Tim Hudak and the incompetence of the Ontario PC's

[Big Guy]

Hudak wanted to stay until the next leader is picked. The knives were out. Hudak is gone.

[Mighty AC]

So what is Wynn's weight loss plan? She says she'll balance the budget in two years (starting next year) without cuts or pain? Sorry. Not buying it.

In her budget spending was frozen or reduced on some major portfolios including education. Spending freeze plus increasing economic activity leads us closer and closer to the black. Sure there will be hunger pains as we adjust, but at lease were not losing a limb or two.

Personally I'm in favour of more cutting than we'll get with Wynne. However, I couldn't support the ridiculous plan proposed by Hudak. We'll move in the right direction under the Liberals, but if they drag their feet on this I hope the PCs have an intelligent alternative ready to go.

[jacee]

Hudak wanted to stay until the next leader is picked. The knives were out. Hudak is gone.

Tim Hudak to step down as Ontario PC leader on July 2

Hudak said that it appears that "a significant number" of caucus members favour "a prolonged transition period before a new leader is selected." By stepping down on July 2, Hudak said, the party will be able to put a transition leader in place as the new legislative session gets underway.

But here's the real dirt ...

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/tim_hudak_to_quit_july_2_amid_tory_revolt.html

Edited June 19, 2014 by jacee

[Newfoundlander]

I didn't think the caucus would want him staying on.

Are there any senior members of the caucus, without leadership ambitions, who are widely respected throughout the province and could help turn things around?

[Smallc]

It depends on how it will be achieved. Cutting the legs off an obese man may achieve a weight loss goal but it's still a bad plan.

What happens when the Liberals freeze the budget next year?

[hitops]

What happens when the Liberals freeze the budget next year?

Nothing, they demonized the conservatives for scaling back, but they know they have to do it themselves. This election amply proves why politicians lie - because that's how you get elected. Hudak took the unusual tact of telling the truth (even if you don't believe the million jobs) about the state of Ontario's finances and what it needs. He lost the election because of it. Wynne knows the truth as well, she just didn't want to mention it. But she will hopefully act on it.

[Smallc]

And it says it right in her budget - bigger cuts than Harris.

[Bob Macadoo]

Hudak took the unusual tact of telling the truth (even if you don't believe the million jobs) about the state of Ontario's finances and what it needs. He lost the election because of it.

Even if? Thats the whole point, no one did.....case closed.

[John]

I'm a Conservative and I voted for Hudak. I wish I could have heard more from the PC's than just jobs (creating and cutting), union bosses and the gas plants.

I don't think it was specifically Hudak that sank the ship for them. I don't really think McGuinty was more charming or anything and Ontario voted him in a bunch of times.

[Mighty AC]

What happens when the Liberals freeze the budget next year?

I assume spending levels stay roughly the same as this year. What's your guess?

Or are you implying that not increasing spending is the same as firing front line education workers and eliminating a source of tax revenue then erasing 100,000 jobs to make up for that loss?

One plan is like dealing with minor hunger pains while on a calorie reduced diet, the other is like sawing off a limb or two to achieve the weight loss.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think it was specifically Hudak that sank the ship for them. I don't really think McGuinty was more charming or anything and Ontario voted him in a bunch of times.

That's a good point. The leaders were overall not a spectacular bunch and voters may have just flipped a coin at the last minute.

[Moonbox]

I don't think that's a realistic assessment. The leaders were a lousy batch, but I'm not sure how you could argue that Hudak's campaign wasn't completely incompetent. It wasn't just ineffective. It was catastrophic. I'm not exaggerating when I say he would have probably done better without a campaign platform.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think that's a realistic assessment. The leaders were a lousy batch, but I'm not sure how you could argue that Hudak's campaign wasn't completely incompetent. It wasn't just ineffective. It was catastrophic. I'm not exaggerating when I say he would have probably done better without a campaign platform.

I get what you're saying but without insider knowledge of how the strategy was planned, you're falling into the trap of the Monday morning armchair quarterback. Of course, I have been shocked in the past when learning about the lack of strategy in certain campaigns.

What specifically stands out in Hudak's platform that could be considered a bad move ? The 100K job reductions for government ? It was indeed a striking move, and not politics-as-usual. Perhaps it came from a team of insiders drinking the Kool Aid, or in this case the tea. Or maybe they tested it with key sample groups in the likely-to-vote category and found that it won ?

As somebody who would probably never vote for Hudak, I did at least appreciate the honesty there.

[jacee]

I get what you're saying but without insider knowledge of how the strategy was planned, you're falling into the trap of the Monday morning armchair quarterback. Of course, I have been shocked in the past when learning about the lack of strategy in certain campaigns.

What specifically stands out in Hudak's platform that could be considered a bad move ? The 100K job reductions for government ? It was indeed a striking move, and not politics-as-usual. Perhaps it came from a team of insiders drinking the Kool Aid, or in this case the tea. Or maybe they tested it with key sample groups in the likely-to-vote category and found that it won ?

As somebody who would probably never vote for Hudak, I did at least appreciate the honesty there.

The 'boys in short pants', herein referred to facetiously as "the brain trust" were having a ball coming up with nasty negative ideas, and Hudak went along without vetting it with party execs.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/tim_hudak_to_quit_july_2_amid_tory_revolt.html

[Big Guy]

Any time a party loses an election the party members blame the leader and the campaign. Sometimes they are right but most of the time the problem was with their policies. To accept the fact that it was the policy that was unpalatable to the voters then the losers have to admit that maybe they should do a little navel gazing and review what they stand for.

In the USA with the two major party system, any loss is attributed to one wing (the left or right) that had taken too much control of the party and they have to swing back towards the center.

In Canada, in our three party system it becomes more difficult. The NDP already owns the left and tries to tries to move towards the center during campaigns. The Conservatives, and especially the Harper Conservatives, own the right and had to move towards the center to get elected. They really did not have to move too much this last time because the fulcrum of the election was not what was wrong with Liberal policy but the Adscam scandal. The Liberals have always held the middle and it is far easier for them to either move left or right or even expand to incorporate moderate left and right policies.

I think that in this last Ontario election, Tim Hudak adequately reflected the right wing policies of his party. Unfortunately, they were very similar to the old Mike Harris policies and were generally rejected by the voters. I do not think it was incompetence but the party position on fiscal and social policy that the majority of voters rejected.

Many conservatives advised that their leader just keep his mouth shut on the job cuts and plans and hammer away on the wasted funds on the different perceived "scandals" that took place under the Liberal government. Perhaps they were right. Personally, I am not a Tim Hudak fan but he decided to do it "his way" and be up front with what he planned to do. I respect him for that.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Big Guy

[Moonbox]

and despite the fact that

The 'boys in short pants', herein referred to facetiously as "the brain trust" were having a ball coming up with nasty negative ideas, and Hudak went along without vetting it with party execs.

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/tim_hudak_to_quit_july_2_amid_tory_revolt.html

and despite the fact that the Star is a joke of a newspaper, a completely partisan hack job, they do a good job here showing off the absurdity of Tim Hudak as a party leader and, it seems, as a human being, not to mention parts of his party. Laying off 100k+ salary hydro bureaucrats, for example, is probably a great idea. Suggesting that they be somehow publicly named and shamed in doing so, however, is not only just mean-spirited but also 100% certain to backfire.

I think that in this last Ontario election, Tim Hudak adequately reflected the right wing policies of his party. Unfortunately, they were very similar to the old Mike Harris policies and were generally rejected by the voters. I do not think it was incompetence but the party position on fiscal and social policy that the majority of voters rejected.

A Mike Harris type PC leader would have probably won the election. People didn't vote against Tim Hudak because they supported the teachers, or the overall public service sector. People voted against Tim Hudak because he's a wormy sloganeer who campaigned on what even casual understanding of the Ontario job market could determine was a deception. 1,000,000 jobs wasn't true, and his insistence that it was just insulted voters. Tim Hudak treated the average voter like an idiot, and while they might be ignorant of politics, they're smart enough in their own way to understand that Hudak was trying to mislead them and talk down to them. Who wants to vote for an unlikable, untrustworthy, bumbling loser? In essence, Tim Hudak's campaign was that of a fool and a loser, but worse, an arrogant one.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Moonbox

[jacee]

and despite the fact that

and despite the fact that the Star is a joke of a newspaper, a completely partisan hack job, they do a good job here showing off the absurdity of Tim Hudak as a party leader and, it seems, as a human being, not to mention parts of his party. Laying off 100k+ salary hydro bureaucrats, for example, is probably a great idea. Suggesting that they be somehow publicly named and shamed in doing so, however, is not only just mean-spirited but also 100% certain to backfire.

And it certainly did!

.

[Keepitsimple]

and despite the fact that

and despite the fact that the Star is a joke of a newspaper, a completely partisan hack job, they do a good job here showing off the absurdity of Tim Hudak as a party leader and, it seems, as a human being, not to mention parts of his party. Laying off 100k+ salary hydro bureaucrats, for example, is probably a great idea. Suggesting that they be somehow publicly named and shamed in doing so, however, is not only just mean-spirited but also 100% certain to backfire.

A Mike Harris type PC leader would have probably won the election. People didn't vote against Tim Hudak because they supported the teachers, or the overall public service sector. People voted against Tim Hudak because he's a wormy sloganeer who campaigned on what even casual understanding of the Ontario job market could determine was a deception. 1,000,000 jobs wasn't true, and his insistence that it was just insulted voters. Tim Hudak treated the average voter like an idiot, and while they might be ignorant of politics, they're smart enough in their own way to understand that Hudak was trying to mislead them and talk down to them. Who wants to vote for an unlikable, untrustworthy, bumbling loser? In essence, Tim Hudak's campaign was that of a fool and a loser, but worse, an arrogant one.

Can't see it any other way. You're right. Now that we've been blessed with another term of Liberal largesse, the next shoe to drop with be the credit downgrade when the budget comes out. This is time that I would be happy that the Liberals lied - and start tackling the deficit......chances of that? Slim to none. Hang onto your wallets.

[John]

Can't see it any other way. You're right. Now that we've been blessed with another term of Liberal largesse, the next shoe to drop with be the credit downgrade when the budget comes out. This is time that I would be happy that the Liberals lied - and start tackling the deficit......chances of that? Slim to none. Hang onto your wallets.

Credit rating goes down. Interest payments go up. Money spent of valuable services go down. Taxes go up as a result.

Is it wrong of me to actually wish for that to happen, and quickly...and be somewhat happy when it does happen...simply so that people see what a huge mistake it was electing Wynne?

[Smallc]

The Liberals have a massive budget freeze planned. The largesse is about to end.

[Smallc]

I assume spending levels stay roughly the same as this year. What's your guess?

Or are you implying that not increasing spending is the same as firing front line education workers and eliminating a source of tax revenue then erasing 100,000 jobs to make up for that loss?

ss.

If she freezes spending, given the realities of inflation, something has to give.

[Moonbox]

If she freezes spending, given the realities of inflation, something has to give.

Yeah, a spending freeze might add up to something meaningful after 10 years perhaps. Problem is that often the political will isn't there 4 years from now to maintain that. The next party will promise a return to the gravy train and the spending freeze will be over. When you're badly over-spending as a government, a spending freeze is a mostly meaningless gesture. It's doing little more than admitting that spending got out of hand, and rather than actually fix it, you'll at least try not to make it worse. ~2.5% inflation - Whoopy.

[Mighty AC]

If she freezes spending, given the realities of inflation, something has to give.

Of course. For example education spending is frozen which is, as you said, actually a minor cut. However, the government has already reduced teacher compensation costs and will allow school boards to find savings where appropriate for each district. Some are axing board level admin positions and using the displaced staff members to fill school level admin positions. Some are under funding equipment and maintenance budgets, some are tweaking start and end times to save on transportation costs, etc. Schools seeing declining enrollment will lose class sections as well.

This seems more sensible than cutting tax revenue and then erasing many thousands of education positions to offset the loss. Maybe Wynne will even have the balls to merge and erase the separate school system. If that happens I'll stop considering her the least of three evils and buy a 'Go Kathleen' foam finger.

[Mighty AC]

Yeah, a spending freeze might add up to something meaningful after 10 years perhaps. Problem is that often the political will isn't there 4 years from now to maintain that. The next party will promise a return to the gravy train and the spending freeze will be over. When you're badly over-spending as a government, a spending freeze is a mostly meaningless gesture. It's doing little more than admitting that spending got out of hand, and rather than actually fix it, you'll at least try not to make it worse. ~2.5% inflation - Whoopy.

Except that the mentioned spending freeze is also coupled with growing tax revenue as the economy expands and jobs are added.

[Smallc]

The spending freeze, according to a Bloomberg article I linked earlier somewhere, equals to the largest per capita reduction in government since Harris.