Evening Star

I said "most". We could easily pull out individual examples of deficits under Liberal or (Progressive) Conservative governments. Everyone has circumstances to deal with, good or bad. Balancing a budget in Ontario is probably easier than balancing a budget in Bangladesh. With the circumstances they were given, the NDP governments in MB and SK were able to keep expenditures below revenues such that they were not spending the "next generation's money". That was your concern, right? According to the Fraser Institute (not exactly notorious for favouring the NDP), Doer maintained an average budget surplus and reduced the province's debt over the course of his term. (Having said this, there are times when I think deficit spending is justified.) (Thanks for the info about social assistance, Molly.)

I found it here: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/longer+party+Douglas/5039961/story.html I knew most of that stuff already. I wonder if Crowley would be as eager for the current NDP to adopt Douglas' more classically Fabian socialist beliefs as well or whether he just wants them to embrace the views that he likes. (How do you think he would have put the able-bodied unemployed to work?) Whatever the core principles were that drove Douglas, the point was just that he did expand the social welfare state and introduce some collective measures while keeping the budget balanced. (As far as I know, he didn't actually implement any socialist workfare schemes.) And, again, it is unfair for Crowley to focus on Rae - a Liberal now - and ignore other NDP premiers.

It's clearly not a fair description of Doer/Selinger, Romanow, or Dexter though. Or Douglas, for that matter.

You know that doesn't actually describe the reality of most provincial NDP governments, right? Just checking.

This just seems like a failed segment from any perspective. Erickson clearly has the view that the government should not fund the arts. That's fine: I don't agree with her but I can see why someone would. Still, the example she provides here doesn't really seem to support her outrage. The woman is a highly accomplished, widely respected, and experienced artist with an admirable attitude. She was humble, polite, and articulate. The clip Erickson played did not seem ridiculous: There was obvious evidence of real technical skill, for one thing. The numbers that rolled down the screen were not egregious. $1M over 13 years for a major foundation isn't really a jaw-dropping figure (at all!), as government funding goes. It's not as though Margie Gillis is living a luxury lifestyle on the taxpayer dime. Gillis' quote about "compassion" was not extreme, terribly offensive, or treasonous. If someone was already reasonably comfortable with public arts funding, it seems unlikely that this example would sway them. If someone agreed with Erickson in the first place, they wouldn't even need the segment. If Erickson really wanted to make a point, maybe she'd be better off going to the abstract expressionist room of the National Gallery and screeching at Newmans' Voice of Fire: "We paid $1.6M for ONE PAINTING! THREE FREAKING STRIPES THAT MY KID COULD HAVE DONE! No one will ever even get to look at them unless they come to Ottawa!" Or maybe she could find some 25-year-old hipster noise rocker in Montreal with separatist leanings and a drug habit. Then she could get them to say something really obnoxious on air and question why taxpayers should support them. Man, I should work for Sun.

The symphony can be an educational - or at the least intellectual - experience as well.

I think Glenn Beck actually treats his guests better than that, from what I've seen. John Doyle makes the valid point: "[Erickson's] career and fame, such as they are, are based on her employment for many years by the taxpayer-supported CBC. Gillis might well have asked Erickson if she’d returned her CBC salary to the taxpayers, being on the side of taxpayers and all." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/television/john-doyle/sun-news-network-canadas-new-comedy-central-tv/article2052345/

You seem to be right. Why has McGuinty not explained this the same way you did?

Wait, I was assuming that the other areas listed in Schedule 2 of the regulation were protest zones? If I'm wrong, then has the ON government really not done anything they're being accused of?

Loving the idea of McGuinty as communist...

OK, I'll rephrase my earlier statement: So they didn't technically pass a new bill in secret but they passed a regulation that extended the Public Works Protection Act or at least made it applicable to the area within the security fence as an order-in-council without publishing it? And while it may in fact be true that Orders-in-Council are passed all the time in this manner, the issue is just that this one had a direct impact on the liberties of a large number of people who were unaware of it?

This is the study?: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17134&terms=fiscal+performance+premiers I just read most of it. It's interesting. They're measuring "fiscal performance" (by their criteria), not "fiscal conservatism" per se. As you can see, Doer does so well mainly because he kept his budgets balanced (perfect score there) and restrained public spending from growing faster than the province's economy (#2 score there). Those two criteria are not particularly "conservative". (Most sensible social democrats would also agree that those are important.) They only placed him 6th in the country on taxes, however. This is the one area where the Fraser Institute's criteria are truly right-leaning. They rank the premiers on how much they reduced taxes on high income earners and the richest corporations and on how close they come to a flat tax system! MB's income taxes are on the high end for the country: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html They charge no tax on small business and about average taxes on larger corporations: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/crprtns/rts-eng.html?=slnk This actually seems closer to a Nordic model to me.

G_bambino, why do you think the Ombudsman criticized the ON government for how they passed this order-in-council?

OK, so "big chunks" wasn't fair. It was every sidewalk in this area, more or less: http://maps.google.ca/maps?saddr=Front+St+W+%26+Blue+Jays+Way,+Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario+M5V&daddr=Front+Street+West+and+windsor+st+to:Windsor+Street+and+wellington,+toronto+to:Wellington+Street+West+and+bay+st,+toronto+to:Canada+(Toronto+Union+Station)+to:york+st+and+bremner+blvd+to:bremner+and+lower+simcoe+to:lower+simcoe+and+lake+shore+blvd+to:Roger%27s+Centre+Tour+Experience,+Blue+Jays+Way,+Toronto,+Ontario+to:Bremner+Boulevard+and+navy+wharf+court+to:Blue+Jays+Way+and+front+st+w&hl=en&ll=43.642302,-79.386799&spn=0.007717,0.014999&sll=43.643622,-79.38534&sspn=0.007717,0.014999&geocode=FQDymQId65VE-yl9AGJ71zQriDErD7guV3YIjA%3BFSjzmQId-5pE-yn7gXEU1zQriDG_lah1-ol5bg%3BFWH4mQId15hE-yl5UptL1zQriDFJ1fyiqWvsqg%3BFXYBmgIdFMNE-yk7xJAwLcvUiTGI3VEfzU6_ag%3BFfP5mQId5r5E-yGTIkdn3orMhQ%3BFSTwmQIdE7xE-ykVZULB1DQriDE9pYTGeKBQcw%3BFRLumQIdZLJE-ynJAKNN1DQriDEqDexuJEtr8g%3BFSXnmQIdyrRE-yn7hzOc1TQriDFmhU_fT3vEFQ%3BFXnqmQIdLJ5E-yFjzmWLo4wmFA%3BFcjnmQIdzZRE-yk_5HL_1zQriDHrL23nWBAuUA%3BFQDymQId65VE-yl9AGJ71zQriDErD7guV3YIjA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&z=16 (more than five metres) plus everything with 5m of the lines drawn in Schedule 2 of the regulation: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2010/elaws_src_regs_r10233_e.htm

So they didn't technically pass a new bill in secret but they passed a regulation that extended the Public Works Protection Act or at least made it applicable to big chunks of downtown Toronto as an order-in-council without publishing it? At least Andre Marin seemed to think so: http://www.globaltoronto.com/Ontario+must+show+more+transparency+after+secret+Ombudsman/4981065/story.html

Perhaps you're right about that part of it. That video does go into much more depth though about the specific abuses.

That link is about the Vancouver Stanley Cup riots. I was talking about the G20 in Toronto. Most of the arrests happened on the day after police cars were vandalized. The police were ineffective at doing much when the vandalism and burning took place and then overreacted towards peaceful people the next day.

You could start here (full episode): http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/youshouldhavestayedathome/ But, really, just compare the sheer number of arrests with the number of convictions.

This is "fiscally conservative" in the sense of "fiscally responsible and balances his budgets" as opposed to "an economic conservative who favours minimal government intervention in the economy - low taxes, low social spending, deregulation, privatization, etc", right? The former is not only compatible with social democracy but is generally claimed as a fundamental traditional principle by Tommy Douglas-style New Democrats. The latter seems to apply more to the LPC of the 90s. Yes but I don't read much into it. I'm sure there were some who still spoke that way about the PCs soon after the 1993 election.

RNG, I'm not totally sure what you're getting at. Does it boil down to "The rules should be different for really rich people" or some variation on it?

Provincial NDP governments have been more like small-l liberals or perhaps Red Tories but I still think they've governed further to the left than the Chretien/Martin Liberals, from what I know. Maybe Romanow was an exception? Don't know enough to judge that case. I used to generally think that Doer or Dexter were pretty similar to McGuinty's Liberals in Ontario but even then, they do seem further left on taxation (and generally, better at balancing their books!). Also, less likely to pull crap like what happened with G20 policing. -- The Ontario Liberals are a bit of an enigma, tbh, and I voted for them twice.

Because it doesn't include a mediocre music video?

You know he was convicted in a US court, not just 'pilloried' by 'lefties', right? (Btw, he was convicted of stealing what belonged to a corporation. He wasn't exactly showing much respect for shareholders or property rights.)

Wait, is that for real? Do conservatives seriously rally around this guy? That's kind of amazing.

You don't think a labour party would lose credibility if they didn't fight this? Given all the circumstances - the lockout, the back-to-work bill that is less generous than management's offer? Especially considering that postal workers' jobs are actually physically demanding?