part of raising the kids. Of course, some folks and students couldn't afford it, and they did something else with their lives, such as college or trades. But there were no votes to be gained by offering to cover 100% of the cost of something the electorate was used to paying for. And that promise was all borrowed money, money the electorate's government did not have to give.
Tuition is vastly higher now, adjusted for inflation, than it was when I went to University a bit over 2 decades ago.

The tuition I paid (just under 3k) should be about $4,600 per year, today.

As at last year, that number was $6.780 or about 45% higher than it should have or would have been, if adjusted for inflation.

Graduate programs have gone from $5,700 for med. school to more than $25,000, several 100's of % greater than inflation.

There was a need to adjust.

Again, I feel like the Liberal mistake was one of being too complicated about it.

Instead of a targeted Student Grant, that is one more line, one more calculation, the answer would have been to put those same dollars into a broad tuition reduction.

Further, it should have gone after the super expensive programs which are the least accessible and most daunting in cost.

Because there are relatively few students in medicine/engineering/mba etc. relative to the broader student body, this would actually be quite affordable.

Since it would also result in substantially reduced student aid to this group of students, its also partially paid for, instantly.

The Liberals have had a bad habit of making even their better policy ideas hard to understand or feel the benefit of, for the average, non-policy wonk, person.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,228
Reaction score
1,525
Graduate programs have gone from $5,700 for med. school to more than $25,000, several 100's of % greater than inflation.
Tuition support should be based on the economic and strategic needs of the province. So I’m all for tuition support for STEM and the trades, but not for liberal arts degrees. If I want to take a BA in Ancient and Medieval History, then don’t expect the taxpayers to pony up more than their usual share.

You mention how the student’s share of tuition has increased since the 1990s, but so has the government’s share. Costs go up. Should the student’s share remain static?
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
3,824
Location
Toronto/EY
You mention how the student’s share of tuition has increased since the 1990s, but so has the government’s share. Costs go up. Should the student’s share remain static?
This is not correct.

What I said what that tuition rose considerably faster than tuition. Your two statements above are contradictory a 'share' is a percentage of the cost, of which students now pay considerably more than used to.

That precludes the government paying a larger share.

In point of fact, MBAs, Engineering and Medical degrees are 'self-funded' meaning they receive zero operating grant from the government.

Further, the government's cost has gone down in inflation adjusted per capita funding.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
Giving away free tuition was a dumb idea. People had already come to accept that covering a portion of their children's education was just another part of raising the kids. Of course, some folks and students couldn't afford it, and they did something else with their lives, such as college or trades. But there were no votes to be gained by offering to cover 100% of the cost of something the electorate was used to paying for. And that promise was all borrowed money, money the electorate's government did not have to give.
Again, I feel like the Liberal mistake was one of being too complicated about it.
This is a good example of a sound idea, poor implementation and politcally poor return.

It was a good idea to provide some pathway to a post-secondary education for lower-income families. They did it in the most brain-dead way possible. By giving the equivalent of a free arts degree to these kids. A good example of the political backlash. My normally left-leaning spouse, "Great. Now my BA is going to be worth even less while the market gets flooded with more and I'm still struggling to find decent paying work."

What I think they should have done: Free community college for all. Bolster the system and make sure there are sound transfer pathways from college to universities. Done a 3 year technologist program at college? You get two years off an engineering program. Finished a 3 year business diploma? You get two years off a university BComm/BBA program. Etc. That would be a program that was truly universal and have actually produced more skilled graduates. The middle class would genuinely have appreciated the ability to send their kids to something that gives them employable skill with a pathway to pursue a university education later. And since college was cheaper, they may well have been able to pay for the whole thing with a small diversion of funding from universities and only a bit more new money.

They were so blinded by their need to do something easy and quick that they completely neglected the opportunity they had to build a better education system and one more suited to producing quality workers for the 21st century while ameliorating some of the socioeconomic inequalities that concerned them.
 
Last edited:

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,877
Reaction score
1,993
Polling data has long established that most Canadians have a high tolerance to support of various social programs, so long as they imagine that they get some benefit of these themselves.
I think 'universal' measures in a social safety net such as pharmacare or publicly insured dental care, amongst other program options are broadly popular.
Which is why I said they should have made more of an effort to have programs that covered the middle class. One thing that is truly frustrating in the politics of both Canada and the US is the consistent ability of left-leaning politicians to acknowledge the middle class trap. We don't have as many as resources to make the most of opportunities, and so the upper class seem to always pull away. Meanwhile we get to pay the taxes that consistently fund the lower class, often in direct competition with our own interests. This is bound to lead to frustration.

The challenge of course being that if you implement them all at once, that would be fairly costly; and mean growing debt a noticeable tax hike, or cuts elsewhere.

I happen to feel that middle option could be perfectly reasonable to most people, but the Liberals seem scared of a tax hike.
Right. Their cowardice led them to then fund programs that predominantly benefit the lower classes while the middle class paid for it. They deserve the outcome they got. Nobody should feel sorry for them.

The Liberals problems were less about losing touch w/where the electorate was.........as engaging in a mix of mismanagement (see hydro file); pandering to certain lobby groups at the expense of popular and good public policy (see retaining drive clean, or delaying beer/wine convenience); coupled w/political cowardice. It leads to the problem of a party being seen, fairly or otherwise to stand only for itself instead of having clear principles.
It's extremely dangerous to think Ford only got in for pandering. Never underestimate your opponent or the undercurrents driving his/her campaign. Sure there were corruption problems. But a solid chunk of the middle class never fully recovered from the great recession. And their frustration was bound to impact politics. Had Wynne actually sympathized with them, she might well have beaten Ford. Scandals can take down a government. But the public is far more forgiving when they think you (mostly) have their interests at heart.

Trudeau is making the same mistakes Wynne made nationally. It's like he learned nothing from Wynne's loss.
 
Top