Ontario Fall election

[Shwa]

Yes, actually, you clearly do hate education and healthcare. Attack the teachers?

Are you insane? The wealth of the province is not being concentrated in teachers, or any public service.

When private profit margins are low in a recession or depression, cut the public service. That is the golden mean, the virtue, the rallying cry to rationality.

All will be well when public services are reduced to barebones, then the private corporations - that pay all the taxes - will be restored to their rightful place in the grand scheme of things. Paradise will soon follow...

[Wild Bill]

I think Daddy Dalton has signed his death warrant with this move.

OPSEU has been militant about portraying Hudak as Mike Harris 2.0. And now they compare Dalton's moof to trim spending to "The worst cuts, since Mike Harris"

It would appear Election defeat for the Ontario Liberals is a forgone conclusion at this point.

I agree. Dalton has sided with OPSEU in making Mike Harris his target, not Hudak. This is REALLY stupid! It's been a lot of years since Harris was in power. Most non-union militant voters have either forgotten, were too young to remember or liked Harris anyway! After all, Harris did win TWO massive majorities!

Why should the ordinary voter instantly equate Hudak with Harris? Because they are both Tories? You could use the same excuse forever! It does wear a bit thin as the years pass.

They are not really competing with Hudak. They are competing with a straw man cartoon they themselves have created. Maybe they haven't got a choice, considering how far down in the polls we find McGuinty these days. I dunno.

[scribblet]

---------------

They can also pin a bunch of "lies" or "promises" that McGuinty broke on the Party. In reality, many of those come from the Conservative party royally fudging the budget.

I personally fear for my children and what Tim Hudak will do to destroy public education.

They don't need to pin anything onto McGuinty, it's all there in black and white.

What exactly has Hudak said he will do to public education other than this, which seem okay to me.

Enhanced Use of Phonics: Greater emphasis on phonics as a basis for literacy and enhanced training and support for teachers in its use.

High School Exit Exams: Work with the Education Quality and Accountability Office to introduce province-wide high school exit exams to provide more information to parents, students and post-secondary institutions.

Financial Literacy: Make economic and financial literacy a mandatory part of the high school curriculum.

Fair and Accurate Grading: Eliminate unfair pressure on teachers to make sure students pass even if the student is unwilling or unable to complete the work.

I've never been in favour of a voucher system as proposed by John Tory last election, but recent ongoing events in Toronto suggest that they may be needed.

[scribblet]

A major Harris F-up was asset sales. That toll highway, for instance, should never have been put in private hands.

-------------------.

Agree with that, and people seem to forget that Martin balanced the budget by drastically cutting health care and education payments (among other things). While Harris is blamed for cutbacks, the reason they had to do it was because of Paul Martin.

[Jack Weber]

Agree with that, and people seem to forget that Martin balanced the budget by drastically cutting health care and education payments (among other things). While Harris is blamed for cutbacks, the reason they had to do it was because of Paul Martin.

Hogwash!!!

The Com(pletely)mon Sense(less) Revolution was lifted right out of Christine Todd Whitman's early '90 New Jersy gubernatorial campaign...

The cuts were need to pay back the financiers for the 5 billion in tax giveaways Harris wanted...

[scribblet]

Martin cut Federal transfers in total by around $5.8 billion (among other things).

Ontario wasn't the only province to have do close hospitals and so on and the provinces took the blame for for draconian health care cuts. Don't forget that Harris inherited an $11.2-billion deficit from Bob Rae in 1995, and Harris achieved a balanced budget in 1999.

Because the provinces actually got their hands dirty by laying off nurses and closing hospitals etc., the people blamed Mike Harris more than Paul Martin. Martin’s cuts over years cost Ontario (and other provinces) billions of dollars in funding for health care and social programs.

So actually, Martin balanced his budget by downloading the federal deficit onto the provinces, then blamed Harris for the problems that created. Talk about hypocrisy.

[Smallc]

So how would you suggest that Martin balance the budget? They cut spending and reduced the size of government, while lowering taxes. That, to me, sounds like a conservative dream world. Oh, I forgot, the Liberals did it, so it's bad...

[Wild Bill]

So how would you suggest that Martin balance the budget? They cut spending and reduced the size of government, while lowering taxes. That, to me, sounds like a conservative dream world. Oh, I forgot, the Liberals did it, so it's bad...

Speaking for myself, I agreed with Martin at the time. He did what he had to do. There were really no other options.

What I did NOT respect was how things were manipulated to make the federal government take all the credit while leaving the provincial governments to take all the blame. I've always believed you should be man enough to shoot your own dog, if necessary. I know politics is the very art of putting your own blame on your opponent but that still doesn't mean I have to respect it!

[capricorn]

Martin cut Federal transfers in total by around $5.8 billion (among other things).

And he created a surplus by raiding the UI fund and resorting to other creative accounting tricks.

A significant part of the federal fiscal surplus of the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin years came from the EI system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Canada

Ontario wasn't the only province to have do close hospitals and so on and the provinces took the blame for for draconian health care cuts.

Universal health care is sacrosanct. Cutting transfers to the provinces was bound to affect the health care envelope. In Ontario, that gave McGuinty the perfect excuse to levy a health care tax, after he had promised in writing, that he would not raise taxes. Oh, I forgot, it's not a tax, it's a premium.

[Boges]

Yes, actually, you clearly do hate education and healthcare. Attack the teachers?

Are you insane? The wealth of the province is not being concentrated in teachers, or any public service.

So the teachers get whatever they want? 4% annual pay raises. No layoffs even if enrollment is down? When will it end?

[capricorn]

What I did NOT respect was how things were manipulated to make the federal government take all the credit while leaving the provincial governments to take all the blame.

Admittedly, I had no clue at the time. Back then, I was still voting Liberal. Isn't it amazing how you can be so blind for so long until something clicks and you see the light?

[Evening Star]

Damn, even I like how these sound.

Enhanced Use of Phonics: Greater emphasis on phonics as a basis for literacy and enhanced training and support for teachers in its use.

...

Financial Literacy: Make economic and financial literacy a mandatory part of the high school curriculum.

Fair and Accurate Grading: Eliminate unfair pressure on teachers to make sure students pass even if the student is unwilling or unable to complete the work.

I've never been in favour of a voucher system as proposed by John Tory last election, but recent ongoing events in Toronto suggest that they may be needed.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I don't entirely disagree that Chretien/Martin deserve some of the blame - and I don't know if I'll be able to really forgive them for some of those cuts. That said, Harris was really ruthless in slashing taxes (30%, right), which necessitated even deeper cuts and did not ultimately result in a balanced budget by the time the Tories were done. (Tbf, Eves was Premier when they left. Still, Flaherty was still Finance Minister iirc.)

Martin cut Federal transfers in total by around $5.8 billion (among other things).

Ontario wasn't the only province to have do close hospitals and so on and the provinces took the blame for for draconian health care cuts. Don't forget that Harris inherited an $11.2-billion deficit from Bob Rae in 1995, and Harris achieved a balanced budget in 1999.

Because the provinces actually got their hands dirty by laying off nurses and closing hospitals etc., the people blamed Mike Harris more than Paul Martin. Martin’s cuts over years cost Ontario (and other provinces) billions of dollars in funding for health care and social programs.

So actually, Martin balanced his budget by downloading the federal deficit onto the provinces, then blamed Harris for the problems that created. Talk about hypocrisy.

[Boges]

So how would you suggest that Martin balance the budget? They cut spending and reduced the size of government, while lowering taxes. That, to me, sounds like a conservative dream world. Oh, I forgot, the Liberals did it, so it's bad...

Actually it's hypocrisy on the side of the Liberals on this issue. As I see it, Harris and Chretien did similar things to balance the books. Yet any critique of Hudak is that he'll institute Harris style cuts. Why not say, Martin-style cuts. Just sayin'

I'm not saying I oppose what Martin did. I just hate that he's the saviour of the 90's while Mike Harris is some boogeyman that ruined the province. Both are flat out lies.

[Evening Star]

Actually it's hypocrisy on the side of the Liberals on this issue. As I see it, Harris and Chretien did similar things to balance the books. Yet any critique of Hudak is that he'll institute Harris style cuts. Why not say, Martin-style cuts. Just sayin'

Go back to what Shwa told you earlier. Why would they say Martin-style cuts when they're talking about cuts to a provincial budget? They're two separate levels of government that deal with different things.

And the federal LPC of the 90s does not really have that much to do with today's Ontario Liberal Party. Federal and provincial Liberal parties are not formally affiliated. McGuinty and even Peterson have not been ruthless deficit hawks.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Wild Bill]

Go back to what Shwa told you earlier. Why would they say Martin-style cuts when they're talking about cuts to a provincial budget? They're two separate levels of government that deal with different things.

And the federal LPC of the 90s does not really have that much to do with today's Ontario Liberal Party. Federal and provincial Liberal parties are not formally affiliated. McGuinty and even Peterson have not been ruthless deficit hawks.

I'm surprised that no one has raised the issue of what would have happened to us if Martin and the Harris had NOT made those cuts!

People forget that the "money gnomes in Zurich" really don't give a rats ass as to how Canadians and Ontarioans feel about running deficits. They simply want their loans repaid! To run a deficit governments have to borrow from folks like those gnomes and they are truly heartless lenders!

[scribblet]

Actually it's hypocrisy on the side of the Liberals on this issue. As I see it, Harris and Chretien did similar things to balance the books. Yet any critique of Hudak is that he'll institute Harris style cuts. Why not say, Martin-style cuts. Just sayin'

I'm not saying I oppose what Martin did. I just hate that he's the saviour of the 90's while Mike Harris is some boogeyman that ruined the province. Both are flat out lies.

Agreed, although I think Martin was too draconian, he even tried to reduce the old age benefits but public opposition actually stopped that one.

The point is IMO, the provinces are being blamed for what Martin did, and we know for sure if Harper did anything anywhere near as draconian he'd be pilloried.

[Smallc]

The point is IMO, the provinces are being blamed for what Martin did,

Except that Martin didn't cut provincial budgets. They did that. They could have prioritized things differently.

[Remiel]

Many of you will find this very partisan, but: If budget cuts are the order of the day, I would far rather have those doing the cutting not being folks with ideological designs on cutting down the public service. I am less likely to trust them to cut what makes sense rather than what they do not personally care for. In other words, I would posit that people who are more likely to support the public service are likely to be more qualified to cut it down.

To use a needlessly complex analogy of questionable value and excessive romanticism: if I have a giant block of ice that I need to make lighter, if I hand the hammer and chisel to a conservative who thinks we do not need the ice on principle, he will merely pick a spot and hammer off a big chunk of ice. What I need instead is someone who does not object to ice blocks as being useless on principle, and thus given job of cutting it down to size would rather make something of the opporunity and carve a sculpture.

[Boges]

Many of you will find this very partisan, but: If budget cuts are the order of the day, I would far rather have those doing the cutting not being folks with ideological designs on cutting down the public service. I am less likely to trust them to cut what makes sense rather than what they do not personally care for. In other words, I would posit that people who are more likely to support the public service are likely to be more qualified to cut it down.

To use a needlessly complex analogy of questionable value and excessive romanticism: if I have a giant block of ice that I need to make lighter, if I hand the hammer and chisel to a conservative who thinks we do not need the ice on principle, he will merely pick a spot and hammer off a big chunk of ice. What I need instead is someone who does not object to ice blocks as being useless on principle, and thus given job of cutting it down to size would rather make something of the opporunity and carve a sculpture.

Or that person could come to the conclusion that the block of ice is fine the way it is and the room needs to be colder.

[Shwa]

Many of you will find this very partisan, but: If budget cuts are the order of the day, I would far rather have those doing the cutting not being folks with ideological designs on cutting down the public service. I am less likely to trust them to cut what makes sense rather than what they do not personally care for. In other words, I would posit that people who are more likely to support the public service are likely to be more qualified to cut it down.

To use a needlessly complex analogy of questionable value and excessive romanticism: if I have a giant block of ice that I need to make lighter, if I hand the hammer and chisel to a conservative who thinks we do not need the ice on principle, he will merely pick a spot and hammer off a big chunk of ice. What I need instead is someone who does not object to ice blocks as being useless on principle, and thus given job of cutting it down to size would rather make something of the opporunity and carve a sculpture.

This is an interesting point because what usually happens is that a certain percentage is given to the senior managers of the public service bureaucracy and they generally determine where the cuts will happen. In effect, the people who are likely to support the public service and qualified to cut it down - the managers - are actually the ones that make the real decisions.

Now there are ideological adjustments to the bureaucracy of course, but these sort of programming adjustments happen all the time and especially when there is a new government that want to install their version of what government ought to be.

But pure cuts to the numbers are done by senior management who balance the work load with the capacity of the work force.

[Remiel]

This is an interesting point because what usually happens is that a certain percentage is given to the senior managers of the public service bureaucracy and they generally determine where the cuts will happen. In effect, the people who are likely to support the public service and qualified to cut it down - the managers - are actually the ones that make the real decisions.

Now there are ideological adjustments to the bureaucracy of course, but these sort of programming adjustments happen all the time and especially when there is a new government that want to install their version of what government ought to be.

But pure cuts to the numbers are done by senior management who balance the work load with the capacity of the work force.

This a good point, but do these people really exist higher than the deputy minister level though? Who are the people in the public service bureaucracy who decide that when X number of dollars need to be carved off the budget, that Y% will come from one department, while Z% will come from another, rather than just A% from all departments?

[Shwa]

This a good point, but do these people really exist higher than the deputy minister level though? Who are the people in the public service bureaucracy who decide that when X number of dollars need to be carved off the budget, that Y% will come from one department, while Z% will come from another, rather than just A% from all departments?

PMO & Treasury Board. I don't think it is as easy as A% from all departments, but I have seen that sort of thing back in the day. A 10% trim broken down by the value of a specific department and then handed over to departmental senior management to implement. Not all ministries are created equal in political value...

[Boges]

The province has re-jigged its clean energy deal with Samsung, saving taxpayers $327 million in the process.

The Korean company has agreed to shrink the provincial grants it will receive to $110 million over the 25-year agreement, down from $437 million. In turn, Ontario has agreed to give Samsung some extra time to get their projects going, with the deadline to the first phase of the plan pushed back to the end of 2014, inside of 2013.

The orginal argreement was expected to cost you $1.60 a year on your electricity bill. That number has now gone down to $0.36 extra.

Under the revised agreement signed last Friday, Samsung will now receive $110-million in incentive payments over the 25-year life of the deal if it fulfills its obligation to create 16,000 jobs. The incentive, which has been cut from $437-million, will now add just 36 cents extra a year to consumers’ bills.

The McGuinty government says it will create 16,000 jobs in Ontario.

While the Progressive Conservatives have blasted the deal, promising if elected they would call it off, Energy Minister Brad Duguid says PC leader Tim Hudak would be crazy to do so. The agreement shows unless a clause in the contract is broken, both sides need to in agreement to terminate the deal.

This is the first time the entire $7 billion agreement has been released. It was originally signed in January 2010.

16,000 jobs

SUUUUUUURE DALTON. Paid for by the Taxpayer I'm assuming.

The fact that he realizes the deal he originally signed was idiotic and he had re-jig it because everyone hates him for it proves Daddy Dalton is an ultra dumb-ass.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Boges

[Oleg Bach]

Hudak is worrisome - to come right out of the gates and go for the potential spite vote by bringing up the idea of having prisoners turned into slaves - sure hurt his image as far as being an inovative or intelligent potential leader...He showed lazyness and a lack of real ability....what did he do - go for the manual that stated "when you have nothing to offer- stimulate the hate in the populace? He is a disappointment...Maybe he just needs better advisors - and who ever told him to appeal to the worst parts of human nature - SHOULD BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY!