Tim Hudak and the incompetence of the Ontario PC's

[Moonbox]

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

Anemic growth, coupled with a growing provincial debt load that will require larger and larger debt servicing payments as we go deeper in the red.

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

A rather useless piece of information considering that public spending ballooned under Dalton McGuinty since he and the Liberals took over from the PC's. Virtually any spending decreases could have met that benchmark. Let's be clear once again, however, that a spending freeze is not a spending decrease. You can put whatever Keynesian spin you want on it to make it look like you're serious, but essentially what you're doing is nothing. You're committing to not make the problem worse and hoping time and the economy reverse your mistakes.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Moonbox

[Argus]

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 think the most realistic assessment was that by claiming he would dump 100,000 public servants he made the election about him rather than about the Liberals and their fiscal incompetence. The other parties were able to portray him as Attila the Hun who would run screaming through their public services with a bloody axe.

And millions of dollars in union advertising didn't help either.

So do the Liberals now have to pay them back for that or was that paying back the Liberals for all the raises they gave to public servants? Either way it's open corruption, even if legal.

[Moonbox]

I think the most realistic assessment was that by claiming he would dump 100,000 public servants he made the election about him rather than about the Liberals and their fiscal incompetence. The other parties were able to portray him as Attila the Hun who would run screaming through their public services with a bloody axe.

Which was one of the stupidest election promises anyone could have made. All he had to do was say he was going to eliminate Liberal waste. That's it. Don't elaborate, or be as vague as possible. He only needed to do that. Instead he went full fool with the debacle we saw.

So do the Liberals now have to pay them back for that or was that paying back the Liberals for all the raises they gave to public servants? Either way it's open corruption, even if legal.

It made it hard for the Liberals to perhaps really twist the knife in them like they maybe need to, but even I believe that the unions are going to be disappointed in what the Liberals end up doing. They panicked and unconditionally backed the Liberals for fear of Hudak, and in so doing lost a lot of the bargaining power they may have otherwise had. Realistically, the public sector unions (particularly the teachers) haven't really given themselves a lot of options. They and the PC's are are naturally opposed to one another, and they still aren't interested in the NDP from the Bob Rae era.

In essence, they're at the mercy of the Liberal government, who know that public resentment is simmering against the unions. Hard times for the province's public sector unions are on the way. It's just a matter of whether or not the Liberals make the first move, or wait for that resentment to boil over and return us Harris-era axing under the next government.

[Keepitsimple]

Which was one of the stupidest election promises anyone could have made. All he had to do was say he was going to eliminate Liberal waste. That's it. Don't elaborate, or be as vague as possible. He only needed to do that. Instead he went full fool with the debacle we saw.

That's why we need a leader who can stand for "Compassionate Conservatism". Hudak could have easily said:

We need to get a grip on government spending. The Liberals have grown the government by 300,000 under the McGuinty/Wynne watch. Can we go in with a machete and start slashing? - certainly not - these are real people - not just numbers....but surely - when a position becomes vacant through retirement or voluntarily leaving their job - surely we can refrain from filling those positions!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Bob Macadoo]

That's why we need a leader who can stand for "Compassionate Conservatism". Hudak could have easily said:We need to get a grip on government spending. The Liberals have grown the government by 300,000 under the McGuinty/Wynne watch. Can we go in with a machete and start slashing? - certainly not - these are real people - not just numbers....but surely - when a position becomes vacant through retirement or voluntarily leaving their job - surely we can refrain from filling those positions!

Too wordy for the twitter-verse we live in now. Nice speech though.

[jacee]

That's why we need a leader who can stand for "Compassionate Conservatism". Hudak could have easily said:

We need to get a grip on government spending. The Liberals have grown the government by 300,000 under the McGuinty/Wynne watch. Can we go in with a machete and start slashing? - certainly not - these are real people - not just numbers....but surely - when a position becomes vacant through retirement or voluntarily leaving their job - surely we can refrain from filling those positions!

That would make him a Liberal!

.

[Argus]

That's why we need a leader who can stand for "Compassionate Conservatism". Hudak could have easily said:

We need to get a grip on government spending. The Liberals have grown the government by 300,000 under the McGuinty/Wynne watch. Can we go in with a machete and start slashing? - certainly not - these are real people - not just numbers....but surely - when a position becomes vacant through retirement or voluntarily leaving their job - surely we can refrain from filling those positions!

That was actually the plan. He just put it wrong.

I don't like this cliche'd idea that conservatives aren't compassionate because they want to balance the damn budget. Is it more compassionate to borrow a lot of money to make yourself look good by splurging on services the province can't afford? That money has to be paid back so all you're doing is loading it onto the heads of young people and children who'll be paying it all their lives. What's compassionate about that?

Edited June 24, 2014 by Argus

[jacee]

That was actually the plan. He just put it wrong.

The boys in short pants like to sound tough.

The boys in long pants are supposed to tone them down to civil.

I don't like this cliche'd idea that conservatives aren't compassionate because they want to balance the damn budget. Is it more compassionate to borrow a lot of money to make yourself look good by splurging on services the province can't afford? That money has to be paid back so all you're doing is loading it onto the heads of young people and children who'll be paying it all their lives. What's compassionate about that?

They'll also be using the infrastructure that has to be built now ... for then.

It's smart spending on investments like that.

I think health care and aging will be a challenge.

.

[Moonbox]

It's smart to spend on health, education and infrastructure, yes. It's not smart, however, to allow the bureaucracy to balloon, or to overpay unionized public sector employees. Both of these things eventually contribute to either deficits and/or declined quality of service.

Similarly, it's also wasteful to spend billions on pointless pet projects, like the green energy subsidies, which did little aside from shuffle taxpayer money to companies like Samsung. A carbon tax would have been a better idea, since at least that would have kept the proceeds of the energy bills hike in the government's wallet, instead of in South Korea.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Moonbox

[jacee]

It's smart to spend on health, education and infrastructure, yes. It's not smart, however, to allow the bureaucracy to balloon, or to overpay unionized public sector employees. Both of these things eventually contribute to either deficits and/or declined quality of service.

We hear this refrain a lot, but can you provide evidence of

- 'ballooning' or 'overpaying' in the public service, and

- the amounts or # people that need to be cut, and

- what Ministries are implicated?

Similarly, it's also wasteful to spend billions on pointless pet projects, like the green energy subsidies, which did little aside from shuffle taxpayer money to companies like Samsung. A carbon tax would have been a better idea, since at least that would have kept the proceeds of the energy bills hike in the government's wallet, instead of in South Korea.

I had visions of many households, apt buildings, businesses and industries with small scale solar/wind energy, feeding it to the grid via our new 'smart metres' to offset increased hydro costs AND to provide some emergency power in case of - eg - an ice storm like last year. With that and a gas kitchen stove, people wouldn't have had to leave their homes, reducing need for emergency shelters, etc.

All it would take to do this is for government to do an education campaign.

Or maybe we should just do it ourselves ... start a 'movement'.

Solar shingles - an Oakville ON innovation - and photovoltaic paints really interest me, as well as mini-wind-turbines that can be used even on apt balconies.

I was disappointed that the gov didn't push this idea and went the 'offshore' large scale corporate route instead. I suppose it's necessary to offset the necessary closing down of (cheaper) coal fired plants, but I'd still like to see more independent solutions focusing on self-sufficiency and less reliance on government and corporate solutions.

.

Edited July 8, 2014 by jacee

[mrcanadaeh]

seems legit

[ironstone]

These election results are not only bad for Ontario,but bad for Canada as well.Thanks in no small part to Liberal corruption/incompetence we are now a have-not province,becoming like a giant anchor impeding Canada's economic recovery.

Wynne was helped by voter apathy as well as the stupidity and ignorance of most of the rest that did actually vote.Let's not forget all the help she got from the media either.

[cybercoma]

I disagree ironstone. I think this election was important. The PC party in Ontario isn't conservative enough and that's why they weren't elected. When Doug Ford gets in there and gives the Ontario PC Party an enema like he promised, we'll be able to elect an Ontario government with true conservative values that will make Canada stronger and wealthier for everyone.

[ironstone]

The boys in short pants like to sound tough.

The boys in long pants are supposed to tone them down to civil.

They'll also be using the infrastructure that has to be built now ... for then.

It's smart spending on investments like that.

I think health care and aging will be a challenge.

.

The point of investments is to get a return at some point in time.

So,after more than ten years of massive spending and piling up record levels of debt,how is Ontario better off?

Why are businesses leaving in droves?

Why is Ontario's rate of unemployment higher than the national average?

Why does Ontario now have to depend on transfer payments?

[cybercoma]

The boys in short pants like to sound tough.

I find this language utterly offensive as there are plenty of powerful women in politics that you exclude when you use phrases like "the boys in the short pants."

[On Guard for Thee]

I disagree ironstone. I think this election was important. The PC party in Ontario isn't conservative enough and that's why they weren't elected. When Doug Ford gets in there and gives the Ontario PC Party an enema like he promised, we'll be able to elect an Ontario government with true conservative values that will make Canada stronger and wealthier for everyone.

I doubt the late night TV shows will applaude that outcome. Rob is farcical in his dumbness. Doug is just dumb. Of course Rob could give him some lines.

[jacee]

I find this language utterly offensive as there are plenty of powerful women in politics that you exclude when you use phrases like "the boys in the short pants."

The boys in short pants are the very young, unelected party political 'advisors' who surround the PM and effectively run the country.

Show me a young woman among them ... ?

.

[jacee]

I disagree ironstone. I think this election was important. The PC party in Ontario isn't conservative enough and that's why they weren't elected. When Doug Ford gets in there and gives the Ontario PC Party an enema like he promised, we'll be able to elect an Ontario government with true conservative values that will make Canada stronger and wealthier for everyone.

.

[cybercoma]

The boys in short pants are the very young, unelected party political 'advisors' who surround the PM and effectively run the country.

Show me a young woman among them ... ?

.

Oh yeah? Rachel Curran is Harper's Director of Policy. Is she a boy in short pants?

Edited July 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Oh yeah? Rachel Curran is Harper's Director of Policy. Is she a boy in short pants?

Yes I guess she is.

But the thread is about Hudak's boys and their ridiculous and failed campaign strategy.

.

Edited July 28, 2014 by jacee

[cybercoma]

I didn't bring up the boys in short pants.