2014 Ontario General Election

[The Bread Guy]

So maybe he's knows what he is talking about??.........just askin'......

Maybe he knows his feces, but some of his stumbles makes one question how he pulls together a team and with who.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think, and it's just a guess, that the PCPO (progressive Conservative Party of Ontario) has forgotten two things:

    1. It's own roots; and

    2. The very nature of Ontario.

The PCPO made Ontario into what it is; big and diverse.

Ontario's size and diversity means that it has to be led from the mushy middle, no 'wing' of any party - like the right wing which has, for now, captured the PCPO - can win and govern for long. Mike Harris governed from the right, but he got elected with a solid, mushy middle platform of the "common sense revolution;" he appealed to Ontarians good, solid judgment; they understood that David Peterson and Bob Rae had pushed the province too far to the left and too deeply into debt. Sorting out the budget was not a right wing programme - it was solidly centrist.

Tim Hudak is a right wing ideologue and it shows ... it makes him very unappealing to the big, diverse range of people in Ontario. He does appeal to some, but they are a distinct minority: mostly angry, old, white men. Most Ontarians are not angry, old, white* or even men.

____
* OK, OK we are still 70% white, but that's substantially lower than Canada as a whole, and only BC rivals Ontario.

 

[Brad Sallows]

~$11.7B deficit on revenues of ~$116.8B and expenses of ~$127.6B, with interest charges running at ~$10.3B (effective rate ~4%).  Total debt ~$288B.

Rates governing the cost of servicing debt don't have much room to fall (and are more likely to eventually rise), and are not under provincial control.  Monetizing debt is not an option.  There are no imminent major trade-liberating agreements.  The US economy (market) is still dragging along.  Major options still on table: raise taxes, lower spending, grow revenues.  The first two are within the realm of reason and authority; the last is within the realm of underpants gnomes.

The more time the situation has to worsen, the sharper the correction will be and the less positive control can be exerted (ie. the crisis manages you, rather than you managing the crisis).

The PC has staked out "lower spending"; the LP has staked out "grow revenues".  Has the NDP staked out "raise taxes" yet?

"You must choose. But choose wisely..."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting take on the interplay between federal and provincial politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/is-tim-hudak-canadas-new-conservative-revolutionary/article18654308/#dashboard/follows/

Is Tim Hudak Canada’s new Conservative revolutionary?

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 14 2014

Is Tim Hudak Canada’s new Conservative revolutionary?

He’s running on cutting corporate taxes and slashing 100,000 jobs from the public service, and in his second term, chopping income taxes by 10 per cent. His rhetoric is an echo of Mike Harris’s Common Sense Revolution and builds from the idea that government is bad for the economy.

If he wins the Ontario election, he’ll take the nexus of Canadian conservatism back to Queen’s Park. And Stephen Harper’s government, eight years in power, is likely to hear a sucking sound as young conservative staffers and a lot of the energy of Canada’s right heads down the road to Toronto.

It’s still a big if. Mr. Hudak shifted his campaign to the right, risking a backlash by promising to cut 15 per cent of the public service, when it seemed obvious that occupying the centre was the easy way to beat the incumbent Liberals. Especially since the premier, Kathleen Wynne has veered left.

Polls suggest most voters feel a desire to boot the Liberals from office, so it seemed that Mr. Hudak could win with the tried-and-true tactic of being inoffensive and asserting that it’s time for a change.

Instead, Mr. Hudak is promoting a full-bore, get-the-government-out-of-the-way message that’s rarely embraced by governments in Canada.

He calls equalization “welfare,” and uses the same word for corporate grants. He suggests that government tend to kill the economy. As he discussed his “million jobs plan” in Ottawa on Tuesday, he said 500,000 would be created naturally as long as Queen’s Park didn’t do anything, or in his words, “if we locked the door and said no legislators can come in and do any more damage to the economy.’ Those phrases aren’t the stuff of Canada’s Progressive Conservative mainstream. They’re the activist battle cry of the right that made Harris Tories, Mr. Hudak among them, political innovators in Canada.

Two decades ago, the Harris Tories, Mr. Hudak among them, promised to a right-wing shakeup. And when their zeal faded, and their fortunes waned, charter members like the late Jim Flaherty and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird migrated to join Mr. Harper’s political-culture shift in Ottawa.

They rolled back funding for daycares, , cut the GST, turned Canada’s military image from peacekeeper to war-fighter, toughened crime sentences, and trimmed the civil service a touch. But Mr. Harper has been an incrementalist, symbolic battles like reforming the Senate have been abandoned, and his governing agenda is mostly light. They’re managing.

Elsewhere, Progressive Conservatives in Alberta and Atlantic Canada are centrist, and Brad Walls Saskatchewan Party is populist. Mr. Hudak is promising a small-government shake-up.

He has wrapped it up in a jobs agenda, promising to create a million jobs over eight years through policies like cutting corporate taxes and eliminating subsidies on wind and solar power.

That allows him to keep talking, relentlessly about creating jobs – the conversation that voters, according to polls, want to hear.

The specifics of the plan – a preposterous set of precise predictions of the number of jobs that will be created over eight years by each policy measure – make you wonder how Mr. Hudak, who has a Master’s degree in economics, can keep a straight face.

It claims 40,384 jobs (not 40,380) will be created from cutting wind and solar energy subsidies. Another 96,000 are supposedly to be created by reducing traffic gridlock in the GTA, an analysis the Conservatives have made, they say, based on several other studies.

They claim 170,240 jobs will be created by changing labour rules so that companies can hire one trades apprentice for every journeyman, and Mr. Hudak claims that – Hey Presto – that will happen overnight, apparently without worrying about companies labour needs. “I can do it in a second and create 200,000 jobs,” he told reporters.

Plenty of conservative economists will argue that cutting corporate taxes will create jobs, but serious ones won’t promise it will create 119,808, as Mr. Hudak does.

The Million Jobs Plan, such as it is, is just a vessel. The numbers are a bit of salesmanship, to transform his smaller-government, lower-tax agenda into a jobs plan.

But no one can claim he’s hiding the agenda. He’s telling voters it will take tough medicine, but that’s what you will get with the Hudak Tories. And if he wins the conservative revolutionaries will be back in Ontario.

Members may recall that both Ralph Klein, in Alberta (1992-2006), and Mike Harris, in Ontario (1995-2002) were elected, in large measure, in response to high spending Conservative (1984-1993) governments in Ottawa.

There is, withing the broad Conservative base, a fairly large "small(er) government" wing. It is not as vocal as the social conservatives but it wants what it wants: less government and less spending. It fully accepts the need for government but it is certain that, at the margins, governments are too big and that they are inefficient, i.e. (at the margins, again) unproductive and even counter-productive. I, just for a personal example, believe that we could, without doing any real harm to anybody (except for the civil servants and political appointees who serve in them), cut 10% of the departments and agencies form this list and, more than that, maybe 15% from the 560 agencies that <sarcasm> 'serve' </sarcasm> the people of Ontario.

Does that mean I look forward to Premier Tim Hudak? "Yes" ... to the policies he is, currently, enunciating, and "No" ... to the man , himself.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting take on the interplay between federal and provincial politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/is-tim-hudak-canadas-new-conservative-revolutionary/article18654308/#dashboard/follows/

Members may recall that both Ralph Klein, in Alberta (1992-2006), and Mike Harris, in Ontario (1995-2002) were elected, in large measure, in response to high spending Conservative (1984-1993) governments in Ottawa.

There is, withing the broad Conservative base, a fairly large "small(er) government" wing. It is not as vocal as the social conservatives but it wants what it wants: less government and less spending. It fully accepts the need for government but it is certain that, at the margins, governments are too big and that they are inefficient, i.e. (at the margins, again) unproductive and even counter-productive. I, just for a personal example, believe that we could, without doing any real harm to anybody (except for the civil servants and political appointees who serve in them), cut 10% of the departments and agencies form this list and, more than that, maybe 15% from the 560 agencies that <sarcasm> 'serve' </sarcasm> the people of Ontario.

Does that mean I look forward to Premier Tim Hudak? "Yes" ... to the policies he is, currently, enunciating, and "No" ... to the man , himself.

I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.

Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.

This result has seen an increase in industrial accidents (workers being killed or hurt) because the Inspectors do not have the time, due to those same accident investigations, to go in and do proactive workplace inspections in 'high risk' workplaces.

The same type of situation exists in almost all offices across the province.

Proposing to take another 15% from what is left, of that Inspectorate, will pretty well close the shop.

You'll save money, but more workers will be injured and killed as a result.

[ sarcasm]However, that would create job openings , wouldn't it? [/sarcasm] :

 

[Remius]

Interesting take on Tim Hudak in today's Ottawa Citizen. 

Link here: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Hudak+casts+himself+with+plan/9835720/story.html

I do notice a difference yes, but i still don't like him as the leader (I do however like my local candidate though).  I'll likely vote conservative for this election (unless something spectacular happens) but I do so in a manner similar to me taking Buckley's cough syrup...

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.

Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.

This result has seen an increase in industrial accidents (workers being killed or hurt) because the Inspectors do not have the time, due to those same accident investigations, to go in and do proactive workplace inspections in 'high risk' workplaces.

The same type of situation exists in almost all offices across the province.

Proposing to take another 15% from what is left, of that Inspectorate, will pretty well close the shop.

You'll save money, but more workers will be injured and killed as a result.

[ sarcasm]However, that would create job openings , wouldn't it? [/sarcasm] :

That's exactly why I said (and repeated) "at the margins." Recent government's have cut broadly, which usually means cuts to both the margins and to the core.

Here is a list of the 560 agencies ... all, no doubt, filled with worthy, hard working people and some, like the Deposit Insurance Corporation, probably certainly doing things that provide substantial benefit to Ontarians. But I challenge anyone to say that they cannot cut, say, 75 of them without doing any harm at all ... because some, indeed many of those agencies and boards, including those that cost very little, are "on the margins," but, as Lao Tsu said, "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," and cutting marginal agencies is one step we need to take.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here is a list of the 560 agencies ... all, no doubt, filled with worthy, hard working people and some, like the Deposit Insurance Corporation, probably certainly doing things that provide substantial benefit to Ontarians. But I challenge anyone to say that they cannot cut, say, 75 of them without doing any harm at all ... because some, indeed many of those agencies and boards, including those that cost very little, are "on the margins," but, as Lao Tsu said, "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step," and cutting marginal agencies is one step we need to take.

Since the list includes provincial appointments to things like college & university boards of governors, hospital boards, public health boards, local planning boards, police services boards, LHIN's (we know THEIR fate under a Hudak government*) and the like, do you want the province to have no reps on such boards (which the agency list shows) to reduce provincial costs, or just get rid of groups like the Rabies Advisory Committee or the Normal Farm Practices Board?

[sup]* - They'll be replaced by "health hubs – run by volunteer, skills-based boards and linked to regional hospitals – in charge of local planning, funding and service" (which would still appear on the big list if Ontario wants to nominate/appoint some of those volunteers).

 

[Remius]

what's troubling is that his plan calls for a return to the 2009 level of the Public Sector. 

That essentially means the Public sector grew by 100 000 in 5 years.  WTF?!

As well if we look at some of the educational data difference between 2009 and 2013 :

2009- 4931 schools, 121 804 FTE (teachers and admin) for 2,061,390 students

2014- 4891 schools, 122 818 FTE (teachers and admin) for 2,031,205 students

So 40 less schools, 30 000 less students but we have 1000 more teachers than we did.

 

[The_Falcon]

Since the list includes provincial appointments to things like college & university boards of governors, hospital boards, public health boards, local planning boards, police services boards, LHIN's (we know THEIR fate under a Hudak government*) and the like, do you want the province to have no reps on such boards (which the agency list shows) to reduce provincial costs, or just get rid of groups like the Rabies Advisory Committee or the Normal Farm Practices Board?

[sup]* - They'll be replaced by "health hubs – run by volunteer, skills-based boards and linked to regional hospitals – in charge of local planning, funding and service" (which would still appear on the big list if Ontario wants to nominate/appoint some of those volunteers).

I presume Mr. Campbell means paring down/elminating some of the actual provinically run entities on that list, vice appointments to their boards (since most of those appointments are unpaid, or paid very little).

This would be a much better starting point http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/crown_2013.pdf

People can argue about this sunshine list not being adjusted for inflantion all they want $100k+ salary today (especially from the public purse) is incredibly generous, especially when looking at the job title of the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE on this list placing them in the realm of middle mangers (if that).  Finding exact salaries in the private sector is not easy, but site like glassdoor, give a glimpse into the payscale of many sectors and individual businesses, and for similiar positions on this list, they are WAY above what the private sector pays.

Some highlights
32 people from something called "Agricorp"
48 in the Alcohol and Gaming Commission
139 in Cancer Care Ontario
25 in the Education and Quality Assurance Office
298 in eHealth

200+ in the LCBO
100+ in Legal Aid Ontario (and no most ARE NOT lawyers)
100+ Metrolinx
200+ WSIB
Even the ROM and Art Gallery of Ontario (Seperate List) have healthy numbers.

Sure very SENIOR people or very technical positions MAY be entitled to a 6 figure salary to compete with the private sector, but I highly highly doubt that is the case for many  of the "managers" and "directors" and specialists that populate this list. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

I presume Mr. Campbell means paring down/elminating some of the actual provinically run entities on that list, vice appointments to their boards (since most of those appointments are unpaid, or paid very little).

This would be a much better starting point http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/pssd/pdf/crown_2013.pdf

I've skimmed the Sunshine List before, but thanks for the summary of how many some groups have - ouch!

< >Fave translation from the Sunshine List:  Operations Manager for OLG becomes "Chef, Exploitation" - exploitation boss.</ >

 

[The_Falcon]

I've skimmed the Sunshine List before, but thanks for the summary of how many some groups have - ouch!

< >Fave translation from the Sunshine List:  Operations Manager for OLG becomes "Chef, Exploitation" - exploitation boss.</ >

I actually don't take too much issue with OLG, as the salaries are derived from gaming revenues (aka tax on the foolish) vs income/sales taxes.  OLG is basically self sufficient in that regard, and AFAIK those gaming revenues don't enter general coffers.  And before anyone brings it up the LCBO is a different beast, as they are a government administered monopoly, that not only significantly marks up their products, there are also the high taxes on those products, both of which end up profiting the government, and AFAIK much of those money DO wind up in general coffers.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some of the latest numbers (as usual, the only poll that counts is the one coming via the ballot box) - source

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Listened to CBC Radio on the way to work yesterday and they had a segment where they randomly asked a dozen or so people in Toronto what party and/or position these people held: Tim Hudak, Katleen Wynne, Andrea Horvath and Dalton McGuingty. Sadly, only one person got all four right. One women actually thought Hudak belonged to the Liberal party.

And you wonder why we end up with the governments we have.  :'(

 

[The Bread Guy]

Listened to CBC Radio on the way to work yesterday and they had a segment where they randomly asked a dozen or so people in Toronto what party and/or position these people held: Tim Hudak, Katleen Wynne, Andrea Horvath and Dalton McGuingty. Sadly, only one person got all four right. One women actually thought Hudak belonged to the Liberal party.

And you wonder why we end up with the governments we have.  :'(

And as much as I love to hate TO, the results in a whole lot of other places in Ontario may not be all that different.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sid Ryan was in town this weekend. Had about 500 union people at his speech. Told a bunch of his usual communist lies and put forth his "Anyone but Hudak" agenda. Which of course, was lapped up by blind solidarity.

That was followed up today by Jerry Dias, the president of the UNIFOR super union. He was the guest speaker at a Local 444 (Chrysler) retirees lunch. Same lies, same message. Anyone but Hudak.

The newscaster reporting it on the local news put it all quite succinctly, "Union bosses telling retirees how to vote, our next story is about a little girl........."

Par for the course though, this lunch bucket town will always vote what their unions want, not what is needed. We'll end up with a whole slate of NDP MPPs, from here to the next county, and then they'll wonder, again, why the sitting government ignores them. :not-again:

The next move they are pushing for is to get the last president of the CAW, Ken Lewenza, elected mayor  :facepalm:. No that's not a joke, it's a reality. :

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder if people are taking into consideration the cuts to the OPS that McGuinty and Wynne have already done.

Example: A southwestern office of the Ministry of Labour is supposed to have eight Industrial Inspectors. Through people retiring and others quitting in frustration over the last six years (and not being replaced), there are now at any one time, maybe three Inspectors in the field to cover two counties.

This result has seen an increase in industrial accidents (workers being killed or hurt) because the Inspectors do not have the time, due to those same accident investigations, to go in and do proactive workplace inspections in 'high risk' workplaces.

The same type of situation exists in almost all offices across the province.

Proposing to take another 15% from what is left, of that Inspectorate, will pretty well close the shop.

You'll save money, but more workers will be injured and killed as a result.

[ sarcasm]However, that would create job openings , wouldn't it? [/sarcasm] :

And Kathleen Wynne picks up on your idea, according to this article in the Globe and Mail ... and you are both quite right if, and it is not an unreasonable if, a government decides to cut core functions, as the Liberals are doing with Industrial Inspectors.

We do need a public service, a public sector, and (in many cases) it does save lives. But we also need an efficient and effective public sector that does not waste money on cosmetics.

 

[PMedMoe]

Is there a link out there for "Elections for Dummies"?    What I mean is, is there a chart (or whatever) that states what each party's stance is on different issues (in a nutshell, please)?

 

[Crispy Bacon]

Is there a link out there for "Elections for Dummies"?    What I mean is, is there a chart (or whatever) that states what each party's stance is on different issues (in a nutshell, please)?

Usually the City of Toronto puts out a "summary of issues relevant to Toronto voters" which is basically a summary of all the parties' platforms.  However, those platforms aren't out yet (I'd say wait another week or maybe 2) so there won't be any unbiased summaries yet.

However, you can be sure these will be the main themes that are touched upon:

Conservatives: balance the budget, get Ontario back on track at all costs
Liberals: balance the budget - maybe - but let's improve upon the status quo
NDP: the kinder, more reasonable socialists, since the Liberals' budget was actually to the left of the NDP.

 

[PMedMoe]

Conservatives: balance the budget, get Ontario back on track at all costs
Liberals: balance the budget - maybe - but let's improve upon the status quo
NDP: the kinder, more reasonable socialists, since the Liberals' budget was actually to the left of the NDP.

Thanks, but that kind of means nothing to me.  I want to know where each party stands on a few key issues (job creation, military, health care, etc), not party themes.

Guess I'll have to do some searching.  I'm not one to listen to the "look how good we are/look how bad the other person is" commercials and speeches.  That's just noise, IMO.