Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: Queefer Sutherland on March 30, 2018, 08:48:14 am
-
It's own thread was needed. Have at it folks.
-
http://pressprogress.ca/ontario-pc-leader-doug-ford-claims-hell-cut-cbc-even-though-cbc-is-not-provincially-funded/
Responding to Ontario’s 2018 budget Wednesday, Doug Ford raised fresh questions about his basic understanding of the issues when he offered reporters a nonsensical suggestion about how he could save Ontario money: cut funding for the CBC.
I propose we only talk **** about the two leading candidates. No one could be too happy about either.
-
cut funding for the CBC.
Some withered old blue-hair in St Catherine's is sending this to all her friends on Facebook. "He is such a smart man! We need common sense leadership like this!!!"
It is probably written in all-caps, and forwarded along side a picture of a kitten dangling from a tree branch with a caption that says "HANG IN THERE!"
-k
-
Doug Ford down 8 points ?
https://www.cp24.com/news/liberals-have-gained-ground-on-tories-with-release-of-budget-poll-suggests-1.3865652
-
Doug Ford down 8 points ?
https://www.cp24.com/news/liberals-have-gained-ground-on-tories-with-release-of-budget-poll-suggests-1.3865652
Told you. Offer people free stuff and they'll vote for you. Ford should offer to give everyone a car. He'll win in a landslide.
I'm seriously reconsidering whether Democracy has any further usefulness. I think humans are too stupid, as a group, to be trusted to vote. We need to do something to limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
-
Told you. Offer people free stuff and they'll vote for you. Ford should offer to give everyone a car. He'll win in a landslide.
I'm seriously reconsidering whether Democracy has any further usefulness. I think humans are too stupid, as a group, to be trusted to vote. We need to do something to limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
I guess the ageing process does make some people overly cantankerous.
-
I'm seriously reconsidering whether Democracy has any further usefulness. I think humans are too stupid, as a group, to be trusted to vote. We need to do something to limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
AKA "Only people who hold the same political views as I do should be allowed to vote."
-
Told you. Offer people free stuff and they'll vote for you.
Free tax break, you kids will pay it back with tons of interest.
-
Told you. Offer people free stuff and they'll vote for you. Ford should offer to give everyone a car. He'll win in a landslide.
I'm seriously reconsidering whether Democracy has any further usefulness. I think humans are too stupid, as a group, to be trusted to vote. We need to do something to limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
Maybe you should give Vladimir a call, I'm sure he can help you figure out how to do that. Better still, you could convince him to let you go to him and work within his system.
-
I'm seriously reconsidering whether Democracy has any further usefulness. I think humans are too stupid, as a group, to be trusted to vote. We need to do something to limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
Don't despair. I think things are going to get better soon.
-
Lay off, SJ. Even if you think Ford is 1/2 the DoFus that he is, no one can be excited by the prospect of a Wynne return.
-
Told you. Offer people free stuff and they'll vote for you. Ford should offer to give everyone a car. He'll win in a landslide.
It could also be that letting Ford talk was a major strategic mistake. Perhaps he should have just sat back and done the Herman Cain smile for the duration of the campaign.
... limit the vote to the more intelligent and self-aware among them.
Those would be the ones wanting tax cuts, right?
I'm having a hard time reconciling "intelligent and self-aware" with "FORD NAYSHUN!" ...surely it wasn't the "intelligent and self-aware" who won the leadership race for Ford.
-k
-
Free tax break, you kids will pay it back with tons of interest.
Yeah, and people wonder how Greece got as bad as it is. "Couldn't they see this coming!?"
Ontario is up to almost $13 billion a year in interest payments. If we had that money we could do all this stuff and not borrow. But the higher our interest payments the less money available for programs. The debt ratings agencies are already making noises about lowering our rating AGAIN, which will increase borrowing costs, and interest rates are headed up. As debt service charges consume more and more of the budget government is left with the choice of either borrowing to meet current obligations or slash program spending. Given the increasingly spoiled Me Me Me nature of the electorate, cutting spending can be political suicide, so they just borrow more and hope the pile doesn't collapse until they're out of politics.
-
It could also be that letting Ford talk was a major strategic mistake. Perhaps he should have just sat back and done the Herman Cain smile for the duration of the campaign.
Could be but probably not. The NDP share went down not up, so the Liberals are taking votes from them as well as the Tories.
Those would be the ones wanting tax cuts, right?
Ford was certainly not my choice, and I don't want a tax cut. I want capable, competent government, something we haven't seen in Ontario for 15 years. People can say Ford and his people won't bring that but maybe they will, and we know damn well Wynne and her cadre of corrupt, incompetent idiots won't.
I think Ford is a reactionary choice by people fed up with the preaching nanny state identity politics of Wynne and Trudeau. I don't expect great ideas out of Ford. I don't even require them. The premier doesn't run anything. The cabinet do. All he does is provide broad direction - ie, cut spending youse guys. And that's what I want. Ten percent of the population of Ontario are public sector workers. And they make way too much money because of cozy deals with the politicians.
-
Given the increasingly spoiled Me Me Me nature of the electorate, cutting spending can be political suicide, so they just borrow more and hope the pile doesn't collapse until they're out of politics.
The "tax breaks!" people are no better than the "free stuff!" people in this regard. Look at our Republican friends south of the border. For 8 years they were bitching about the national debt, but now that their guy is in the White House, they've implemented a massive unfunded tax cut for the corporations and the very wealthy that results in a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit... but they're no longer concerned about the size of the deficit.
-k
-
The "tax breaks!" people are no better than the "free stuff!" people in this regard. Look at our Republican friends south of the border. For 8 years they were bitching about the national debt, but now that their guy is in the White House, they've implemented a massive unfunded tax cut for the corporations and the very wealthy that results in a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit... but they're no longer concerned about the size of the deficit.
-k
Have you ever heard me say one good thing about those people? Still, a tax cut isn't as bad as increased spending. At least the money goes back to its owners. And it's a lot easier to reverse that than it is to fire people and slash programs.
It does indicate the problem with democracy in a low knowledge environment where idiots who pay little attention to what's going on and give little thought to the future rush out to vote for whoever offers them the most goodies. How many of those people who now think Trump is doing a good job understand the tax cuts will disappear after a few years? How many new Wynne supporters understand most of these promises won't take place until around the time of the next election - if at all, and won't even be fully implemented until AFTER the next election (if at all)
-
Still, a tax cut isn't as bad as increased spending. At least the money goes back to its owners. And it's a lot easier to reverse that than it is to fire people and slash programs.
No, it is far, far, far, far worse. The money goes to the banks, and it is far, far, far, far harder to reverse. The brain dead Flaherty/Harper GST cut and corporate gifting is how they racked up the second largest debt of any Canadian government (behind Mulroney). A tax cut is only good to elect incompetents by morons.
-
No, it is far, far, far, far worse. The money goes to the banks, and it is far, far, far, far harder to reverse. The brain dead Flaherty/Harper GST cut and corporate gifting is how they racked up the second largest debt of any Canadian government (behind Mulroney). A tax cut is only good to elect incompetents by morons.
What paranoid nonsense is this? Cutting the GST benefited no one but the consumers who didn't have to fork over the other 2%, and the retailers who probably saw increased sales. I wasn't in favor of the GST cuts but it's hard to imagine a better tax cut for getting into the pockets of ordinary people - as opposed to the US tax cut which primarily helped the wealthy. As for tax cuts benefiting the 'corporations' the Liberals have done that in reducing corporate taxes.
Whining about Harper's deficits without acknowedgling the terrible recession, and that all three opposition parties were EXTREMELY supportive of them - demanding them, in fact, is sheer dishonesty.
As for Mulroney, well, if he had started out with very low debt and virtually no deficit, like Trudeau did, then the double digit inflation rate wouldn't have hurt nearly as much as it did starting out with Trudeau's $70billion deficit and the accumulated debt from his dozen years in office.
-
Cutting the GST benefited...
Quite convenient you ignored the corporate tax gifts I also mentioned that benefited foreign owners.
-
Quite convenient you ignored the corporate tax gifts I also mentioned that benefited foreign owners.
Be specific.
Generally I don't approve of cuts to corporate taxes except (reluctantly) insofar as it's necessary to keep business from relocating to other low-tax areas.
Of course, if we did taxes right, we could lower corporate taxes as much as we wanted as long we then collected the profits from their owners. Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee you that every multi-millionaire and billionaire in North America pays a much lower percentage of their earnings in taxes than I do, probably a third what I do.
-
No, it is far, far, far, far worse. The money goes to the banks, and it is far, far, far, far harder to reverse.
How does it "go to the banks"? Extra money in people's pockets is usually spent and goes into the economy. Even if they put it in the bank for savings or investment, good on them, it's still theirs.
The brain dead Flaherty/Harper GST cut and corporate gifting is how they racked up the second largest debt of any Canadian government (behind Mulroney). A tax cut is only good to elect incompetents by morons.
They racked up the high debt because they spent money into deficit in order to stimulate the economy in reaction to the roughest economic recession since the Great Depression. This is Keynesian economic policy 101 that just about every other western government did as well. The problem is that Keynesian economics says that in the good economic times you're supposed to raise interest rates and pay back the debt you incurred during the rough times, which governments are usually reluctant to do because voters like their handouts & borrowing cheaply.
Now, if I were the Ontario Premier, I wouldn't be worried about a tax cut at the moment since the prov is heavily indebted and has quite a few problems to fix, it would be better to pay down the debt a bit and fix up some things like healthcare before tax cuts me thinks.
-
Now Doug Ford is going to fire the CEO of Hydro One? Can someone with a brain explain to him that the government only holds a minority interest in Hydro One so he can't do that any more than he can get rid of the CBC.
-
...so he can't do that any more than he can get rid of the CBC.
Fake news. That one hurt.
-
Wynne played the Trump card.
It's the height of irony when you accuse your opponent of vicious politics and you drop this before the writ is even dropped.
DoFo is not Donald Trump and trying to compare the two is the height of desperation.
-
He's certainly coming off as incompetent and uninformed as Trump. That's got to make conservatives feel good--to know there's a candidate as thick as they are. Wynne's going to lose.
-
Wynne played the Trump card.
It's the height of irony when you accuse your opponent of vicious politics and you drop this before the writ is even dropped.
DoFo is not Donald Trump and trying to compare the two is the height of desperation.
Yes, she accused him of smearing her, and in doing so smeared him. And bullying? Seriously? A politician saying unkind things about another politician is bullying now? Is she playing the poor little girl card too?
-
He's certainly coming off as incompetent and uninformed as Trump. That's got to make conservatives feel good--to know there's a candidate as thick as they are. Wynne's going to lose.
She deserves to lose. I doubt there's been a government in Canadian history as incompetent and utterly cynical about the use of taxpayers dollars for their own political benefit. Renegotiating the hydro loans so as to lower hydro rates was a breathtaking misuse of public funds which, according to her own budget watchdog will cost the people of Ontario an extra $21 BILLION dollars. Think about that for a moment. TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS! All done in hope of making herself look more popular in the runup to an election! Can anyone think of a few better things we could have done with that money? I know I can!
http://www.macleans.ca/news/hydro-plan-will-cost-ontario-45-billion-says-budget-watchdog/
-
You would hope this seals the Liberals fate.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/18/moodys-sounds-ratings-warning-shot-over-ontario-budget.html
A major debt-rating agency is sounding the alarm on the Liberals’ big-spending pre-election budget.
Moody’s Investors Service has changed the outlook on the province of Ontario’s ratings from “stable” to “negative” in the wake of Finance Minister Charles Sousa’s March 28 spending plan, which featured a $6.7-billion deficit.
While not a credit downgrade to Ontario’s “Aa2” rating, it is a warning shot.
The Liberals can't just spend their way out of this hole. The idea that deficits don't matter and we can just give everyone free stuff to get elected will have serious repercussions.
This media report is a campaign ad that writes itself.
-
We want alternatives, and dufus Ford is not one.
-
We want alternatives, and dufus Ford is not one.
He's the only one available. Maybe he is a doofus and maybe he'll screw up. But it's hard to imagine he could do worse than the Liberals unless it was deliberate.
-
He's the only one available. Maybe he is a doofus and maybe he'll screw up. But it's hard to imagine he could do worse than the Liberals unless it was deliberate.
He is already facing $30 billion in additional deficit from his hair brained schemes.
-
He is already facing $30 billion in additional deficit from his hair brained schemes.
Cite
-
Cite
Yes, where is Ford's costed plan? Cite that for me.
-
Yes, where is Ford's costed plan? Cite that for me.
Well then say you want a costed platform and don't make up numbers. The NDP just released their platform this week. I suspect we'll get a platform during the campaign.
Also like anyone believes the Liberals costed platform, so what good is it exactly?
-
Well then say you want a costed platform and don't make up numbers. The NDP just released their platform this week. I suspect we'll get a platform during the campaign.
Also like anyone believes the Liberals costed platform, so what good is it exactly?
I won't lower your taxes, but I won't raise them either. - solemn promise.
-
Yes, where is Ford's costed plan? Cite that for me.
Still waiting for your cite on the $30 billion.
-
Still waiting for your cite on the $30 billion.
He already gifted billions to corporations. Ontario already has the lowest tax rate, and he wants to cut it even further. He is also transferring money from the middle class and minimum wage earners to corporations as well as he increases the deficit with his supposed 'zero tax' on minimum wage that will actually cause them to end up poorer in the end because he will cut the minimum wage and the only beneficiaries are the corporations while the taxpayer is on the hook for a billion or more.
-
He already gifted billions to corporations. Ontario already has the lowest tax rate, and he wants to cut it even further. He is also transferring money from the middle class and minimum wage earners to corporations as well as he increases the deficit with his supposed 'zero tax' on minimum wage that will actually cause them to end up poorer in the end because he will cut the minimum wage and the only beneficiaries are the corporations while the taxpayer is on the hook for a billion or more.
That's not taking money away from people, it's just not giving them what the previous reckless government promised. Minimum wage earners got a 30% pay hike last year.
-
That's not taking money away from people, it's just not giving them what the previous reckless government promised. Minimum wage earners got a 30% pay hike last year.
He said he will cancel the $15/hr wage due in 7 months, that is stealing from the poorest of the poor to give to corporations all on the back of the taxpayer.
Doug Ford is completely reckless. His latest spastic episode is to fire the board and CEO at Hydro One that will cost tens of millions, and he has zero clue what he will do to fix the mess he creates. He is a moron on steroids.
-
He already gifted billions to corporations. Ontario already has the lowest tax rate, and he wants to cut it even further. He is also transferring money from the middle class and minimum wage earners to corporations as well as he increases the deficit with his supposed 'zero tax' on minimum wage that will actually cause them to end up poorer in the end because he will cut the minimum wage and the only beneficiaries are the corporations while the taxpayer is on the hook for a billion or more.
So... you made it up then?
-
He said he will cancel the $15/hr wage due in 7 months, that is stealing from the poorest of the poor to give to corporations all on the back of the taxpayer.
Lowering corporate taxes to compete with other jurisdictions, including the the US, which just lowered their corporate taxes, is a legitimate economic tactic.
Raising wages to $15hr will help some people and hurt others. It will cost jobs, and the original increase has already increased inflation and led to big increases in the cost of restaurants, groceries, home support services and child care.
-
Lowering corporate taxes to compete with other jurisdictions, including the the US, which just lowered their corporate taxes, is a legitimate economic tactic.
No, when you are already the lowest is is moronic. We need to restore fiscal stability and make proper infrastructure investments to attract business. The stupid Progressive Conservative privatization scandal destroyed our province, and the incompetent Liberals were no smarter and continued that idiocy.
-
No, when you are already the lowest is is moronic. We need to restore fiscal stability and make proper infrastructure investments to attract business. The stupid Progressive Conservative privatization scandal destroyed our province, and the incompetent Liberals were no smarter and continued that idiocy.
The government pays people so much, and gives them such rich benefits, and they have so little incentive and so much red tape that the private sector can almost always do things cheaper and faster and more efficiently and effectively. Privatization didn't 'destroy' Ontario. Fifteen years of heavy deficits is on its way to doing so, though, especially with the aid of massive mismanagement of the electric system and a resource consultation process which basically prevents any kind of new resource development in the province.
-
the private sector can almost always do things cheaper and faster and more efficiently and effectively. Privatization didn't 'destroy' Ontario. Fifteen years of heavy deficits
So you alway say, but the fact is it never works out that way.
Yes privatization destroyed the revenue stream that led to deficits.
Your 15 years bullshit claim betrays you as nothing but a partisan tool.
-
So you alway say, but the fact is it never works out that way.
Yes privatization destroyed the revenue stream that led to deficits.
Your 15 years bullshit claim betrays you as nothing but a partisan tool.
Oh bite me. The Liberals have NEVER balanced a budget and never will. They CLAIM that they've balanced it this year, but in fact they've only done that by pushing all kinds of expenses onto separate books to hide them. They continue to borrow billions every year, and the debt has risen every single year, including this year and last year.
-
Oh bite me. The Liberals have NEVER balanced a budget...
Yawn, afraid of facts are we? The fact is the liberals were handed a large deficit from Eves, and turned it around into several years of surplus before the recession and the downward spiral.
-
Shitposting about numbers without cites should be illegal
(https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/fallstatement/2017/images/chart3-2.jpg)
(https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffinancialpostbusiness.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F06%2Ffp0610_ontariofinancials_c_jr.jpeg&hash=cb5314e42ab2abf16fd2c83ab25801775b52c9a9)
-
Shitposting graphs and numbers that don't contextualize the structural changes that affected the revenue stream of the government should also be illegal.
-
Yawn, afraid of facts are we? The fact is the liberals were handed a large deficit from Eves, and turned it around into several years of surplus before the recession and the downward spiral.
The Eves deficit was temporary based on a particularly bad year for Ontario. The Economy was still in good shape to return back to surplus.
But regardless this government lies about balancing the budget in 2017 and now is facing a credit rating downgrade inorder to buy votes and continue deficits for the entire length of the mandate they're looking for.
It's a shame DoFo is ignoring Patrick Brown's platform because it's assumes the Liberals were lying about the balanced budget and pledges a modest deficit to figure things out.
This is something every government does BTW. I'm sure, should DoFo win, that he'll run a deficit claiming he wasn't aware how horrible a situation the Liberals left them in. What's good for the goose.
-
Calling DoFo dumb and saying he's GTA Trump isn't working.
https://www.cp24.com/news/new-poll-puts-ontario-pcs-in-super-majority-territory-ndp-as-opposition-1.3894472
Chris Herhalt, CP24.com
Published Friday, April 20, 2018 9:54AM EDT
The Ontario PCs would win a strong majority if a provincial election was held today, and the NDP would form the Official Opposition, a new poll suggests.
Forum Research found that 46 per cent of decided or leaning voters said on April 18 that they would support the Ontario PCs if a vote were held today, compared to 27 per cent for the NDP and 21 per cent for the Liberals.
The PCs strength has been trending in their polls for several years. But the NDP have now come second in six of the firm’s last 11 polls, dating back to June 12-14, 2017.
“The bump in support following the Liberal budget is gone,” Forum Research President Lorne Bozinoff said in a news release. “The (PCs) are back where we’ve seen them for the past year, and Doug Ford looks on track to be Premier in a few months.”
Two days before the poll was conducted, the Ontario NDP released its party platform, calling for universal pharmacare and dental care, higher corporate taxes and the re-purchase of Hydro One to make it public.
Four per cent of respondents said they would vote Green while two per cent expressed support for another party.
Translated into seats, Forum said the PCs would win 94 of 122 available seats, putting them into what Bozinoff calls “super-majority” territory.
Their support is strongest in southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario and the 905 area.
-
Shitposting graphs and numbers that don't contextualize the structural changes that affected the revenue stream of the government should also be illegal.
The government's revenue stream grew significantly, easily outpacing the combination of population growth and inflation.
And over the whole 2003/04 to 2015/16 period, the pace of provincial government revenue growth has exceeded the rate necessary to keep pace with increasing overall prices (inflation) and a growing population. In fact, between 2003/04 and 2015/16, total provincial government revenues in Ontario increased by an average of 4.6% per year. By comparison, the average combined rate of inflation and population growth during this same period was only 2.8%. Revenues also grew faster than the economy as nominal GDP increased at about 3.2% annually between 2003 and 2015.
In other words, government revenues grew at a rate approximately 62% faster than would have been necessary to offset the pressures placed on government finances by inflation and population growth. It also grew at an annual average rate that was 42% greater than GDP.
On the other hand.
The period between 2003/04 and 2015/16 has seen rapid spending growth—indeed unsustainable growth, given that it has outstripped both revenue and GDP growth. Consider provincial program spending alone, which excludes payments made to service existing debt. During this period, provincial program spending increased
overall by 71.6% from $70.4 billion in 2003/04 to $120.9 billion in 2015/16.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/spending-is-the-source-of-ontarios-deficit-and-debt-problem.pdf
-
The Fraser Institute. Seriously?
I don't have the time this afternoon to rip apart their methodologies, yet again. Not to mention, I have barely a passing interest in Ontario's politics.
Why don't you dig up some credible sources instead and we can discuss it?
-
The Fraser Institute. Seriously?
I don't have the time this afternoon to rip apart their methodologies, yet again. Not to mention, I have barely a passing interest in Ontario's politics.
Why don't you dig up some credible sources instead and we can discuss it?
When the Marxst Leninist party issues an economic analyses I'll get back to you. I don't think you'd accept anything else.
-
The Fraser Institute. Seriously?
I don't have the time this afternoon to rip apart their methodologies, yet again. Not to mention, I have barely a passing interest in Ontario's politics.
Why don't you dig up some credible sources instead and we can discuss it?
His favorite go to it seems. Their bias suits him best.
No Free Lunch
Confessions of a Fraser Institute propagandee
https://albertaviews.ca/no-free-lunch/
-
So we're also allowed to completely disregard any study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives then too right?
-
I wonder why the extremely biased Fraser Institute doesn't look at the period starting in 2007-8 (the last year of fiscal surplus) to today? Oh yeah, that "extremely biased" part. It took a couple of years to clean up the mess left by the Harris/Eves PC party you know.
-
I wonder why the extremely biased Fraser Institute doesn't look at the period starting in 2007-8 (the last year of fiscal surplus) to today? Oh yeah, that "extremely biased" part. It took a couple of years to clean up the mess left by the Harris/Eves PC party you know.
Why is the Fraser Institute 'extremely biased"? As far as I'm aware their only policy issue is taxes, spending and government efficiency. And they criticized the Harper government at times, too. The far left's disdain for the FI seems to arise out of their sense of indignation that FI cares about money and not 'human beings' like you do. But that's simply because you presume a sense of moral superiority to all your political positions.
As for the time it took to 'clean up the mess' I have some vague recollection of the Liberals taking over and then over-inflating the size of the deficit by playing dishonest accounting games and throwing in every possible debt obligation they could, even from future years. But that's not really relevant. What they looked at was the growth of program spending, the growth of revenue, population growth and inflation since the Liberals took power.
-
What they looked at was the growth of program spending, the growth of revenue, population growth and inflation since the Liberals took power.
Again, ignoring the deficit they were handed. A valid look is from a sound financial standing - period. Pretending that deficit was fake is just as foolish as you pretending the surplus the Liberals had this year is fake - it exposes your extreme partisan bias.
-
So we're also allowed to completely disregard any study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives then too right?
That depends on what they're saying. If they're simply stating what the deficit was from year to year, or how much spending has grown then I don't really see how they could be wrong aside from outright lying. But their bias in all things is fairly clear. They were founded by social workers, after all, and are ever eager for more government spending and more taxes. At least the Fraser Institute was founded by an economist.
-
Again, ignoring the deficit they were handed. A valid look is from a sound financial standing - period. Pretending that deficit was fake is just as foolish as you pretending the surplus the Liberals had this year is fake - it exposes your extreme partisan bias.
The Liberals own budget analyst say it's fake. Their own AG is threatening to declare their books fake. It's not like I'm making this up. And again, the analyses was only on PROGRAM SPENDING increases, which are irrelevant to what deficit they were or were not handed. Mulroney was handed a huge budget deficit but he decreased program spending.
I doubt there is not one thing the Liberals could do, even if their entire cabinet was convicted and thrown into prison, which would cause you to say one thing against them. You call others biased but I've criticized the Conservatives many times. You're the biggest partisan hack on this place.
-
At least the Fraser Institute was founded by an economist.
Most of its funding comes from big oil and big pharma. Peter Munk (recently deceased) gave them a huge grant a few years ago, Munk is associated with real-estate, Barrick Gold, and few other ventures.
-
Most of its funding comes from big oil and big pharma. Peter Munk (recently deceased) gave them a huge grant a few years ago, Munk is associated with real-estate, Barrick Gold, and few other ventures.
And lets not forget the Koch Brothers.
-
And lets not forget the Koch Brothers.
Yes, although I lumped them in with big oil.
-
Here is an excellent rundown on the corruption of the Liberal government, on how they've cooked the books, and on the billions extra their efforts are going to cost.
First they changed the accounting practices - without notifying the Auditor Genera' s office or the Financial Accountability Office
“In order for that to not show up on the bottom line, they created creative accounting to take it off the government’s statements,” Ms. Lysyk said.
Using that new accounting, the government declared it had balanced the province’s books for the fiscal year ended Mar. 31, 2018, just months before a general election. But Ms. Lysyk said that was not true. And the Financial Accountability Office, the body responsible for providing the legislative assembly with independent analysis and advice on Ontario’s finances, agreed: In December, it forecast that the province would actually rack up a deficit of $4-billion – a discrepancy that will grow markedly as the government’s off-balance-sheet borrowing continues.
...
Further, in order to ensure the borrowing wasn't showing up on the province's books they set up a separate agency to do the borrowing. Of course, that cost us just at teeny bit more, but hey, what's FOUR BILLION DOLLARS in extra costs if it helps make the hideously incompetent and corrupt Liberals look a little better?
The Fair Hydro Plan’s complexity comes at a cost. Had the province borrowed directly, the interest costs likely would total tens of billions of dollars over the plan’s duration. But using information and assumptions supplied by the government, the Financial Accountability Office (FAO) calculated the additional interest costs at $4-billion over 30 years. Said Ms. Lysyk: “We’re talking $4-billion more than needed, to get an accounting result.”
And let's not forget that in order to lower hydro costs, the government renegotiated loans that will wind up costing the people of Ontario $24 billion more than the decreased Hydro bills will save them. That's just how corrupt the Liberals are. I don't think any province or government in Canadian history has been willing to throw away tens of billions in hopes of increasing their popularity.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/investigations/article-bad-books-how-ontarios-new-hydro-accounting-could-cost-taxpayers/
-
And let's not forget that in order to lower hydro costs
...they amortized over a longer period of time. How many people could buy a house if they had to buy it over a 10 year amortization?
Stop with the over the top rhetoric, you can suggest we pay more for hydro by paying off loans faster but stop saying that is corrupt. You are so hyper partisan that you have to cook the story continually.
-
...they amortized over a longer period of time. How many people could buy a house if they had to buy it over a 10 year amortization?
Stop with the over the top rhetoric, you can suggest we pay more for hydro by paying off loans faster but stop saying that is corrupt. You are so hyper partisan that you have to cook the story continually.
Uh huh. I'm actually beginning to suspect you're an employee of the Liberal party, or at least the Liberal goverment. My quoting the AG and financial accountability office that the the Liberals have twisted the accounting system around in pretzels to pretend they had a surplus that doesn't exist is not being hyper partisan. You're enthusiastic defnse of them doing so IS.
My complaining that the Liberals have cost us tens of billions of dollars in order to lower hydro rateis is not being hyper partisan. You're blithely dismissing this as unimportant IS.
Here's a nice little movie for you.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/video-how-ontario-made-billions-in-debt-disappear/
-
Uh huh. I'm actually beginning to suspect you're an employee of the Liberal party, or at least the Liberal goverment. My quoting the AG and financial accountability office that the the Liberals have twisted the accounting system around in pretzels to pretend they had a surplus that doesn't exist is not being hyper partisan. You're enthusiastic defnse of them doing so IS.
My complaining that the Liberals have cost us tens of billions of dollars in order to lower hydro rateis is not being hyper partisan. You're blithely dismissing this as unimportant IS.
Here's a nice little movie for you.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/video-how-ontario-made-billions-in-debt-disappear/
Assuming you're little movie is accurate, it sounds similar to the Harper Cons. robbing the contingency fund to finally try and deliver a balanced budget unlike the previous 7 years of their time in office.
-
Assuming you're little movie is accurate, it sounds similar to the Harper Cons. robbing the contingency fund to finally try and deliver a balanced budget unlike the previous 7 years of their time in office.
Could you please recite a time when the Harper conservatives rigged up a system to borrow hundreds of billions so they could artificially lower taxes or rates in something at a cost of twenty one billion dollars - all to make themselves look good?
By the way, why is it that given you lefties think Harper was the most evil, cruel, heartless, ruthless, nasty, dishonest guy in history, every time a Liberal does something you instantly try to find something Harper does that you can equate to it and then smile smugly and say "So it's fine then!"
Like, you hated Harper, but if you're guy does what Harper did then it's okay...
-
Could you please recite a time when the Harper conservatives rigged up a system to borrow hundreds of billions so they could artificially lower taxes or rates in something at a cost of twenty one billion dollars - all to make themselves look good?
By the way, why is it that given you lefties think Harper was the most evil, cruel, heartless, ruthless, nasty, dishonest guy in history, every time a Liberal does something you instantly try to find something Harper does that you can equate to it and then smile smugly and say "So it's fine then!"
Like, you hated Harper, but if you're guy does what Harper did then it's okay...
Harper lowered the GST and that cost us billions.
-
Harper lowered the GST and that cost us billions.
Us? It cost 'us' billions? Where did that money go, pray tell?
-
Could you please recite a time when the Harper conservatives rigged up a system to borrow hundreds of billions so they could artificially lower taxes or rates in something at a cost of twenty one billion dollars - all to make themselves look good
I. 2008 they borrowed $120 billion off the books so they could give it to the banks and increase consumer debt to the now historic levels, all to artificially increase the economy and make themselves look good.
-
Us? It cost 'us' billions? Where did that money go, pray tell?
Interest paid to bankster barons
-
I. 2008 they borrowed $120 billion off the books so they could give it to the banks and increase consumer debt to the now historic levels, all to artificially increase the economy and make themselves look good.
You're seriously trying to equate the government trying to keep the banks in business during the greatest financial crisis since 1929 to Kathleen Wynne promising a rate cut in an election year and then borrowing hundreds of billions to pay for it?
-
Interest paid to bankster barons
Cutting the GST gave the money back to the people. Clearly you hate people and think government should own all... waaait a minute. Is there a red flag in your closet with a hammer and sickle on it?
-
Cutting the GST gave the money back to the people. Clearly you hate people and think government should own all... waaait a minute. Is there a red flag in your closet with a hammer and sickle on it?
geezaz! Your go-to Fraser Institute buddies are all about raising the GST back to pre-Harper cut levels. By the by, when you rail on about, say... health care wait-times (like your Fraser links/quotes (falsely) claim... just how much federal revenue has that Harper GST cut cost the government treasury in support of say, social services, hey? Why I'm reading estimates of $7 billion a year... why... it was the Harper Conservatives themselves who touted consumers would save $12 billion a year with a 2 point GST cut! Since you're on top of this, just how much money have "the people" got back since the Harper GST cuts?
geezaz, make up your mind, hey Argus!
-
geezaz! Your go-to Fraser Institute buddies are all about raising the GST back to pre-Harper cut levels. By the by, when you rail on about, say... health care wait-times (like your Fraser links/quotes (falsely) claim... just how much federal revenue has that Harper GST cut cost the government treasury in support of say, social services, hey? Why I'm reading estimates of $7 billion a year... why... it was the Harper Conservatives themselves who touted consumers would save $12 billion a year with a 2 point GST cut! Since you're on top of this, just how much money have "the people" got back since the Harper GST cuts?
geezaz, make up your mind, hey Argus!
And JT is right on raising it back to 7% right?
-
I saw the Attack ad referenced in this column.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-desperate-wynne-goes-dirty-because-what-other-choice-does-she-have
I too did a double take when I heard abortion being trotted out as an issue for the party. It must be the last bastion of desperate Liberal governments to go to that tactic.
The abortion claim relates to Ford’s willingness to let caucus members pursue legislation on matters of importance to them, and his remark that “kids can’t even get their tonsils out without the approval of their parents,” but that no similar consultation applies to abortion.
His opposition to cap-and-trade reflects the growing view that taxing carbon hasn’t proven effective in the war against global warming, and has largely become a revenue grab for heavily-indebted governments. The PCs do not reject climate change, they simply believe the tax regime isn’t helping.
The mud-flinging reflects a similar effort launched in the dying days of Paul Martin’s federal government, when the Liberals prepared ads warning that Conservatives under Stephen Harper would put troops in the streets of Toronto and ban desperate women from obtaining abortions. The Ontario Liberals’ willingness to fight dirty is not in question.
-
I too did a double take when I heard abortion being trotted out as an issue for the party. It must be the last bastion of desperate Liberal governments to go to that tactic.
McParland, really?
It was Doug Ford that brought up abortion. It was Doug Ford that brought up carbon pricing. Sure blame the Liberals on subjects that Ford introduced. Next you will claim Ford is playing a clean campaign because he claims so, all the while ignoring he began with calling Wynne corrupt and saying there would be several members of her cabinet going behind bars. That moron is Donald Trump, complete with the "lock her up" chants despite the fact that there are willing blind and stupid followers of him.
-
...they amortized over a longer period of time. How many people could buy a house if they had to buy it over a 10 year amortization?
Stop with the over the top rhetoric, you can suggest we pay more for hydro by paying off loans faster but stop saying that is corrupt. You are so hyper partisan that you have to cook the story continually.
From the Globe & Mail: "The Ontario government’s Fair Hydro Plan reduced Ontarian’s electricity bills by about 25%. But the government’s books don’t reflect the costs. The Auditor-General of Ontario says the government used “bogus” accounting to hide the debt from their books."
-
McParland, really?
It was Doug Ford that brought up abortion. It was Doug Ford that brought up carbon pricing. Sure blame the Liberals on subjects that Ford introduced. Next you will claim Ford is playing a clean campaign because he claims so, all the while ignoring he began with calling Wynne corrupt and saying there would be several members of her cabinet going behind bars. That moron is Donald Trump, complete with the "lock her up" chants despite the fact that there are willing blind and stupid followers of him.
Wynne is corrupt. And that's the type if fear mongering we saw in 2006 with Troops in the Street ads. Ford is Pro Choice but the point is valid that there are so many things parents have to be consulted about before a kid can do it, but not abortion? It doesn't mean he's looking to take anyone's right away.
-
Wynne is corrupt. And that's the type if fear mongering we saw in 2006 with Troops in the Street ads.
waldo schooling (yet again): as you've been advised previously... that much ballyhooed "troops in the streets" never saw more than a few short "minutes" on a website... it never got any mainstream play as an attack ad... more pointedly, it was Paul Martin who ordered it taken down. I'm shocked you don't listen to the waldo - shocked, I tells ya - shocked!
-
Again, ignoring the deficit they were handed. A valid look is from a sound financial standing - period. Pretending that deficit was fake is just as foolish as you pretending the surplus the Liberals had this year is fake - it exposes your extreme partisan bias.
The ON liberals came into power in 2003, it's now 2018. They've had 15 years to show how they can manage taxpayer money. Blaming their performance on some other government from 15 years ago doesn't fly. Yes they had to deal with the recession, but they dealt with it by spending into oblivion (much of it wasteful) beyond what the vast majority of other sub-national governments had to do to get through the recession. The province has the worst debt of any regional government in the world.
Their spending has been foolish. They vastly over-spent on hydro infrastructure that ON residents don't use & is sitting around burning money & will continue to do so for decades, meanwhile every home & business in the province is paying for those mistakes out of their pockets with terribly overpriced hydro bills, that's ridiculous amounts of money from business and consumers that could have been spent in the economy but is literally being thrown in the garbage every month. Then they burnt more money on the gas plant scandal fiasco. Then to provide relief for their huge hydro incompetence they create a scheme that will create many billions more in interest payments in the coming decades, & then fudge the books to hide the true costs (according to the auditor general).
On top of this, the Libs want to give everyone the moon when they not only don't have the revenue for it but are already deeply struggling in debt & deficit. Free daycare, free pharmacare, free dental, free drive-clean tests, free post-secondary tuition for incomes <50k, i can't even remember them all. They want to increase spending on already ridiculous debt & deficits, the recession is over but they have no interest in returning spending to pre-recession levels, no interest in surpluses or balanced budgets through at least 2025 (unless its in an election year to try to trick people into thinking they are financially responsible). Debt interest payments alone are currently $14 billion a year and projected to increase through at least 2025.
Then they think a population of 14 million people is going to save the planet, so they hamper their economy even more by slapping all sorts of taxes on gas at the pumps so they can mispend that revenue. Ontarians pay almost 40 cents for a every litre of gas on taxes!! Wouldn't be so bad if that money didn't go to debt interest payments and all sorts of other waste.
-
waldo schooling (yet again): as you've been advised previously... that much ballyhooed "troops in the streets" never saw more than a few short "minutes" on a website... it never got any mainstream play as an attack ad... more pointedly, it was Paul Martin who ordered it taken down. I'm shocked you don't listen to the waldo - shocked, I tells ya - shocked!
As if the fear-mongering didn't hit its mark regardless. We all know about that ad because of how ridiculous it was.
Just like evoking abortion rights and Donal Trump to smear DoFo will do the same to Wynne.
-
Interest paid to bankster barons
Interest paid to the banks is based on debt, meaning money you spend that you don't have. If Harper gov lowers the GST, that's money back directly into your pocket.
-
From the Globe & Mail: "The Ontario government’s Fair Hydro Plan reduced Ontarian’s electricity bills by about 25%. But the government’s books don’t reflect the costs. The Auditor-General of Ontario says the government used “bogus” accounting to hide the debt from their books."
And the added cost of that debt and its interest will be $21 BILLION more than was saved in reduced hydro rates...
This is what you call a policy of short term gain for long term pain. Who but an idiot implements a policy like that?
-
The Liberals have borrowed money to artificially lower Hydro Rates twice now. Completely ridiculous.
-
Interest paid to the banks is based on debt, meaning money you spend that you don't have. If Harper gov lowers the GST, that's money back directly into your pocket.
And several times more comes out over time.
-
The ON liberals came into power in 2003, it's now 2018. They've had 15 years to show how they can manage taxpayer money.
...and the cleaned up things from the PCs in the first 5 years before the recession hit, but you ignore completely. Why do you ignore hard, cold, facts?
-
...and the cleaned up things from the PCs in the first 5 years before the recession hit, but you ignore completely. Why do you ignore hard, cold, facts?
Do they want a cookie? They've also doubled the province's debt. The PCs didn't do that.
A lot of the problems with the 2003 budget can be linked to the Blackout and SARS
-
Do they want a cookie?
No, lets just stick to the real facts and not the made up alternative facts that seem to come from the die hard right wing. I never voted for the Liberals, and don't intend to. I want to see them gone. I don't however want to see a complete moron like Doug Ford in there.
-
No, lets just stick to the real facts and not the made up alternative facts that seem to come from the die hard right wing. I never voted for the Liberals, and don't intend to. I want to see them gone. I don't however want to see a complete moron like Doug Ford in there.
Or Patrick Brown, or whoever else they pick they have as their leader.
The good thing about DoFo is that he can win Toronto seats that other PC candidate may have had no shot at.
That's why he's actually doing better in the polls than Brown now. Either that or people just hate Wynne so much and her desperation is off putting.
-
And several times more comes out over time.
What do you mean by this?
-
What do you mean by this?
The supposed money in your pockets. The last time I calculated, we paid over 3 times the amount for debt incurred and since we haven't paid back the principal yet it will be well over that in the end.
-
...and the cleaned up things from the PCs in the first 5 years before the recession hit, but you ignore completely. Why do you ignore hard, cold, facts?
They ran a couple of surpluses early on right? Well that's good at least. But those days are long gone history and aren't coming back until through 2025 and beyond according to the Liberal budget just released. Meanwhile during those early years the Liberals began designing and implementing their disastrous hydro infrastructure and contracting plans. The AG found that the province produces twice the electricity needed on the average day. This is the same government obsessed with energy consumption reductions for the environment.
-
The supposed money in your pockets. The last time I calculated, we paid over 3 times the amount for debt incurred and since we haven't paid back the principal yet it will be well over that in the end.
Well in principle yes a GST reduction sounds good but if it means more interest payments because the government doesn't pay down the debt yes that's not good as you say. The CPC reduced the GST before the recession hit, bad timing i guess.
-
...and the cleaned up things from the PCs in the first 5 years before the recession hit, but you ignore completely. Why do you ignore hard, cold, facts?
Bullshit. The Tories ran one year with a small deficit. How did that take five years of steady, heavy increases in taxes and program spending to 'clear up', you Liberal party hack?
-
No, lets just stick to the real facts and not the made up alternative facts that seem to come from the die hard right wing. I never voted for the Liberals, and don't intend to.
You've defended the Liberals at both levels against any and all complaints and allegations for years. If Trudeau wants to have a crap you rush forward to cup your hands.
-
Well in principle yes a GST reduction sounds good but if it means more interest payments because the government doesn't pay down the debt yes that's not good as you say. The CPC reduced the GST before the recession hit, bad timing i guess.
Or good timing, if you believe economic incentives help offset a recession. And since all three opposition parties were very nearly hysterical about the desperate need for economic incentive spending I fail to see how their complaints years later can be taken as anything more than total crap.
-
The supposed money in your pockets. The last time I calculated, we paid over 3 times the amount for debt incurred and since we haven't paid back the principal yet it will be well over that in the end.
Yes, that's bad if the conservatives do it to give people more of their own money to spend, but outstanding and brilliant public policy when the liberals do it in order to finance a temporary lowering of the hydro rates before an election.
-
You've defended the Liberals at both levels against any and all complaints and allegations for years. If Trudeau wants to have a crap you rush forward to cup your hands.
I guess this is one of your "nuanced" responses you try to brag about eh?
-
Wasn't trying to be nuanced, you yappy little mongrel.
Well keep trying l'il buddy, you'll get there someday.
-
In New Brunswick they raised he HST back to 15%. It will be cute if they raise GST back to 7% and the province doesn’t reduce the HST by 2% because we’ll be paying 17% consumption tax if they don’t.
-
Bullshit. The Tories ran one year with a small deficit. How did that take five years of steady, heavy increases in taxes and program spending to 'clear up', you Liberal party hack?
Bull, bull,bullshit. the Tories had several years of deficit, and only managed to balance the budget by selling off assets at firesale prices. The lost future revenue from those assets have destroyed our provincial budget.
-
Yes, that's bad if the conservatives do it to give people more of their own money to spend, but outstanding and brilliant public policy when the liberals do it in order to finance a temporary lowering of the hydro rates before an election.
Yes, like the 407, Bruce nuclear, etc. This is the Tory destruction of our finances for decades to come.
-
Yes, like the 407, Bruce nuclear, etc. This is the Tory destruction of our finances for decades to come.
And not doubling the Provinces debt over 15 years. Blaming Harris/Eves will be a sure fire way for Wynne to lose this election. I'm eagerly awaiting Wynne's quadrennial trip to Walkerton next month.
-
In New Brunswick they raised he HST back to 15%. It will be cute if they raise GST back to 7% and the province doesn’t reduce the HST by 2% because we’ll be paying 17% consumption tax if they don’t.
A consumption tax is actually a better, more intelligent and even more progressive way to collect taxes than income taxes. However if you have a high consumption tax you're supposed to compensate by lowering income taxes.
-
A consumption tax is actually a better, more intelligent and even more progressive way to collect taxes than income taxes.
How so? Everyone has to pay consumption taxes equally, this is just another way of shifting the burden from the haves to the have nots.
-
How so? Everyone has to pay consumption taxes equally, this is just another way of shifting the burden from the haves to the have nots.
Well food is exempt from the HST.
People who can afford expensive products pay 13%, 15% or whatever on those products.
And there are GST rebates for lower income people.
-
Bull, bull,bullshit. the Tories had several years of deficit,
Yes, because they inherited an enormous deficit from the Liberals.
and only managed to balance the budget by selling off assets at firesale prices.
You mean like the Liberals selling off Ontario Hydro
I doubt they managed to have surpluses in multiple years simply by selling off assets. They cut welfare in half and made many other major cuts. Their last year in office they were beset by multiple crisis not of their making, like SARS, and wound up with a small deficit. The Liberals lied about the size through creative accounting.
Ontario is on track for a balanced Budget in 2002-03. With surpluses recorded in each of the past three years, the Province's Budget will be balanced for the fourth year in a row. http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/26003/227172.pdf
-
How so? Everyone has to pay consumption taxes equally, this is just another way of shifting the burden from the haves to the have nots.
If you make a lot more you spend a lot more, which means you pay a lot more. If there's no consumption tax on basic necessities like some foods and medicine - and rent, then you wind up paying a higher percentage of your income in taxes, too.
-
If there's no consumption tax on basic necessities like some foods and medicine - and rent,
This is Canada, we need to wear clothes in the winter and the prissy conservatives will complain if we don't in the summer.
-
This is Canada, we need to wear clothes in the winter and the prissy conservatives will complain if we don't in the summer.
And clothes you buy at Walmart probably cost a fraction of what they do at Harry Rosen's. So the rich guy is still going to be paying way more than the poor guy.
-
A consumption tax is actually a better, more intelligent and even more progressive way to collect taxes than income taxes. However if you have a high consumption tax you're supposed to compensate by lowering income taxes.
NB compensated by having one of the highest provincial income tax rates.
-
NB compensated by having one of the highest provincial income tax rates.
The Atlantic provinces have the highest personal and corporate tax rates in Canada.
Which helps to explain their sky high unemployment rates. What business wants to locate there unless it's one that needs the ocean?
-
The Atlantic provinces have the highest personal and corporate tax rates in Canada.
Which helps to explain their sky high unemployment rates. What business wants to locate there unless it's one that needs the ocean?
Yet the taxes are high because there are so few businesses here. And make no mistake about it, The Irvings are not paying the "legislated" tax rate. The breaks they get are enormous, just like the "call centres" that were bribed to move here. It's a chicken-egg problem. They can't lower taxes because the tax base is too small. The tax base is too small (according to you) because they can't lower taxes. So what interventions do you propose? (even though this probably isn't the thread for it)
-
Yet the taxes are high because there are so few businesses here. And make no mistake about it, The Irvings are not paying the "legislated" tax rate. The breaks they get are enormous, just like the "call centres" that were bribed to move here. It's a chicken-egg problem. They can't lower taxes because the tax base is too small. The tax base is too small (according to you) because they can't lower taxes. So what interventions do you propose? (even though this probably isn't the thread for it)
I'm not an expert, though I play one on the internet. So I'm sure not going to propose solutions to state of moribund economies of the Atlantic provinces which has existed as far back as I remember. But when government becomes a major part of the economy and the major employer you usually wind up with masses of unneeded bureaucrats and a bureaucracy which delays, deters and depresses economic activity - on top of the high taxes. If the Atlantic provinces want to draw business investment they need to be a better place to make money than other places business can locate. Why locate a factory in New Brunswick rather than Ontario or Quebec, with their much greater populations and closer access to big US population centres? The only reason would be it's cheaper there. And it's not. It's more expensive and how do you make it less expensive? Why is it more expensive? That's something that has to be looked into by people with a lot more knowledge than me.
-
So the Auditor General has come out swinging again. She states bluntly that the Liberal's budget will be almost double what they say it is.
Ontario’s fiscal watchdog is warning that the province’s deficit projections are billions of dollars more than disclosed in last month’s budget.
Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, who is in an ongoing accounting dispute with Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals, said this year’s shortfall is $11.7 billion, not $6.7 billion, as Finance Minister Charles Sousa forecast March 28.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/04/25/in-scathing-pre-election-report-auditor-general-says-deficit-is-117b-not-67b.html
-
The difference is entirely accounting and not actual spending.
-
The difference is entirely accounting and not actual spending.
Said every convicted fraudster and embezzler and money launderer in history...
-
The difference is entirely accounting and not actual spending.
They say they're spending one thing but it's actually another, so that people are more likely to vote for them soon. Sounds like anti-democratic corruption to me.
-
They say they're spending one thing but it's actually another
No
-
No
They're using money they don't actually have access to as an asset. A $6 billion deficit should be galling enough.
-
They're using money they don't actually have access to as an asset.
Four out of five accountants disagree with you, along with all three major political parties in Ontario.
-
No
Well...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-ontario-auditor-general-says-province-substantially-understating/
Ontario’s Auditor-General says the Liberals have understated the province’s projected deficits by billions of dollars, casting doubt on the government’s fiscal forecast weeks ahead of a spring election.
It’s the latest development in a long-running dispute between Bonnie Lysyk and Canada’s second-largest government. Finance Minister Charles Sousa repeated his assertion on Wednesday that the Liberals had delivered a small surplus for the fiscal year ended March 31 – the first balanced budget in Ontario since the financial crisis of 2008-09. However, during the release of last month’s budget, he projected deficits of more than $6-billion over each of the next three years and further shortfalls for the following three.
Ms. Lysyk presented a much different picture on Wednesday when she released her review of last month’s pre-election report, a financial document that the government is obliged to present to Ontarians before an election. She concluded that the report substantially understated expenses and deficits and “is not a reasonable presentation of Ontario’s finances.”
Using proper accounting, she said, this fiscal year’s deficit should have been forecast at $11.7-billion, or 75 per cent higher than the government’s estimate of $6.7-billion. By 2020, Ms. Lysyk’s estimate of the deficit is nearly double that supplied by the government.
-
Four out of five accountants disagree with you, along with all three major political parties in Ontario.
Cites would be helpful.
-
The PCs had paid supporters (actors) at a Doug Ford rally.
https://www.cp24.com/mobile/news/pc-candidate-hired-actors-to-stump-for-doug-ford-outside-debate-1.3920414
-
The PCs had paid supporters (actors) at a Doug Ford rally.
I have never heard of an actor who supported a Ford. I guess those were all of them.
-
Didn't take the Ford campaign to do something utterly stupid and dishonest...
-
This is like having Dave from Scarborough and Dave from Georgetown call into the Rob & Doug shitshow on 1010 redneck radio. Dave turned out to be David Price, a childhood friend of the Fords who they gave a $130k job at city hall that he was unqualified to fill and almost double the salary of the previous holder of the position.
-
They actually have a guy on CBC Metro Morning saying that polls are to be viewed with caution.
What are we to infer from this ? Of course that Doug Ford will not be winning the election. Am I right ? :D
-
A middle class tax cut!!!! ;D
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-tax-cut-ontario-election-1.4656726
An Ontario Progressive Conservative government would implement a cut in the second Ontario tax bracket, party leader Doug Ford said Thursday.
The rate reduction would apply on earnings between $42,960 and $85,923. The maximum savings for a taxpayer would be $786 per year, which would go to those earning $85, 923 and up, while most families would see more modest savings.
This and the promise to relax liqour laws so beer and wine can be sold in more places are enough to vote for DoFo by itself.
-
A middle class tax cut!!!! ;D
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-tax-cut-ontario-election-1.4656726
This and the promise to relax liqour laws so beer and wine can be sold in more places are enough to vote for DoFo by itself.
apparently, DODO defines 'middle class' as someone making <$86K per year - who knew, who knew!
For example, the average Ontario worker earns a taxable income of $53,000. Under the current rate of 9.15 per cent, that worker pays $2,565 in provincial income tax. With a rate of 7.32 per cent, as promised by Ford, that same worker would pay $2,380, saving $185 per year — the equivalent of a 7.7 per cent cut.
wowzers!
Boges, you're too easy - surely you can squeeze him for more! ;D
-
apparently, DODO defines 'middle class' as someone making <$86K per year - who knew, who knew!
wowzers!
Boges, you're too easy - surely you can squeeze him for more! ;D
Yes, with the incompetence and corruption of the current government, stuff like this is all I need.
-
A middle class tax cut!!!! ;D
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ford-tax-cut-ontario-election-1.4656726
This and the promise to relax liqour laws so beer and wine can be sold in more places are enough to vote for DoFo by itself.
So you’re in favour of even bigger deficits? Not very conservative of you.... sold your principles for a few dollars in your pocket and the ability to buy beer at 7/11.
-
This and the promise to relax liqour laws so beer and wine can be sold in more places are enough to vote for DoFo by itself.
Yes, if you or moronic to buy his bull and not see that he will drive the debt through the roof and you will be stuck with a bill 10 times as big.
-
Yes, if you or moronic to buy his bull and not see that he will drive the debt through the roof and you will be stuck with a bill 10 times as big.
There is pretty much ZERO chance a PC government will run up debt in anything like the amount the Liberals have done or the NDP would do.
Unlike the other parties their membership will demand they work hard for a balanced budget - a real one, not one gotten through account fraud like the Liberals.
-
There is pretty much ZERO chance a PC government will run up debt in anything like the amount the Liberals have done or the NDP would do.
Liberal plan is to maintain or slightly drop debt:GDP ratio
NDP pan is to lower debt:GDP ratio
batbrain Ford plan is to grow the debt:GDP ratio greatly
Listen to what they are saying, it is clear as day. Stop it with the bullcrap statements based on your biases, listen to the friggen plans.
-
Liberal plan is to maintain or slightly drop debt:GDP ratio
NDP pan is to lower debt:GDP ratio
batbrain Ford plan is to grow the debt:GDP ratio greatly
Listen to what they are saying, it is clear as day. Stop it with the bullcrap statements based on your biases, listen to the friggen plans.
This 'debt to gdp' is something we've started hearing about only since Trudeau got elected. It's become a new sacred mantra to the Left. "We can keep borrowing money as long as the 'debt to gdp ratio' doesn't go up!
I'm not really interested in what Ford says. The Conservative Party has a culture, if you wish, of cutting, not raising taxes, and trying to balance the budget. The Conservatives have likewise promised to balance the budget. I'm willing to give them a chance to do so since the Liberals and NDP haven't shown much interest in that direction.
-
This 'debt to gdp' is something we've started hearing about only since Trudeau got elected. It's become a new sacred mantra to the Left. "We can keep borrowing money as long as the 'debt to gdp ratio' doesn't go up!
I'm not really interested in what Ford says. The Conservative Party has a culture, if you wish, of cutting, not raising taxes, and trying to balance the budget. The Conservatives have likewise promised to balance the budget. I'm willing to give them a chance to do so since the Liberals and NDP haven't shown much interest in that direction.
Well we all saw what the conservatives under Harper did with budgets at the federal level.
-
This 'debt to gdp' is something we've started hearing about only since Trudeau got elected.
...
The Conservative Party has a culture, if you wish, of cutting, not raising taxes, and trying to balance the budget.
No, we heard it a lot from Harper so stop with the revisionist history.
...
Conservatives talk a lot, but they have the absolute wosrt record delivering balanced budgets.
-
Well we all saw what the conservatives under Harper did with budgets at the federal level.
Stimulated the economy during the worst global economic crisis since the 30's?
-
This election is about choosing which gun to pick up and shoot yourself in the face with. Red gun? Blue gun? Orange gun?
-
Stimulated the economy during the worst global economic crisis since the 30's?
I'd like to see you evidence of that. All he really did was drive the debt through the roof.
-
I'd like to see you evidence of that. All he really did was drive the debt through the roof.
It's basic macro economic theory that virtually every western government did as well: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp
-
Stimulated the economy during the worst global economic crisis since the 30's?
This.
-
Stimulated the economy during the worst global economic crisis since the 30's?
Harper was very clear about has 2 year brain dead shovel ready plan to spend without any plan for the future, then he proceed to have another 5 years of massive deficits, one fake surplus and again deficit. This also ignores the fact he went into deficit before the recession despite having a massive surplus handed to him on a golden platter.
-
Harper was very clear about has 2 year brain dead shovel ready plan to spend without any plan for the future, then he proceed to have another 5 years of massive deficits, one fake surplus and again deficit. This also ignores the fact he went into deficit before the recession despite having a massive surplus handed to him on a golden platter.
So you would have been on your feet applauding him if he introduced an austerity plan when the recession hit ?
Many were surprised that Harper took a pragmatic and non-ideloague approach to stimulating the economy. Pleasantly so.
-
So you would have been on your feet applauding him if he introduced an austerity plan when the recession hit ?
No, if he used his brain and invested in technology, education, infrastructure that would position us for growth, research, etc. then he would have had my support. The shovel ready criteria only created a bbunch of white elephants that have zero lasting value to our economy.
-
You can always find something wrong with the opposition... if you're an apparatchik.
-
You can always find something wrong with the opposition... if you're an apparatchik.
... what opposition? The problem is there are far too many partisan hacks around that don't care about the country, they only think with an us/them mentality. Incapable of advancing the agenda for all.
-
No, if he used his brain and invested in technology, education, infrastructure that would position us for growth, research, etc. then he would have had my support. The shovel ready criteria only created a bbunch of white elephants that have zero lasting value to our economy.
A great deal of the "economic stimulus" was spent on transportation infrastructure. I'm all for investing in technology, education, and research, but the main goal of the economic stimulus was to employ people (ie "shovel ready" jobs).
-k
-
... what opposition? The problem is there are far too many partisan hacks around that don't care about the country, they only think with an us/them mentality. Incapable of advancing the agenda for all.
Like you.
Anyone bitching about the Tories spending money in the last recession who supports one of the other parties who DEMANDED they spend money, and whose only complaint the entire time was they weren't spending enough money is a **** partisan hack.
-
Harper was very clear about has 2 year brain dead shovel ready plan to spend without any plan for the future, then he proceed to have another 5 years of massive deficits, one fake surplus and again deficit. This also ignores the fact he went into deficit before the recession despite having a massive surplus handed to him on a golden platter.
I don't have a problem running deficits in a huge global recession. You're right about the fake surpluses, which governments seem to do these days, as if we're a bunch of morons. I'm not a Harper gov fan, but to run the deficits was a no-brainer. If they spent them properly or not is another story, but the economy seemed to weather the storm well, though much of that had nothing to do with the Harper gov. They didn't hike global oil prices and drop oil in the alberta oil sands for instance.
Our economy is fairly healthy right now, it's even had sectors heating up from over-speculation, now's the time to crank those deficits back down and pay back some of the money we borrowed during the recession so that when the next recession inevitably hits we'll have the financial means to run deficits again. This is how Keynesian economics 101 is supposed to work.
Our governments are as stupid as many consumers out there, everyone wants nice things and will keep spending into debt stupidly to do it. Canadians are some of the worst at this.
-
Like you.
Anyone bitching about the Tories spending money in the last recession who supports one of the other parties who DEMANDED they spend money, and whose only complaint the entire time was they weren't spending enough money is a **** partisan hack.
I never DEMANDED they spend money, especially like drunk stupid sailors. I was very vocal at the time about how they were wasting money on totally useless shyte.
It is extreme partisan hacks like you that don't stop to think.
A great deal of the "economic stimulus" was spent on transportation infrastructure. I'm all for investing in technology, education, and research, but the main goal of the economic stimulus was to employ people (ie "shovel ready" jobs).
We have a frigen UI system, you know the one that Harper in his extreme idiocy wrecked, that helps people through recessions. A great deal of the "economic stupidity" was spent on putting up friggen signs around gazebos and other dumb things, and Harper and his political stooges made a lot of parisan political hay about spending my money.
-
I never DEMANDED they spend money, especially like drunk stupid sailors. I was very vocal at the time about how they were wasting money on totally useless shyte.
The Liberal Party and the NDP and the BQ were all demanding he spend MORE. They even forgot about their differences and tried to form a government to boot him out because they said he wasn't spending enough. And when he was spending their only problem was he wasn't spending more. So to criticize the Conservatives for this is total bullshit. YOUR side would have spent even more.
We have a frigen UI system, you know the one that Harper in his extreme idiocy wrecked,
Our UI system was wrecked long ago. It ceased being a real employment insurance program and became just another welfare and income redistribution program long before Harper came on the scene. Atlantic Canada is a baby sucking on the teat of UI all year long. Their economy is even structured around it, with companies giving people work for 15 weeks or so, which is all it takes to qualify them to live the rest of their year on welfare -- excuse me, pogey. And they do that year after year. Lots of industries now use EI as a subsidy. Especially tradesmen and fishermen. They use it year after year after year. It's not bloody insurance it's welfare.
A great deal of the "economic stupidity" was spent on putting up friggen signs around gazebos and other dumb things, and Harper and his political stooges made a lot of parisan political hay about spending my money.
This from the guy who gets a hard-on every time he sees Kathleen Wynne's picture. The Liberals at both levels, whether Trudeau or Chretien, have used the taxpayer as a piggy bank for political purposes as long as I can remember. Kathleen Wynne even changed the law so she could have the taxpayer pay for her political advertising. Chretien put so much **** into his crappy little nothing riding it was beyond belief. He had the government pay for everything from government agencies being moved there to museums and fountains and roads and airports. His government spent hundreds of millions on patronage, and yet every **** lefty stilll squeals in outrage because needle nose Clement spent $50k on parks in his riding. Why did Trudeau just pledge $60 million for an aluminum smelter in Chicoutami? Why is that the federal government's business? Oh, he then calls a byelection there just two days later. Yeah, but that's not patronage that'll concern the likes of you. He changes the immigration law to double the number of seniors allowed to immigrate to Canada at a cost of $3 billion in additional health care and social transfer costs. He did it to win votes among immigrants. That it cost Canada $3 billion was completely irrelevent to him. It's just taxpayer money, after all. Did you complain about that? Not bloody likely. And when Kathleen Wynne renegotiated the Hydro loans to temporarily lower hydro rates in an election year, did you complain? Nope. You defended her. Even though according to her own AG the additional money spent over what is saved will be $21 BILLION. You didn't give a fat ****. Well worth the cost, you figure, if it helps her get re-elected.
But no, go bleat about Tony Clement's **** gazebo, you hack.
-
Aluminum smelters provide jobs making material that provides trade. Gazebos, not so much.
-
YOUR side would have spent even more.
I can't relate, this us/them issue is something only you extreme partisan hacks understand.
-
I can't relate, this us/them issue is something only you extreme partisan hacks understand.
Yeah, you're so neutral and unbiased. ::)
-
So now we're deflecting from the irresponsible spending and corruption of this current Ontario Liberal government and complaining about the Harper Tories.
The OLP and their fans are desperate AF!!!
BTW the Elementary Teacher's Union is supporting the NDP. The teachers do remember Rae days right?
There's a scenario where we get an NDP government like in 1990.
-
BTW the Elementary Teacher's Union is supporting the NDP. The teachers do remember Rae days right?
There's a scenario where we get an NDP government like in 1990.
Well consider the alternatives are the Wynne gov or a Ford gov. Slim pickin's!
Not that anyone cares what an elementary school union supports.
-
Well consider the alternatives are the Wynne gov or a Ford gov. Slim pickin's!
I prefer to think of it as the richly proven incompetent and corruption of the Liberal party, vs the likely much better Progressive Conservative party.
Not that anyone cares what an elementary school union supports.
That support comes with money and 'volunteers' on the ground to help during the election.
-
the likely much better Progressive Conservative party.
Instead of being sucked in by the marketing rhetoric, I look at policies and history that prove conclusively the opposite.
-
Instead of being sucked in by the marketing rhetoric, I look at policies and history that prove conclusively the opposite.
Like 15 years of Liberal policies?
-
Like 15 years of Liberal policies?
I haven't supported a Liberal government in Ontario sice the early 80's, you are barking up the wrong tree.
-
Instead of being sucked in by the marketing rhetoric, I look at policies and history that prove conclusively the opposite.
History? Harper putting in a big incentive spending program in the midst of a terrible recession - at the insistence of the NDP and Liberals?
Mulroney inheriting a 45 billion deficit from Trudeau in the midst of stagflation?
Mike Harris in Ontario, where one out of eight people were on welfare when he took over?
What you call history is pretty one sided. Because Canadians are stupid and selfish and they prefer voting for the party that offers them lots of free stuff. It's only when things go sufficiently down the toilet they turn to the cleaners to come in and clean things up. And that usually doesn't start with big surpluses. But your ideology blinds you to reality.
Every NDP and Liberal government has been a diaster for Ontario. The only party which has ruled well here during my lifetime are the Progressive Conservatives.
-
I haven't supported a Liberal government in Ontario sice the early 80's, you are barking up the wrong tree.
And yet you support them online. Constantly. Against any and all criticism.
-
The only party which has ruled well here during my lifetime are the Progressive Conservatives.
Which instance was that, because I paid very close attention to the Harris Conservatives after I voted for them the second time and realized they were just a walking disaster. I apologize for not spending enough time upfront to realize that what they said was complete hokey.
-
I prefer to think of it as the richly proven incompetent and corruption of the Liberal party, vs the likely much better Progressive Conservative party.
I prefer to think of it as not the likely much better Progressive Conservative party, but the likely less worse PC party. The PC party is still very likely going to suck, they're a disaster, so many nutty candidates and an uninformed leader.
-
Which instance was that, because I paid very close attention to the Harris Conservatives after I voted for them the second time and realized they were just a walking disaster. I apologize for not spending enough time upfront to realize that what they said was complete hokey.
What did they do that was 'complete hockey'. It seems to me they said what they were going to do up front and then pretty much did it.
As opposed to the Liberals. Who lied about everything they intended doing, and implemented disastrous and incompetent economic policies.
-
What did they do that was 'complete hockey'. It seems to me they said what they were going to do up front and then pretty much did it.
As opposed to the Liberals. Who lied about everything they intended doing, and implemented disastrous and incompetent economic policies.
Well for one thing they sold Hwy 407 in an attempt to fulfill campaign promises and still ended up with a huge deficit.
-
Well for one thing they sold Hwy 407 in an attempt to fulfill campaign promises and still ended up with a huge deficit.
Should a liberal supporter be calling the small deficit they had in their last year, largely due to SARS, 'huge'?
-
Should a liberal supporter be calling the small deficit they had in their last year, largely due to SARS, 'huge'?
Harper did the same thing when he robbed the "rainy day fund" to finally eke out a phony "balanced" budget as he struggled to hold onto power.
-
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-smarter-more-capable-kathleen-wynne-makes-it-difficult-to-see-her-lose
Blatchford comes out for Wynne??
-
Harper did the same thing when he robbed the "rainy day fund" to finally eke out a phony "balanced" budget as he struggled to hold onto power.
Harper used fraudulent books? I don't recall his AG ever complaining that Harper was fudging the books and lying about how much money the government was borrowing. I don't recall Harper ever making a deal that would cost Canadians $21 billion in additional loan costs in order to look good in the run-up to an election either.
-
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-smarter-more-capable-kathleen-wynne-makes-it-difficult-to-see-her-lose
Blatchford comes out for Wynne??
I think Wynne almost certainly IS smarter and better informed than Ford. What Blatchford leaves out is she's so utterly and thoroughly corrupt that she sees nothing wrong with renegotiating loans to temporarily lower hydro costs in the run-up to an election, even though that will cost the people of Ontario an additional $21 BILLION dollars over the course of the loan. That's money we have to repay that we needn't have. Not only that but because she tried to hide it 'off the books' by having the corporation borrow the money, they will pay a higher interest rate which cost another $4 billion than if the Ontario government had borrowed it directly. Imagine the corruption of a person and a party willing to throw billions of public money down the toilet just to make themselves look good before an election! But then, this isn't a unique event. They cancelled gas plants prior to the last election because they were afraid of losing a couple of ridings, and that cost Ontarions another billion dollars.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-ontarios-hydro-bill-cuts-will-cost-21-billion-more-than-they-save-us-its-terrible-public-policy
-
Not only that but because she tried to hide it 'off the books' by having the corporation borrow the money, they will pay a higher interest rate which cost another $4 billion than if the Ontario government had borrowed it directly.
So you finally agree that the Mike Harris Electricity Act of 1998 that destroyed public utilities and privatized them is the root cause of many of the problems in Ontario.
-
illegal fund raising/campaigning by DoFo.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-fundraiser-elections-ontario-finances-act-1.4666872
-
You know, I'll concede that DoFo is promising things that he'll never be able to accomplish.
But guess what. . . ? So are the Liberals and the NDP.
Tim Hudak was frank and honest about what it would take to get Ontario back on track and he lost. Wynne lied and got elected.
There's no way Ontario can afford to give families free pharmacare and day care without exponentially increasing taxes or the debt. She's playing politics like she always does.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
-
So you finally agree that the Mike Harris Electricity Act of 1998 that destroyed public utilities and privatized them is the root cause of many of the problems in Ontario.
The Liberals have been in charge for 15 years and you're still trying to blame Mike Harris for the problems the Liberals created.
Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says. The Liberal government has repeatedly overruled expert advice – and even tore up two long-term plans from the Ontario Power Authority for the electricity system – in favour of political decisions that drove up power costs for consumers, the report says.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontarians-paid-37-billion-above-market-price-for-electricity-over-eight-years-ag/article27560753/
-
Here's the thing: I actually believe efficiencies are there. But we have never had anybody run the province who was remotely qualified to restructure a large organization.
-
Here's the thing: I actually believe efficiencies are there. But we have never had anybody run the province who was remotely qualified to restructure a large organization.
The problem is that everything in government is seen as sacrosanct. People are employed by the government that don't do anything, but it's not like they can do anything else so might as well keep them employed and contributing to the economy.
-
If government was actually seen as sacrosanct we wouldn't have elections.
-
a result of haphazard planning and political meddling
I agree, who was the fool that opened up the public utility to privatization and led to this haphazard planning and political meddling?
-
So you finally agree that the Mike Harris Electricity Act of 1998 that destroyed public utilities and privatized them is the root cause of many of the problems in Ontario.
The Liberals are the ones responsible for grossly mismanaging the Ontario hydro system. It's well documented, unless you can show me otherwise.
Mike Harris didn't build too many plants so the province is burning money for decades, or sign all the bad contracts, or cancel plants based on corrupt politics.
-
I agree, who was the fool that opened up the public utility to privatization and led to this haphazard planning and political meddling?
Jesus H Christ. You're a one trick pony. I imagine if the Liberals were in charge for a century you'd still be be complaining all the problems were that Mike Harris' fault.
As for privatization, yolur precious bloody liberals sold Hydro One, or at least a big portion of it, so quit bitching.
-
If government was actually seen as sacrosanct we wouldn't have elections.
He didn't say government was sacrosanct. He said everything they do is seen as sacrosanct. Nobody can accept cutting back or eliminating anything.
-
He didn't say government was sacrosanct. He said everything they do is seen as sacrosanct. Nobody can accept cutting back or eliminating anything.
And if you re read you will see my response includes the word "seen". Perhaps if you look up the word sacrosanct you will understand my point that if gov't was truly seen as that, we wouldn't bother to vote them out from time to time.
-
How are you people not talking about the PCPO scandal?
-
How are you people not talking about the PCPO scandal?
The one where DoFo broke campaign finance laws? Already mentioned it. Conservative supporters here don’t care if DoFo does things that are illegal as long as Wynne gets ousted. They would forgive Satan’s failings if he was PC leader before they would ever abide another Wynne term.
-
The one where DoFo broke campaign finance laws? Already mentioned it. Conservative supporters here don’t care if DoFo does things that are illegal as long as Wynne gets ousted. They would forgive Satan’s failings if he was PC leader before they would ever abide another Wynne term.
Yep, pretty much. And comparing DoFo to Satan is the type of desperate hyperbole we're getting from Wynne and Co.
-
Yep, pretty much. And comparing DoFo to Satan is the type of desperate hyperbole we're getting from Wynne and Co.
Where did I compare the two?
-
Where did I compare the two?
The hyperbole that we'd accept anything from even Satan himself to Wynne.
What also is interesting is people are willing to forgiven all the atrocious behaviour of Wynne's government to the relatively meaningless foibles of DoFo. Campaign funding? You know a former Ontario Liberal staffer was convicted of a criminal offence right?
-
The hyperbole that we'd accept anything from even Satan himself to Wynne.
What also is interesting is people are willing to forgiven all the atrocious behaviour of Wynne's government to the relatively meaningless foibles of DoFo. Campaign funding? You know a former Ontario Liberal staffer was convicted of a criminal offence right?
Yeah, inadvertently having an illegal campaign funding dinner is meaningless to me compared to all the access for cash dinners and brunches Wynne and company had, not to mention spending $21 billion of taxpayer money to try and get themselves re-elected.
-
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4668766
PC candidates seem to be scared to debate. I don’t blame them.... they open their mouths and stupidity spills out. Best to keep their yaps shut and hope people don’t notice.
-
Jesus H Christ. You're a one trick pony. I imagine if the Liberals were in charge for a century you'd still be be complaining all the problems were that Mike Harris' fault.
As for privatization, yolur precious bloody liberals sold Hydro One, or at least a big portion of it, so quit bitching.
They are not my bloody Liberals, how many times do I have to drill that into your thick skull. I never supported them, voted for them, and have wanted them gone for a long time. Just because your blindly promote "Conservatives", even though they have the most brain dead policies ever; doesn't mean someone that doesn't sing your tune is a Liberal. The world is not blue and red you know.
-
not to mention spending $21 billion of taxpayer money to try and get themselves re-elected.
You keep repeating that stupid statement, but your beloved DoFo would do the exact same thing.
-
They are not my bloody Liberals, how many times do I have to drill that into your thick skull. I never supported them, voted for them, and have wanted them gone for a long time. Just because your blindly promote "Conservatives", even though they have the most brain dead policies ever; doesn't mean someone that doesn't sing your tune is a Liberal. The world is not blue and red you know.
All I know is that anyone who criticizes the liberals at any level soon has you racing to defend them. You can make all the claims you want but you're the most ardent defender of both Wynne and Trudeau on both these web sites, and have been for years.
-
You keep repeating that stupid statement, but your beloved DoFo would do the exact same thing.
He would? Who says he would? You know, politicians often misspend taxpayer money for their own purposes to some extent. They all do it - to some extent. Trudeau senior did it all the time. Mulroney did it. Chretien was a master at it. Even Harper did it, though less than the others. I don't expect anyone to be perfect and honorable. I'm not that naďve. But no politician at any level as long as I've been alive has been willing to blow TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS on NOTHING. Nothing! It's not like they built a bunch of bridges we didn't need, or high speed rail or social housing or fighter bombers or aircraft carriers. They spent it on NOTHING, just to temporarily ease the pressure on them because of the high hydro rates they caused with their stupid energy policies.
-
on NOTHING. Nothing!
It is called refinancing, it is done every single day. Personally I think the hydro rates should have been kept where they were, but all we had was countless crybabies complaining about them so they stretched out loans. It is not nothing, it was done specifically to address the crybabies complaints about hydro rates.
-
It is called refinancing, it is done every single day.
Bullshit. It's not done just to ease pressure on the politicians in an election year. Nobody is that stupid. Nobody has EVER been that stupid.
AND let's not forget the report from the AG was very specific about the cost of the interest rising by $4 billion because rather than borrow it themselves, they had the corporation borrow it - at a higher interest rate - in hopes they could keep it off the books, then and claim a lower deficit.
YOU'RE not a liberal! Oh no! But if Kathleen Wynne gunned down babies on York street you'd be rushing here to tell us how the babies were obviously Fascists attacking here and she was so brave to defend us all. You're as not-a-liberal as the most ardent Trump supporter is open-minded.
-
Temper, temper, you wouldn't want to blow a gasket so close to summer.
I will repeat: I am not a fan of privatizing the public infrastructure, including Hydro. I am however not a fan of lying about it. The PCs are the ones that push that strategy the hardest, but then they cry wolf when someone else does it. The PCs are the ones that initiated that strategy for many things, including Hydro. The PCs are the ones with the bat shyte crazy statements like half privatize, but borrow on the public books. The PCs are the ones with moronic ideas like return profits to the ratepayers for the public portion of Hydro, and then leave a public debt.
I do not support the Liberals, I support truth. That is of course why you and I clash so much.
-
This thread in a nutshell demonstrates why Ford winning the PC leadership was such a disaster.
-k
-
This thread in a nutshell demonstrates why Ford winning the PC leadership was such a disaster.
-k
While Ford was the last person I wanted to win, I am reasonably confident whoever won would have been roundly condemned by the Impacts of the world.
-
I do not support the Liberals, I support truth. That is of course why you and I clash so much.
No, you support a far left ideological view of the world which ignores truth. That is why you spend so much time and effort defending Kathleen Wynne and brush aside her wasting billions of dollars. No honest person could possibly defend that. So saying you support truth is about as convincing as when Donald Trump does the same.
-
No, you support a far left ideological view of the world which ignores truth. That is why you spend so much time and effort defending Kathleen Wynne and brush aside her wasting billions of dollars. No honest person could possibly defend that. So saying you support truth is about as convincing as when Donald Trump does the same.
As I said before on the specific Hydro topic you keep referencing, I do not agree with it. I believe we should pay back the loans faster through the higher hydro rates. Do you agree with that?
-
While Ford was the last person I wanted to win, I am reasonably confident whoever won would have been roundly condemned by the Impacts of the world.
Yeah, but he's probably not the typical voter. I think a lot of mainstream voters who'd have happily voted for a PC other than Ford are going to be grossed out at the idea of having to choose this guy if they want to get rid of Wynne.
And when Doug Ford is Premier and proceeds to act like Doug Ford, the Impacts of the world are going to have a fair point when they talk about what a clown he is.
-k
-
Yeah, but he's probably not the typical voter. I think a lot of mainstream voters who'd have happily voted for a PC other than Ford are going to be grossed out at the idea of having to choose this guy if they want to get rid of Wynne.
And when Doug Ford is Premier and proceeds to act like Doug Ford, the Impacts of the world are going to have a fair point when they talk about what a clown he is.
-k
Yeah, but what's the alternative? A clown or a venal, grasping, greedy, self-serving lying woman who has already stolen tens of billions of dollars from the people of Ontario to help her own election campaign, whos government has mismanaged every damned subject imaginable since the time they came to power, and run the province deeper into the red than anyone could have imagined. And who's promised to keep piling up the debt!
Hey, I'm not a member of the Ontario PCs. I didn't get to vote. If I had, you can be damned sure I wouldn't have voted for Ford. But if he's the only alternative to Wynne - or her NDP twin who has managed to outpromise her on the spending front, then I'll support Ford. Elections, for me, are always about the least-worst party.
-
Elections, for me, are always about the least-worst party.
Yet you support the most worst. Ford is outspending both of them, and running up the deficit to astronomical levels. Horwath is the only one that is looking to lower it, wynne is keeping it flat and growing the economy, and Ford is growing the deficit.
-
But no politician at any level as long as I've been alive has been willing to blow TWENTY ONE BILLION DOLLARS on NOTHING. Nothing! It's not like they built a bunch of bridges we didn't need, or high speed rail or social housing or fighter bombers or aircraft carriers. They spent it on NOTHING, just to temporarily ease the pressure on them because of the high hydro rates they caused with their stupid energy policies.
There's 13.5 million people in Ontario. About 8.5 million of those are of working age (18 to 64 years old). So that's about $2600 per working age person to pay extra to the ON government for the deferred hydro payments. Wow.
-
While Ford was the last person I wanted to win, I am reasonably confident whoever won would have been roundly condemned by the Impacts of the world.
People who would never vote PC no matter who was leader are not the concerns of the PC party, they're trying to attract the swing voters like every party, who are the voters who determine every elections. Ford is a disastrous choice to moderate and left-of center voters looking for change. Consider how many Canadians dislike Trump, well they're also going to dislike Ford.
-
Yet you support the most worst. Ford is outspending both of them, and running up the deficit to astronomical levels. Horwath is the only one that is looking to lower it, wynne is keeping it flat and growing the economy, and Ford is growing the deficit.
That's not true. Ford has said he's going to run a deficit in the first year then balanced the budget, but didn't say how. NDP have said they'll run like 3.5 billion deficits, which is at least lower than the 5 billion Wynne wants.
-
It may be still a little too soon for many people in Ontario to wrap their heads (and tongues) around the phrase "Premiere Ford" after the last time.
-
I saw polling on the news that said PC and NDP were tied around 35%, with Liberals 3rd around 24%. Some people I know say they want to vote Horwath because she "sounds" more competent than Ford or Wynne.
-
I saw polling on the news that said PC and NDP were tied around 35%, with Liberals 3rd around 24%. Some people I know say they want to vote Horwath because she "sounds" more competent than Ford or Wynne.
Sounds like a reasonable position. Ford is a complete nut who seems completely out of his depth. Wynne got called out by the auditor general for lying about the deficit.
-
That's not true. Ford has said he's going to run a deficit in the first year then balanced the budget, but didn't say how. NDP have said they'll run like 3.5 billion deficits, which is at least lower than the 5 billion Wynne wants.
Ok, the nutcase didn't actually say deficit in subsequent years because he is grossly stupid and a lying scumbag. His policies however demonstrate he can't count and will run the largest deficits by a wide margin.
-
Ok, the nutcase didn't actually say deficit in subsequent years because he is grossly stupid and a lying scumbag. His policies however demonstrate he can't count and will run the largest deficits by a wide margin.
This is just ideological bile with zero substance or intelligence behind it. It also preys upon the idea that this election is about one single person who is going to run the province. It's not. It's about the political parties themselves. Ford is not the PC party.
As to Horvath, she is lying, of course. The NDP has never balanced the books and never will. Their mentality is always to spend more and more to address every single problem and issue. Look at her idiotic platform. She wants a government board to control gas prices! She wants to let non-citizens vote in local elections and would declare Ontario a 'sanctuary province' for illegal migrants, who would be eligible for full social services. Now those are insane policies.
-
Sounds like a reasonable position.
She 'sounds' more competent is a reasonable position? Confirmation bias in action.
Ford is a complete nut who seems completely out of his depth.
Ford is not polished but I've seen absolutely nothing about him that suggests he is a 'nut case' or that a guy capable of running a manufacturing company is any less able to run the province than a lifelong political activist and third party politician.
-
I saw polling on the news that said PC and NDP were tied around 35%, with Liberals 3rd around 24%. Some people I know say they want to vote Horwath because she "sounds" more competent than Ford or Wynne.
I firmly believe that if the PC party had chosen somebody NORMAL instead of Ford, this would not even be close. I think chosing Ford demonstrates an inability of many party members to see past the end of their own nose. A lot of people in the PC party clearly didn't spend much time thinking about the general election and undecideds and swing voters and people who might not bother to vote at all if they don't like the options. I imagine that the thought process behind selecting Ford was basically: "Ford NAY-SHUNNNN!! yuh-yuh-YEAHHHHHH!"
The Alberta UCP did something similar recently at their policy convention. Despite the urging of Jason Kenney and the party leaders to "don't be the Lake Of Fire Party", 57% of convention delegates decided that "you know what? We WANT to be the Lake Of Fire Party. Will this cost us seats in the cities? Will this be an ongoing political headache for Jason Kenney? Will this be a losing political issue? We don't know and we don't care, because JEEEZUS!"
-k
-
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
Doug Ford's support seems to be declining, and Wynne's support is fleeing for Horwath for the anyone-but-Doug vote.
For what it's worth, I think they will all be as bad as each other in different ways.
-
https://globalnews.ca/news/4212098/ontario-election-simulation-map/
Doug Ford's support seems to be declining, and Wynne's support is fleeing for Horwath for the anyone-but-Doug vote.
For what it's worth, I think they will all be as bad as each other in different ways.
The only difference between Horvath and Wynne is Horvath isn't as physically repulsive. Their policies are essentially identical in most respects, except Horvath is further to the Left. Her promise to have small deficits for a few years and then balance the budget mirrors Trudeau's. I said before the federal election Trudeau would never balance the budget and I say it again about a potential NDP government. Their deficits will turn out to be much higher than they say, and they will remain a constant as interest rates rise and Ontario's debt rating falls. Her promise to make Ontario a 'sanctuary province' and offer illegals full government social services and health care will be an additional impetus to illegal migrants to cross the border, and will cause major issues with Americans near the border coming here for free health care.
But basically she is following the same game plan as Wynne and Trudeau. Offer people lots and lots of new and expensive goodies and services. Whatever the issue, whoever has a complaint, promise them the government will take care of it. Damn the expense.
-
But Doug is doing the same thing, just saying.
I think he is likely the safest bet for 'fiscal prudence' but all 3 are lying about their spending.
-
How does one switch their support from the PC party to the NDP overnight? The party policies are completely opposed to each other. Apparently there's 5% of voters out there who vote for the leader they like most regardless of policy.
-
I firmly believe that if the PC party had chosen somebody NORMAL instead of Ford, this would not even be close.
It was theirs to lose. I still can't believe they nominated him as leader.
-
Apparently there's 5% of voters out there who vote for the leader they like most regardless of policy.
I'll bet it's higher. Most people have no idea what is going on. Their right to vote is akin to buying the jar of pickles with the nicest label.
-
It was theirs to lose. I still can't believe they nominated him as leader.
They could have selected a random backbencher as their leader and be well in front.
They could have selected a random person off the street and be well in front.
They could have selected a Corgi with a bow-tie as their leader and be well in front.
They could have put a bow-tie on a microwave oven and made the microwave oven their leader and still be well in front.
Instead, they picked the only guy who could turn this into a nailbiter.
-k
-
Instead, they picked the only guy who could turn this into a nailbiter.
-k
I wonder how many of the actual members voted for Ford, as opposed to the rush of people such candidates sign up when they run.
I've often complained about how people suddenly parachute into a riding or a party and bring in a flock of new 'members', who have never been involved with the party before, know or care little about it, and whose sole interest is to plunk down $5 or $10 and then vote for their candidate. How much do they really reflect the party at all? Would Jagmeet Singh have won the NDP leadership contest without all those new Sikh members joining to vote for him? Would Ford have won the Ontario PC leadership if you couldn't join up and then immediately vote?
I've said before that people should not be allowed to vote for candidates until they've been members for at least a year or two. Failing that they should drastically raise the membership cost.
-
I've said before that people should not be allowed to vote for candidates until they've been members for at least a year or two. Failing that they should drastically raise the membership cost.
They should do that. The PC supporters I know personally were convinced Elliot had it hands down, which actually should have been the case if political intelligence were used. She would be coasting to a super majority if she were the candidate.
-
I wonder how many of the actual members voted for Ford, as opposed to the rush of people such candidates sign up when they run.
I've often complained about how people suddenly parachute into a riding or a party and bring in a flock of new 'members', who have never been involved with the party before, know or care little about it, and whose sole interest is to plunk down $5 or $10 and then vote for their candidate. How much do they really reflect the party at all? Would Jagmeet Singh have won the NDP leadership contest without all those new Sikh members joining to vote for him? Would Ford have won the Ontario PC leadership if you couldn't join up and then immediately vote?
I've said before that people should not be allowed to vote for candidates until they've been members for at least a year or two. Failing that they should drastically raise the membership cost.
I'd be interested to hear the evidence that causes you to presume that people who have recently joined a party mustn't know anything about it's platform. Why could it not also be that they join because they like the platform and now have faith in a leadership candidate? I realize that is a bit hard to fathom in the DoFo example but to each their own as they say.
-
I'd be interested to hear the evidence that causes you to presume that people who have recently joined a party mustn't know anything about it's platform. Why could it not also be that they join because they like the platform and now have faith in a leadership candidate? I realize that is a bit hard to fathom in the DoFo example but to each their own as they say.
Why join the party RIGHT NOW if it's for any other reason than to vote for this particular candidate? Whether it be in a local riding association or for national/provincial leader? Why do these candidates boast about how many 'new members' they've signed up for any reason but a certainty they're coming in to vote for THEM? Why would candidates even try to sign up new members - people who have up until then never been a member of the party?
I think you should be allowed to join at any time, but not be allowed to vote for your riding candidate or party leadership candidate for a year or two.
-
(https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pollara-poll-may-23-v1.png)
-
I would have been elated with an NDP government election when I was in my 20s. Now I'm more pragmatic. HOWEVER, a minority government of any flavour would be a good thing at this time IMO.
Any minority government paves the way for the Liberals to put a strong candidate in place to sweep the next election. The PCs would be crazy to keep Ford given the graph above but he won't let go of the leadership.
I read somewhere that he's trailing in his riding.
-
NDP governments tend to be pragmatic though too. Other than that one Ontario one, they've been quite fiscally responsible. And as Mulcair said, that guy turned out to be a Liberal.
-
The NDP are bourgeois liberal scum these days. There's not a single party that doesn't operate under a neo-liberal mentality of running government with an economic rationality that strips it of its humanitarian purposes. Thomas Mulcair was the expression of the death of any socialist grounding that the NDP once had.
-
Any minority government paves the way for the Liberals to put a strong candidate in place to sweep the next election. The PCs would be crazy to keep Ford given the graph above but he won't let go of the leadership.
I read somewhere that he's trailing in his riding.
The election is in 2 weeks, it's a little late to change. If he isn't Premier after June 7, you'd have to think he's done as party leader.
-k
-
The election is in 2 weeks, it's a little late to change. If he isn't Premier after June 7, you'd have to think he's done as party leader.
-k
I mean - to keep Ford after the election.
More Douggie scandals today: the Liberals have a tape of him seeming to buy memberships, and an accusation that he intimidated and followed someone in his car.
To this I say: he comes from a family of crooks so I wouldn't be surprised, however the only thing I believe is the 2nd assertion as he did this to a friend of mine !
-
I would have been elated with an NDP government election when I was in my 20s. Now I'm more pragmatic. HOWEVER, a minority government of any flavour would be a good thing at this time IMO.
Any minority government paves the way for the Liberals to put a strong candidate in place to sweep the next election. The PCs would be crazy to keep Ford given the graph above but he won't let go of the leadership.
I read somewhere that he's trailing in his riding.
I can't speak about Ford, although I remain bemused about the bug-eyed hatred for him from much of the Left given his lack of statements or history which would seem to justify it. But I don't see how a minority government could work in Ontario unless it was an NDP/Liberal one, and that one would be filled with vicious elbowing and rivalry about who was willing to spend MORE money. It would most likely pave the way for a massive PC win in the following election.
-
NDP governments tend to be pragmatic though too. Other than that one Ontario one, they've been quite fiscally responsible. And as Mulcair said, that guy turned out to be a Liberal.
There doesn't seem to be anything pragmatic about the Ontario NDP's offer to pay for everything anyone could ever want, and somehow balance the budget as well. Declaring Ontario a sanctuary province is not pragmatic either, nor is allowing illegal aliens to vote. Nor is raising corporate taxes after the US just drastically lowered their corporate taxes. Nor is a promise to close nuclear power plants, which is just more of the green energy fiasco the Liberals have implemented over the past 15 years.
-
There doesn't seem to be anything pragmatic about the Ontario NDP's offer to pay for everything anyone could ever want, and somehow balance the budget as well.
We already talked about how Ford is doing the same thing. If words don't matter, then why bring it up only when the NDP lies ?
-
We already talked about how Ford is doing the same thing. If words don't matter, then why bring it up only when the NDP lies ?
Because the NDP isn't pragmatic, and the part of their promises I believe they will put little effort into fulfilling is the part where they get back to a balanced budget in a few years. I think they'll place even less importance on that than Trudeau does.
The party history is of a group of do-gooders who see the government purse as a bottomless pit in which to 'improve society' and 'make things fairer'.
The PC party history is of a party which tries to be reasonably fiscally prudent. How they will reconcile that with cutting taxes and giving a big child care credit I don't know, but I suspect the reason they aren't saying is it involves job cuts and salary freezes. Which I approve of.
-
Because the NDP isn't pragmatic, and the part of their promises I believe they will put little effort into fulfilling is the part where they get back to a balanced budget in a few years. I think they'll place even less importance on that than Trudeau does.
Right. Then say that, instead of calling out one group as lying when the other clearly is.
-
https://www.cp24.com/news/ndp-now-in-majority-government-territory-new-poll-suggests-1.3944764
NDP surges WAY AHEAD.
The Forum Research poll of 906 randomly selected Ontario voters has determined that 47 per cent of decided or leaning respondents now support the NDP compared to 33 per cent for the PC party
And..... This is not believable. I believe we're looking at an outlier.
-
Right. Then say that, instead of calling out one group as lying when the other clearly is.
But we weren't talking about honesty but pragmatism, and I was responding to the absurd suggestion that NDP governments tend to be pragmatic.
-
https://www.cp24.com/news/ndp-now-in-majority-government-territory-new-poll-suggests-1.3944764
NDP surges WAY AHEAD.
And..... This is not believable. I believe we're looking at an outlier.
Possibly, but EKOS also had the NDP at 40% and was holding off releasing the results because he felt like it was an anomaly.
All that being said, it's valuable not to forget that elections are not decided by popular vote.
-
NDP governments tend to be pragmatic though too. Other than that one Ontario one, they've been quite fiscally responsible. And as Mulcair said, that guy turned out to be a Liberal.
The Ontario NDP want to pay out free pharmacare and daycare programs etc. and turn student loans into grants (in other words, free tuition) when they're inheriting a province with massive debt problems. Their plan is run 5 billion dollar deficits, but tried to pull a fast one on voters by hiding 1.5 billion of that in their plan. They're complete fiscal morons.
I think all 3 parties are filled with a bunch of complete morons and corrupt scumbags, but the PC's at least won't continue to run the province into a fiscal hellhole.
-
https://www.cp24.com/news/ndp-now-in-majority-government-territory-new-poll-suggests-1.3944764
NDP surges WAY AHEAD.
And..... This is not believable. I believe we're looking at an outlier.
If the NDP win a majority I'll strongly consider moving out of the province, I'm not kidding. I refuse to flush my tax dollars down the toilet so my kids have to pay all the debt back...with interest. The province is made up of a bunch of complete morons and economic imbeciles , including those fools who elected DoFo leader. I can't tell you how many friends I have who make average salaries but drive BMW's or Mercedes so they can look as cool as possible meanwhile drowning in debt. People like this who run the province are the reason I pay insane hydro bills.
-
Possibly, but EKOS also had the NDP at 40% and was holding off releasing the results because he felt like it was an anomaly.
All that being said, it's valuable not to forget that elections are not decided by popular vote.
exactly. Polls mean nothing unless you're considering seat projections and polling per riding.
-
I can't speak about Ford, although I remain bemused about the bug-eyed hatred for him from much of the Left given his lack of statements or history which would seem to justify it.
I think that a big portion of his support comes from morons whose main (and maybe only) reason for supporting him is that he's Rob Ford's brother. That's obviously a double edged sword. "Ford Nayshunnnn!" is apparently still a viable brand in parts of Ontario, so that works in Ford's favor. On the other hand, people will recall Ford the Prior as a crack-addled man-child whose antics brought international ridicule to Toronto, and whose career before becoming famous for being a crack-addled man-child was mostly known for divisive battles with unions. So obviously that's not going to work for everybody.
I think that a lot of the "Ford Nayshunnnn!!" voters are morons whose main (and maybe only) reason for supporting themis that he "triggers the snowflakes", so that's a double-edged blade as well. If your political brand is being a political tough-guy who ruffles the feathers, you're taking for granted that the people who's feathers you ruffle will be voting against you.
As well, I think a lot of people just think that he's a dumb-ass, whose only political move is pandering to other dumb-asses.
-k
-
According to what I hear from Eric Grenier is that the NDP are garnering support from both the Liberals, who are simply fed up with Wynne, and the PC's who fear having to endure the embarrassment of another Ford gong show. Politics makes strange bedfellows yet again.
-
As well, I think a lot of people just think that he's a dumb-ass, whose only political move is pandering to other dumb-asses.
-k
So? I wouldn't disagree with that description of him. I'll still vote PC because it's still better than having the NDP or Liberals in charge. Having Ford blunder about occasionally windmilling his arms in the air and saying dumb things is more tolerable than four more years of ever increasing debt.
People keep saying how tired they are of these smooth, bland, spin-doctored, plastic politicians, but the moment anyone runs for office who isn't exactly like that they act all horrified. They also don't seem to grasp that in a parliamentary democracy there's only so much an outsider like Ford can get away with before his caucus purges him.
-
The Ontario NDP want to pay out free pharmacare and daycare programs etc. and turn student loans into grants (in other words, free tuition) when they're inheriting a province with massive debt problems. Their plan is run 5 billion dollar deficits, but tried to pull a fast one on voters by hiding 1.5 billion of that in their plan. They're complete fiscal morons.
They are also ignoring that the supposed balanced budget is actually about a $7 billion deficit according to the AG. And it's likely bigger than that. So the NDP's supposed $5 billion deficit (which I don't think for a moment they would stick to anyway) are now $12 billion +.
-
exactly. Polls mean nothing unless you're considering seat projections and polling per riding.
Well, they don't mean nothing. They mean exactly what they measure. Popular opinion. That can mean quite a lot, but it depends on how concentrated the support is for the various parties. The sample is still as randomly drawn as they can make it, then adjusted for non-randomness. It's just that it's measuring a different thing than voting measures. It's still related though.
-
So? I wouldn't disagree with that description of him. I'll still vote PC because it's still better than having the NDP or Liberals in charge. Having Ford blunder about occasionally windmilling his arms in the air and saying dumb things is more tolerable than four more years of ever increasing debt.
yeah, but you were expressing your puzzlement as to why so many people find Ford repulsive. ("bug-eyed hatred" I think was your term.) And the dumb-guy Ford Nayshunnn shtick is as annoying to some as Trudeau's sensitive new-age guy shtick is to others.
People keep saying how tired they are of these smooth, bland, spin-doctored, plastic politicians, but the moment anyone runs for office who isn't exactly like that they act all horrified.
Yeah, everybody says they want "authentic" and "real". But if being "authentic" and "real" means letting everybody know you're a real, authentic ****, they still might not like you.
They also don't seem to grasp that in a parliamentary democracy there's only so much an outsider like Ford can get away with before his caucus purges him.
Well, sure. And a lot of people will hold their nose and vote PC even though they can't stand Ford, because they think it's the least of 3 evils.
-k
-
The NDP and Liberals are both proposing 5 billion dollar annual deficits while governing the most indebted subnational government in the world. That's insane. Free daycare, free pharmacare, free dental care, free tuition etc. Ontario can't afford this stuff right now, people need to get their houses in order and pay for this stuff themselves or increase taxes dramatically if they want it.
Doug Ford is a moron and a corrupt scumbag among 2 other parties that are morons and corrupt scumbags, but he won't bankrupt the province, that's why he should win.
-
Doug Ford: The budget will balance itself
PC supporters: Duh, of course.
-
Doug Ford: The budget will balance itself
PC supporters: Duh, of course.
I didn't listen to the debate last night myself but I have been listening to various pundits dissecting it today and what I take from that so far is that Wynne may have won the debate, but not in a way that will sway anybody's vote, Horwath was strong and may end up being the beneficiary of disgruntled Liberals, and as you alluded to, Ford had lots of talking points but when quizzed as to what exactly was his platform and how did he propose to fund it he couldn't really come up with anything solid, but that his base won't mind that. Excerpts I have heard do seem to have whole lot of people talking over each other and that's usually a reason for me to change channels anyway.
-
Doug Ford: The budget will balance itself
PC supporters: Duh, of course.
That's because foundational to their beliefs is a naturally self-regulating economy. They think that government interference harms that balance. Meanwhile, there has never existed a naturally self-regulating economy anywhere in history.
-
Nonsense! Just cut taxes, and rich-guys and businesses will be creating jobs left and right! There'll be so many jobs, we'll be drowning in revenue!
-k
-
That's because foundational to their beliefs is a naturally self-regulating economy. They think that government interference harms that balance. Meanwhile, there has never existed a naturally self-regulating economy anywhere in history.
Saying the free'er the market the better and government regulation is bad is a ridiculous black-and-white generalization just like saying government regulation is good is a ridiculous generalization. It all depends on the specific regulation, some of it good and some of it bad, and some of it simply a matter of what outcome you're looking for.
-
More polling indicating the NDP have a narrow lead.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-election-2018/ontario-ndp-and-pc-party-locked-in-tight-election-race-poll-1.3949034
It's been mentioned that the NDP is less "efficient" than other parties in terms of where their support is distributed. It is believed that the NDP has heavy support in a relatively smaller number of ridings, while the other parties have less concentrated support in more ridings, so leading in popular support might not translate to an election win for the NDP.
However, it looks like most of the "Anybody But Ford" voters are abandoning the Liberals and choosing the NDP. With the Liberals at just 16% right now, one wonders if there's any more votes there for Horvath to siphon.
-k
-
CBC tracker still has a Ford majority.
-
Nonsense! Just cut taxes, and rich-guys and businesses will be creating jobs left and right! There'll be so many jobs, we'll be drowning in revenue!
-k
There is certainly a case that cutting taxes spurs the economy. Everyone seems to agree that when there's a recession the government cutting taxes is a good thing. I don't get why people don't understand that the reverse is also true. Raising taxes harms the economy.
I mean, clearly you need enough revenue to pay for what programs you need to run. But the issue is usually the difference between 'need' and 'want'. You need to have some programs. You don't need others. You just want them. They might even be good things. But they come at a cost to the economy so there has to be a balancing act. Else you wind alleviating poverty with one hand (full of tax dollars taken from others) while causing it with the heavy taxation.
-
That's because foundational to their beliefs is a naturally self-regulating economy. They think that government interference harms that balance.
Government budget ≠ national economy.
But yes, the economy is largely self-regulating, and most of the problems we have with it at the moment are due to government interference. Now sometimes it needs to be interfered with in that capitalism is as cold hearted as nature. But generally the more government interferes, the more it screws things up.
-
Tide has turned back into the PCs favour when people actually look at some of the NDPs extreme policy platforms and crazy candidates. Horvath's behaviour during the debate was also very bad apparently.
This is kind of like 1990 and 2011 when the NDP is shown to be woefully unprepared to govern.
I heard on the radio today that there's a scenario that the Liberals could get knocked out like the Kim Campbell PCs did in 1993. Potentially even shut out.
-
Tide has turned back into the PCs favour when people actually look at some of the NDPs extreme policy platforms and crazy candidates. Horvath's behaviour during the debate was also very bad apparently.
This is kind of like 1990 and 2011 when the NDP is shown to be woefully unprepared to govern.
I heard on the radio today that there's a scenario that the Liberals could get knocked out like the Kim Campbell PCs did in 1993. Potentially even shut out.
Depends which poll you read I guess. As of yesterday Mainstream Research had the NDP with a slight lead at 39.3% with the PC's a close second at 37.3. The Liberals trailing at 16. Speaking of the debate, it seems DoFo lost ground because all he could do was make promises with no idea how he would pay for them. And he did a lot of Trump style talking over whoever challenged him.
-
Depends which poll you read I guess. As of yesterday Mainstream Research had the NDP with a slight lead at 39.3% with the PC's a close second at 37.3. The Liberals trailing at 16. Speaking of the debate, it seems DoFo lost ground because all he could do was make promises with no idea how he would pay for them. And he did a lot of Trump style talking over whoever challenged him.
So did Horvath apparently.
Making promises without knowing how to pay for them is how Wynne got elected last time.
-
Tide has turned back into the PCs favour when people actually look at some of the NDPs extreme policy platforms and crazy candidates.
This is kind of like 1990 and 2011 when the NDP is shown to be woefully unprepared to govern.
You mean the PCs extreme candidate who is party leader. Former mid-level drug dealer, and caught buying votes on multiple occasions.
You mean like the PC was woefully unprepared to govern in 1995 & 1999. Just like Mike Harris found efficiencies and killed people in Walkerton, Ford will do the same when he fires nurses, health inspectors, etc.
-
You mean the PCs extreme candidate who is party leader. Former mid-level drug dealer, and caught buying votes on multiple occasions.
You mean like the PC was woefully unprepared to govern in 1995 & 1999. Just like Mike Harris found efficiencies and killed people in Walkerton, Ford will do the same when he fires nurses, health inspectors, etc.
If they were woefully unprepared in 1995, then why were they re-elected in 1999?
-
If they were woefully unprepared in 1995, then why were they re-elected in 1999?
Their stupidity took a while to take effect (e.g. The Electricity Act was in their first term, but the real effect of it didn't kick in till the second).
-
Their stupidity took a while to take effect (e.g. The Electricity Act was in their first term, but the real effect of it didn't kick in till the second).
Suuuuuure. ::)
How about those NDP candidates that sympathize with Hitler and walk around with F the Police placards?
-
How about those NDP candidates that sympathize with Hitler and walk around with F the Police placards?
Yes, they should be turfed as should Doug Ford.
-
Suuuuuure. ::)
How about those NDP candidates that sympathize with Hitler and walk around with F the Police placards?
Dont forget the NDP candidate who thinks the poppy is collective brainwashing of war glorification.
-
Dont forget the NDP candidate who thinks the poppy is collective brainwashing of war glorification.
Which is actually what it is.
-
Which is actually what it is.
That's a pretty sick thing to say. People fight and die and go through horror so you don't have to. Donating a buck every year to veterans and showing your respect isn't "war glorification".
-
Tide has turned back into the PCs favour when people actually look at some of the NDPs extreme policy platforms and crazy candidates. Horvath's behaviour during the debate was also very bad apparently.
Or not....
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-macleans-pollara-ontario-election-poll-the-ndp-lead-keeps-growing/amp/
Pollara Strategic Insights gives Andrea Horwath’s NDP 43 per cent of the decided vote, up five points from the last such poll published here six days ago. Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives are at 32 per cent, down five points. Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals are at 17 per cent, down a point to a level that would represent a historic low in the Ontario party’s history.
-
That's a pretty sick thing to say. People fight and die and go through horror so you don't have to. Donating a buck every year to veterans and showing your respect isn't "war glorification".
I'm all for supporting veterans. I just think instead of pinning a stupid plastic thing to our lapels and parading around singing the national anthem with a few warplanes scooting around overhead, we should be discussing how to make sure we don't make more wars. Maybe pointing out how **** stupid Trump is by selling billions of dollars of war equipment to a place like Saudi Arabia where any idiot can figure out what it will be used for.
-
Saying the free'er the market the better and government regulation is bad is a ridiculous black-and-white generalization just like saying government regulation is good is a ridiculous generalization. It all depends on the specific regulation, some of it good and some of it bad, and some of it simply a matter of what outcome you're looking for.
By advocating regulation, you're fundamentally opposed to a free market economy. When, how, and to what degree the government regulates, "interferes," or "bails out" the economy, including not only corporate welfare, but also unemployment and pension schemes, demonstrates that the economy is not self-regulating, never has been self-regulating, and never will be self-regulating. There is no such thing and anyone who argues for a laissez-faire economy simply doesn't understand how our current economic conditions were formed nor what would happen if we were in such a state. We've got the perfect example in recent news. Trudeau is spending $4.5 billion of public money, not for the public good, but to put into the bank accounts of a Texas oil company. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to shirk its treaty obligations to indigenous populations by underfunding not only education and housing, but most reserves still don't even have clean drinking water. Funny how they find billions of dollars out of thin air to give to a Texas oil company, but can't find billions to alleviate suffering and honour their obligations under treaties signed and drafted by the Canadian government.
-
Which is actually what it is.
Somebody on the other board posted that the term White Privilege was designed to elicit *guilt*. I think a principle of public discussion would be to give the benefit of the doubt around intentions of communication.
-Liberal terms around social phenomena and tools and responses may elicit guilt, but giving names to things is a reasonable result of social conversation
-Discussion of uncomfortable issues is not the same as extremist championing of those issues; eg. we can ask that immigration be curtailed and it doesn't mean we're aligned with far-right groups
Discuss the issues primarily and the communication strategies of the other side secondarily at best.
-
There is certainly a case that cutting taxes spurs the economy. Everyone seems to agree that when there's a recession the government cutting taxes is a good thing. I don't get why people don't understand that the reverse is also true. Raising taxes harms the economy.
I mean, clearly you need enough revenue to pay for what programs you need to run. But the issue is usually the difference between 'need' and 'want'. You need to have some programs. You don't need others. You just want them. They might even be good things. But they come at a cost to the economy so there has to be a balancing act. Else you wind alleviating poverty with one hand (full of tax dollars taken from others) while causing it with the heavy taxation.
Tax cuts in general aren't a solution to economic problems. Tax cuts only boost economic activity if they put money in the hands of people who will put that money back into the economy. In the case of businesses, there are businesses who need to hire more people but can't afford to and maybe a tax cut would help them add employees. On the other hand there are businesses who don't want or need to hire more people, and giving them a tax cut won't change that. The recent US Republican talking point that companies would use their big corporate tax cuts to hire more people and give their employees raises was fiction designed to appeal to dumb-guys. Companies give employees raises when they need to, and they hire more people when they need to. Finding themselves suddenly benefiting from tax cuts doesn't create a need to give raises or hire more people, it creates an opportunity to give more money to the shareholders.
-k
-
By advocating regulation, you're fundamentally opposed to a free market economy. When, how, and to what degree the government regulates, "interferes," or "bails out" the economy, including not only corporate welfare, but also unemployment and pension schemes, demonstrates that the economy is not self-regulating, never has been self-regulating, and never will be self-regulating. There is no such thing and anyone who argues for a laissez-faire economy simply doesn't understand how our current economic conditions were formed nor what would happen if we were in such a state.
There's not a lot of people, including Doug Ford, who advocate for a completely laissez-faire economy. It's pretty clear that Maoist China doesn't work well and laissez-faire doesn't work well, so the debates are always around the degree and type of regulation in some kind of mixed economy.
We've got the perfect example in recent news. Trudeau is spending $4.5 billion of public money, not for the public good, but to put into the bank accounts of a Texas oil company. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to shirk its treaty obligations to indigenous populations by underfunding not only education and housing, but most reserves still don't even have clean drinking water. Funny how they find billions of dollars out of thin air to give to a Texas oil company, but can't find billions to alleviate suffering and honour their obligations under treaties signed and drafted by the Canadian government.
[/quote]
-
Tax cuts in general aren't a solution to economic problems. Tax cuts only boost economic activity if they put money in the hands of people who will put that money back into the economy. In the case of businesses, there are businesses who need to hire more people but can't afford to and maybe a tax cut would help them add employees. On the other hand there are businesses who don't want or need to hire more people, and giving them a tax cut won't change that.
The other thing with corporate tax cuts is that we need to pay for stuff with taxes and it's nice if rich corporations pay for more of share of it instead of the regular joe. However, lower corporate taxes in a province means that Canadian companies and international companies would be more willing to set up shop in said province that has lower taxes, which would create local jobs. So those taxes can't be too high or too low.
Amazon says it wants to find another city, possibly in Canada, where it will set up its 2nd headquarters and that will bring a ton of jobs. High corporate taxes, high hydro rates, and $15 an hour minimum wages means Ontario won't look as promising to them, so it's a double-edged sword. We're not Scandinavia, we have to compete with the global economic behemoth below us.
-
There's not a lot of people, including Doug Ford, who advocate for a completely laissez-faire economy. It's pretty clear that Maoist China doesn't work well and laissez-faire doesn't work well, so the debates are always around the degree and type of regulation in some kind of mixed economy.
We've got the perfect example in recent news. Trudeau is spending $4.5 billion of public money, not for the public good, but to put into the bank accounts of a Texas oil company. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to shirk its treaty obligations to indigenous populations by underfunding not only education and housing, but most reserves still don't even have clean drinking water. Funny how they find billions of dollars out of thin air to give to a Texas oil company, but can't find billions to alleviate suffering and honour their obligations under treaties signed and drafted by the Canadian government.
I think we'll find the 4.5 billion into the pipeline will pay off handsomely if treated right. I'm not a big fan of bitumen but pipelines make money, especially when they aid in getting product to Asian markets instead of just the US who pay bargain prices. And BTW, Trudeau's last budget included 5 billion for native issues.
-
I think we'll find the 4.5 billion into the pipeline will pay off handsomely if treated right. I'm not a big fan of bitumen but pipelines make money, especially when they aid in getting product to Asian markets instead of just the US who pay bargain prices. And BTW, Trudeau's last budget included 5 billion for native issues.
I think I agree with you. I'm not sure how we got here, or if they will be able to move forward without screwing it up. Let's see...
-
I'm all for supporting veterans. I just think instead of pinning a stupid plastic thing to our lapels and parading around singing the national anthem with a few warplanes scooting around overhead, we should be discussing how to make sure we don't make more wars. Maybe pointing out how **** stupid Trump is by selling billions of dollars of war equipment to a place like Saudi Arabia where any idiot can figure out what it will be used for.
We can discuss those things every other time of the year, solving current and future geopolitical problems isn't what Remembrance Day is about, it's about honouring and remembering the sacrifices of people who have protected us, even if we may disagree with some of the situations politicians have put them in. Whenever you see someone with a "stupid plastic thing" you're reminded of this.
This NDP candidate means well but she doesn't understand this basic concept. On her blog she also puts the quote "The pioneers of a warless world are the young men and women who refuse military service". If only it were so easy. She clearly doesn't understand how the world works. If western countries were to lay down their arms, bastard dictators would gladly steamroll over us and take everything they could. All it takes is one ill-meaning country with soldiers not willing to lay down their arms to ruin the whole peace-love party.
-
I think I agree with you. I'm not sure how we got here, or if they will be able to move forward without screwing it up. Let's see...
I was quite surprised when I heard that one on the news today, so I'm not sure how we got here either. I have mixed emotions as I have concerns for the environment and also I live very near the waters those extra tankers will have to navigate. From a business point of view though I think it COULD work out well if handled right. We know there is profit to be had so we get returns on the investment immediately from the existing line and then even mo' money when we sell it back to private operators/investors. Hopefully Bill Morneau is an astute enough businessman to make it work thusly.
-
There's not a lot of people, including Doug Ford, who advocate for a completely laissez-faire economy. It's pretty clear that Maoist China doesn't work well and laissez-faire doesn't work well,
It works PERFECTLY well, as an economic system. But as I've said before, it's as cruel, cold-hearted, and ruthless as mother nature when it comes to how it treats people or businesses. Which is why nobody in their right mind would want to live under perfect capitalism.
We've got the perfect example in recent news. Trudeau is spending $4.5 billion of public money, not for the public good, but to put into the bank accounts of a Texas oil company.
That's what you got out of that? Trudeau is spending that money because otherwise his approval ratings would plunge even further. And the reason he has to spend it is because government bureaucracy and red tape have made it virtually impossible to construct a pipeline, however necessary. As one of the columnists mentioned in the paper this morning, Canada has over 800,000km of pipeline laid with private money but that's no longer possible in the environment Trudeau has helped create and foster.
Meanwhile, the federal government continues to shirk its treaty obligations to indigenous populations by underfunding not only education and housing, but most reserves still don't even have clean drinking water.
Maybe because those reserves won't maintain the equipment the federal government pays for. Under perfect Capitalism those reserves would all be abandoned and their people forced to earn their own living. I'm not going to get into which of the treaties and which interpretation of those treaties we ought to fulfil. But unless you're masochist enough to want to pay most of your salary for the rest of your life to various native tribes you might want to consider just how much you want various governments to follow these treaty obligations and land claims natives are putting forth.
-
I'm all for supporting veterans. I just think instead of pinning a stupid plastic thing to our lapels and parading around singing the national anthem with a few warplanes scooting around overhead, we should be discussing how to make sure we don't make more wars. Maybe pointing out how **** stupid Trump is by selling billions of dollars of war equipment to a place like Saudi Arabia where any idiot can figure out what it will be used for.
Why can't we do both?
-
Why can't we do both?
I certainly think we should do both. But we all know about the huge profits that proceed from the military industrial complex and that Lock-Mart, Boeing, Colt etc., need to keep the war threat mentality going to maintain their investors confidence.
-
Amazon says it wants to find another city, possibly in Canada, where it will set up its 2nd headquarters and that will bring a ton of jobs. High corporate taxes, high hydro rates, and $15 an hour minimum wages means Ontario won't look as promising to them, so it's a double-edged sword.
What? Amazon headquarter jobs will not be minimum wage so that is a useless argument. Corporate taxes are very low in Ontario, so that argument is bull crap. Hydro rates are high, but there are very few jurisdictions where they are low. In Canada we have BC, Quebec, and Manitoba with lower than average rates, and in the US you have Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho - good luck finding workers in those states.
-
We've got the perfect example in recent news. Trudeau is spending $4.5 billion of public money, not for the public good, but to put into the bank accounts of a Texas oil company.
He's spending $4.5 billion of public money to buy a key piece of infrastructure, one that some people would argue should have been owned by the government of Canada all along. Instead of enriching Kinder-Morgan shareholders for decades to come, it could provide revenue for environmental initiatives, renewable energy research, or many other kinds of projects that are in the public good. While also providing vital infrastructure for an important Canadian industry, which is also a matter of the public good. Hopefully future governments will resist the urge to sell it back to rich-guys as soon as it starts making money.
-k
-
The Corporate Tax argument is one of the best examples of retardedness in political discussion:
IT'S A F***ING NUMBER.
-
He's spending $4.5 billion of public money to buy a key piece of infrastructure, one that some people would argue should have been owned by the government of Canada all along. Instead of enriching Kinder-Morgan shareholders for decades to come, it could provide revenue for environmental initiatives, renewable energy research, or many other kinds of projects that are in the public good. While also providing vital infrastructure for an important Canadian industry, which is also a matter of the public good. Hopefully future governments will resist the urge to sell it back to rich-guys as soon as it starts making money.
-k
Buying an oil line to use the money from oil production for environmental initiatives is like **** for virginity.
-
I'm all for supporting veterans. I just think instead of pinning a stupid plastic thing to our lapels and parading around singing the national anthem with a few warplanes scooting around overhead, we should be discussing how to make sure we don't make more wars. Maybe pointing out how **** stupid Trump is by selling billions of dollars of war equipment to a place like Saudi Arabia where any idiot can figure out what it will be used for.
Recognizing that people die in wars is a stupid thing. ::) All those WW1, WW2 and Korean vets who stood out in the rain year after year to honour their friends who never came back were just a bunch of hypocrites. My father and uncles were WW2 vets and my grandfather served in WW1. I never heard any of them glorify war.
Just ignoring that will make discussing how to prevent wars so much easier.
-
Buying an oil line to use the money from oil production for environmental initiatives is like **** for virginity.
I think it is a great way to use the revenues. You got a better one?
-
Oil companies are profitable because its private profits, public expenses. They rely on the public to subsidize the environmental destruction they create. Oil spills, operation closures, etc. are heavily subsidized by the public. So the government is not going to be remotely as profitable when **** inevitably goes south because they'll be on the hook for the cleanup. A better idea, for starters, is to not buy a god damned oil line in the first place and start spending socialized revenues on social problems. Or if they're super keen about being in the energy sector, dump that $4.5 billion into research and development for technologies that will be relevant as we transition off oil. There's not a single redeeming value in spending this much money on the oil industry.
-
Without the existing TM pipeline, BC would be completely screwed. Even the refined products BC gets from Washington State are from crude shipped through the TM.
-
The Corporate Tax argument is one of the best examples of retardedness in political discussion:
IT'S A F***ING NUMBER.
11.5% for Ontario
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/corporation-tax-rates.html
26.1% for NY state
https://taxfoundation.org/us-corporate-income-tax-more-competitive/
FIGHT ME
-
11.5% for Ontario
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/corporation-tax-rates.html
26.1% for NY state
https://taxfoundation.org/us-corporate-income-tax-more-competitive/
FIGHT ME
I'm not an expert but the devil is in the details. It really depends on what is and isn't taxable and how many deductions companies have.
For example, if you add up the tax I have to pay; municipal, provincial, and federal, you might find it's lower than the same combination in some cities in New York state.
But here's the thing, if I lived in New York I could not only deduct my municipal and state taxes from my federal tax, I could also deduct my mortgage interest. In Canada they all get lumped on top of each other.
Edited to add. I just did a quick google search. Business in the US can deduct both state and local taxes from their federal taxes.
A corporation can deduct income taxes imposed by state and local governments as business expenses for federal income tax purposes. This assures that corporate income is not taxed twice with a combination of state and federal levies. In some states, corporations pay franchise tax, which is also based upon corporate income. Franchise tax is also a business expense deductible from federal income tax.
https://bizfluent.com/info-8541667-state-federal-corporate-income-taxes.html
Meanwhile in Canada.
You have to calculate and pay provincial and territorial income tax in addition to your federal income tax.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/businesses/topics/corporations/provincial-territorial-corporation-tax.html
-
I could also deduct my mortgage interest.
You can deduct your mortgage interest on investment properties in Canada as well. The only difference is you cannot deduct mortgage interest on your primary residence in Canada, but - and it is a BIG friggen but - you don't pay capital gains taxes on your primary residence in Canada either.
-
They rely on the public to subsidize the environmental destruction they create. Oil spills, operation closures, etc. are heavily subsidized by the public.
While it is fair to discuss the intangible costs of an energy source one cannot reasonably discuss the costs without also considering the intangible benefits. The intangible benefits that society gets access to to low cost transport far outstrips the environmental harms. These benefits at the microscopic scalar includes things that powering that helicopter that gets an injury person to a hospital in time. At the macroscopic scale these benefits are more personal freedom and greater labor mobility which leads to increased GDP growth.
-
low cost transport
At the real scale it means you can get cheap disposable products from China, and drive to your gym. We would be better of in both cases without.
-
You can deduct your mortgage interest on investment properties in Canada as well. The only difference is you cannot deduct mortgage interest on your primary residence in Canada, but - and it is a BIG friggen but - you don't pay capital gains taxes on your primary residence in Canada either.
Pretty much the same in the US except for rich people or people in certain high cost areas like San Francisco and NYC
When you sell your home, the capital gains on the sale are exempt from capital gains tax. Based on the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, if you are single, you will pay no capital gains tax on the first $250,000 you make when you sell your home. Married couples enjoy a $500,000 exemption.
Read more: Is it true that you can sell your home and not pay capital gains tax? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/capitalgainhomesale.asp#ixzz5H750Yy73
In most US cities the cost of houses is way lower than in Canada.
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/realestateeconomy/what-canadas-average-house-price-will-get-you-in-the-u-s/image/3/
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
-
At the real scale it means you can get cheap disposable products from China, and drive to your gym. We would be better of in both cases without.
You are obsessed with the driving patterns of a tiny minority that amount to nothing in the big picture. The same cheap fuel that allows the wealthy to waste it allows organic farmers to get their produce to markets in the city. The same cheaper disposable goods means hospitals can hire more nurses and fund more beds with the same budgets. The same low cost fuel means families don't have to split up because one spouse can only find a job in different city than the other spouse. Society is better off with oil than without. Maybe some new tech will emerge to replace oil but there is nothing plausible on the horizon. Until then we need oil for transport.
-
it allows organic farmers to get their produce to markets in the city
Yes, we can get produce out of season from half a world away. Something we really don't need. I haven't been to a real farmer's market in 40 years. Most of the impersonators at so called farmers markets these days don't even grow the stuff they sell, and the rest of them are selling crafts.
Sure thing, if fuel were not cheap the world would fall apart according to you. Did you also write the latest PC attack ad I am hearing on redneck radio Ottawa? They are saying he world will blow up if you elect the NDP.
-
Until then we need oil for transport.
[/quote]
Is that why Tesla is ramping up to manufacture 100,000 electric transport trucks a year?
https://electrek.co/2018/02/08/tesla-semi-electric-semi-truck-production/
-
Yes, we can get produce out of season from half a world away. Something we really don't need.
We can get food out of season which is essential to keeping the city functioning. We could not maintain the current population of Canada without large scale imports of food during winter months. I guess you would rather people starve to satisfy your ideological obsession with oil.
Sure thing, if fuel were not cheap the world would fall apart according to you.
According to every economist who understands the relationship between transportation and economic growth. But it goes beyond simply economic growth: high transport costs would harm everyone except the richest while reducing tax revenue and limiting the ability of governments to mitigate those harms. But I guess you are someone who does not give a crap about people with less wealth than you.
-
https://electrek.co/2018/02/08/tesla-semi-electric-semi-truck-production/
Get back to me when Telsa actually meets its product targets for Telsa 3. So far they are failing miserably. The 'semi-truck' was a PT Barnum classic illusion designed to distract people from how bad things are going. People have also done the math and established that the claimed 'semi-truck' capabilities are physically nonsense.
-
eople have also done the math and established that the claimed 'semi-truck' capabilities are physically nonsense.
Yes, there are lots of naysayers out there. Musk don't listen to them.
-
Yes, there are lots of naysayers out there. Musk don't listen to them.
Yet most of his companies are headed for an implosion. Solar City already failed. Telsa is next if it can't start producing cars in volume.
-
Yet most of his companies are headed for an implosion. Solar City already failed. Telsa is next if it can't start producing cars in volume.
I'm afraid you are right. As much as I would like Musk to succeed because of what he has done to advance the development of alternative technologies, his business plan looks like it is in real trouble.
-
Yes, we can get produce out of season from half a world away. Something we really don't need. I haven't been to a real farmer's market in 40 years. Most of the impersonators at so called farmers markets these days don't even grow the stuff they sell, and the rest of them are selling crafts.
Sure thing, if fuel were not cheap the world would fall apart according to you. Did you also write the latest PC attack ad I am hearing on redneck radio Ottawa? They are saying he world will blow up if you elect the NDP.
Ever tried going without out of season produce. No salads, greens or fruit for eight or nine months of the year? Bet you haven't.
-
Get back to me when Telsa actually meets its product targets for Telsa 3. So far they are failing miserably. The 'semi-truck' was a PT Barnum classic illusion designed to distract people from how bad things are going. People have also done the math and established that the claimed 'semi-truck' capabilities are physically nonsense.
Oh yes we all know how Elon musk and Tesla have "failed miserably". I only wish I had bought shares in such a "failing" company years ago. Stock is expected to soar by 80% on the 3. The semi is set to go into production next year and other companies are heading down the same road such as VW, Cummins, Nikola. The US Postal Service is already driving EV's. The nonsense is the head in the sand approach that we are doomed to continue sucking up fossils forever.
-
Ever tried going without out of season produce. No salads, greens or fruit for eight or nine months of the year? Bet you haven't.
Greenhouses grow greens very effectively and locally. I remember Christmas was special because we got an orange in our stocking.
-
Greenhouses grow greens very effectively and locally. I remember Christmas was special because we got an orange in our stocking.
Greenhouses can only do so much and heating them in the winter isn't cheap. You also need vehicles to get food to customers. Bet that orange was probably a Mandarin from Japan or China.
-
Greenhouses grow greens very effectively and locally.
You mean the greenhouses that need to burn fossil fuels to function? The greenhouses that would be the first businesses to go under if they lost access to cheap energy? You are not helping your argument.
-
Greenhouses can only do so much and heating them in the winter isn't cheap. You also need vehicles to get them to customers.
Greenhouses can work effectively in urban space, lots of current work with vertical greenhouses and both reflectors, light guides, and spectrum specific LED lighting to lower cost. The transport factor is reduced considerably. Yes heat is a problem, but it is also a problem throughout the chain including transport and warehousing.
You mean the greenhouses that need to burn fossil fuels to function?
Still stuck in the dark ages I see.
-
Still stuck in the dark ages I see.
Not really. Even in BC where electricity is hydro generated and relatively cheap, greenhouses are heated with natural gas because electricity is still too expensive
-
Not really. Even in BC where electricity is hydro generated and relatively cheap, greenhouses are heated with natural gas because electricity is still too expensive.
Don't forget that greenhouses need extra CO2 because the atmospheric CO2 levels are too low for optimal growth.
-
spectrum specific LED lighting to lower cost.
You mean special high tech lighting that is only affordable because of the economies of scale created by cheap transport and global supply chain? Eliminate that supply chain and those costs would go through the roof. You seem to want your cake and eat it too by dismissing the value of cheap transport while promoting options that are only viable because of cheap transport.
-
He's spending $4.5 billion of public money to buy a key piece of infrastructure, one that some people would argue should have been owned by the government of Canada all along. Instead of enriching Kinder-Morgan shareholders for decades to come, it could provide revenue for environmental initiatives, renewable energy research, or many other kinds of projects that are in the public good. While also providing vital infrastructure for an important Canadian industry, which is also a matter of the public good. Hopefully future governments will resist the urge to sell it back to rich-guys as soon as it starts making money.
-k
On the other hand. it costs 4.5 billion in taxpayer money when a private company could run it & maintain it for us & we can spend that money on other things we actually need. There's a gazillion miles of pipeline all over the country, including pipes running adjacent this proposed one. What's so special about this one?
-
Without the existing TM pipeline, BC would be completely screwed.
You're drinking the Koolaid or being melodramatic. I'm not sure which one.
-
Recognizing that people die in wars is a stupid thing. ::) All those WW1, WW2 and Korean vets who stood out in the rain year after year to honour their friends who never came back were just a bunch of hypocrites. My father and uncles were WW2 vets and my grandfather served in WW1. I never heard any of them glorify war.
Just ignoring that will make discussing how to prevent wars so much easier.
My grandfathers who were in WWII never wanted to talk about it. War isn't very glorious, which all the more reason to give thanks to those who live through that hell for our sake.
-
Yes, there are lots of naysayers out there. Musk don't listen to them.
Telsa isn't a profitable company. It's billions in debt. I hope they do spectacularly well eventually for the sake of the environment, but the market is ready for electric when its ready. People aren't going to buy electric cars in droves when they cost 10-20k more than a regular sedan.
-
Oh yes we all know how Elon musk and Tesla have "failed miserably". I only wish I had bought shares in such a "failing" company years ago. Stock is expected to soar by 80% on the 3. The semi is set to go into production next year and other companies are heading down the same road such as VW, Cummins, Nikola. The US Postal Service is already driving EV's. The nonsense is the head in the sand approach that we are doomed to continue sucking up fossils forever.
Anyone who invests in a company that consistently doesn't turn a profit and is 2 billion in debt is a fool. We'll get there one day though, hopefully sooner than later.
-
You're drinking the Koolaid or being melodramatic. I'm not sure which one.
Except for a line from the Peace that goes to a small refinery in Prince George, all the oil and refined products that BC uses come through the TM pipeline, period. Maybe you should cut back on whatever it is you are smoking.
-
People have also done the math and established that the claimed 'semi-truck' capabilities are physically nonsense.
The most powerful stuff we build-- ocean vessels, freight trains-- is diesel-electric (or in some cases, nuclear-driven electric) and I have little doubt that at some point in the future most vehicles-- of all sizes-- will be electric powered in some form or another.
The main point is that we're nowhere close to the point where that is viable.
We in the affluent west have reached the point that some small percentage of our citizens are now using electrical vehicles for personal travel. And we have had electrical streetcars and electrical subways for some time.
But we don't have electrical construction equipment.
We don't have electrical agricultural equipment.
We don't have electrical forestry equipment.
We don't have electrical rail freight.
We don't have electrical ocean freight.
We don't have electrical fishing ships.
We don't have electrical air transport.
The bulk of our city transit networks remains diesel powered.
We aren't remotely close to replacing the things we use fossil fuel for with electrical alternatives. And the rest of the world isn't either.
Some people seem to have the idea that since many people can take the bus to work, and have jobs working at a computer, that fossil fuels aren't economically important anymore. Look at the above list of things we need fossil fuels to accomplish... and imagine how many people would simply have no employment if those activities were no longer possible. Or this idea that since some greenhouses grow vegetables in the winter, we don't need important produce to feed 35 million people in the winter... total idiocy.
-k
-
Anyone who invests in a company that consistently doesn't turn a profit and is 2 billion in debt is a fool. We'll get there one day though, hopefully sooner than later.
People said that about Amazon for a long time too. I don't think they made a nickel in their first 10 years in business, and some skeptics doubted it ever would.
-k
-
Anyone who invests in a company that consistently doesn't turn a profit and is 2 billion in debt is a fool. We'll get there one day though, hopefully sooner than later.
Yes, they are certainly a long term play. If you look at growth, it has been consistently huge. They have been plowing back into that growth, but yes they eventually need to reach profitability. If you trust Musk, that is not far off. He has not been selling profitability to his investors before so they knew what they were getting into. Before this point it was all about raising capital.
-
On the other hand. it costs 4.5 billion in taxpayer money when a private company could run it & maintain it for us & we can spend that money on other things we actually need. There's a gazillion miles of pipeline all over the country, including pipes running adjacent this proposed one. What's so special about this one?
The pipeline that runs adjacent to this one, which the government also bought in this transaction, is simply too small. It's delivering refined products for the BC Lower Mainland in addition to being Canada's only way to export oil to the Pacific. What's special about the new one is that it will be 3 times the size of the existing one. It's like asking why they bothered to build the new Port Mann Bridge when they already had a perfectly fine 2-lane bridge just a little way down the river.
-k
-
The most powerful stuff we build-- ocean vessels, freight trains-- is diesel-electric (or in some cases, nuclear-driven electric) and I have little doubt that at some point in the future most vehicles-- of all sizes-- will be electric powered in some form or another.
The main point is that we're nowhere close to the point where that is viable.
We in the affluent west have reached the point that some small percentage of our citizens are now using electrical vehicles for personal travel. And we have had electrical streetcars and electrical subways for some time.
But we don't have electrical construction equipment.
We don't have electrical agricultural equipment.
We don't have electrical forestry equipment.
We don't have electrical rail freight.
We don't have electrical ocean freight.
We don't have electrical fishing ships.
We don't have electrical air transport.
The bulk of our city transit networks remains diesel powered.
We aren't remotely close to replacing the things we use fossil fuel for with electrical alternatives. And the rest of the world isn't either.
Some people seem to have the idea that since many people can take the bus to work, and have jobs working at a computer, that fossil fuels aren't economically important anymore. Look at the above list of things we need fossil fuels to accomplish... and imagine how many people would simply have no employment if those activities were no longer possible. Or this idea that since some greenhouses grow vegetables in the winter, we don't need important produce to feed 35 million people in the winter... total idiocy.
-k
The "WE" you must be referring to is simply North America, because if you expand your horizons to Japan and Europe, we certainly do have electric construction, agricultural, rail equipment. And as to public transit, I grew up in Toronto and took the subway and street cars most days. Guess what they run on.
-
Buying an oil line to use the money from oil production for environmental initiatives is like **** for virginity.
Asia isn't going to stop burning fossil fuel just because John Horgan and Andrew Weaver block a pipeline. The rest of the world will keep burning energy with or without Canadian exports. To borrow your analogy, just because you decide to stay home Friday night doesn't mean other people aren't having sex.
If we yank ourselves out of that market, it'll be filled by Russian oligarchs and corrupt regimes in Africa and the Middle East. I'd rather we stay in that market, keep people here employed, maintain that industry as a source of prosperity for our country, and use that prosperity to be a leader in developing and adopting alternative technologies that will replace fossil fuel usage.
-k
-
The "WE" you must be referring to is simply North America, because if you expand your horizons to Japan and Europe, we certainly do have electric construction, agricultural, rail equipment. And as to public transit, I grew up in Toronto and took the subway and street cars most days. Guess what they run on.
Yes, I'm aware that city-dwellers have electric transit available, as I mentioned. Yippee.
I certainly never see electric excavators or bulldozers or cranes at any of the construction sites I see. Tell us about the electric ocean freighters. Do they have really long extension cords? Where are the electric freight trains? Electric tractors? I've been to lots of farms and have never seen electric tractors. I see a lot of logging trucks here, but they're all diesel. No Tesla electric logging trucks yet. Not sure what equipment the lumberjacks are using up in the hills, but I'm betting it doesn't run on batteries or extension cords. Tell us about all the electric whirlybirds you've flown, helicopter-man!
-k
-
The most powerful stuff we build-- ocean vessels, freight trains-- is diesel-electric (or in some cases, nuclear-driven electric) and I have little doubt that at some point in the future most vehicles-- of all sizes-- will be electric powered in some form or another.
The reason heavy equipment has 2 motors is because the need a fuel source that can be stored on the equipment without impairing the functioning of the equipment. This means replacing these motors with pure electric is not simply a question of cost. It is a question of weight and volume. Cheap batteries won't help a semi truck if those batteries take up half of the trailer and most of the allowed GVW.
-
Yes, I'm aware that city-dwellers have electric transit available, as I mentioned. Yippee.
I certainly never see electric excavators or bulldozers or cranes at any of the construction sites I see. Tell us about the electric ocean freighters. Do they have really long extension cords? Where are the electric freight trains? Electric tractors? I've been to lots of farms and have never seen electric tractors. I see a lot of logging trucks here, but they're all diesel. No Tesla electric logging trucks yet. Not sure what equipment the lumberjacks are using up in the hills, but I'm betting it doesn't run on batteries or extension cords. Tell us about all the electric whirlybirds you've flown, helicopter-man!
-k
If you re-read my post you'll find I focused on Japan and Europe for such equipment. North America lags behind. And I said nothing about ocean freighters. That is your over reach. And yes the only helicopters I have flown were fueled with JP4 but don't forget, around 27 years ago Dick Rutan flew around the world on solar power.
-
The reason heavy equipment has 2 motors is because the need a fuel source that can be stored on the equipment without impairing the functioning of the equipment.
They use diesel (or nuclear) to generate electricity, and they use electric motors as the main drive because it's just a superior technology. Piston engines would be obsolete very quickly if somebody finds a more efficient way of storing electrical energy. I believe it'll happen sooner or later.
-k
-
The pipeline that runs adjacent to this one, which the government also bought in this transaction, is simply too small. It's delivering refined products for the BC Lower Mainland in addition to being Canada's only way to export oil to the Pacific. What's special about the new one is that it will be 3 times the size of the existing one. It's like asking why they bothered to build the new Port Mann Bridge when they already had a perfectly fine 2-lane bridge just a little way down the river.
I realize why they need the pipeline, i was just asking why all of a sudden they're so controversial.
All the native groups where reserves are adjacent to the proposed pipeline have agreed to deals. Our national economy is quite dependent on our oil production. The price of the Canadian dollar goes up when our oil outlook gets better. Canadian stocks markets go up, which is good for everyone's pensions and RRSP's etc. People aren't going to stop using oil by blocking this pipeline, and the entirety of Canada accounts for only 1.5% of total global CO2 emissions (China is ~30%), so environmental concerns are moot. Not wanting this pipeline is insane.
I suppose there's some land in the middle of Bum-f*ck Nowhere BC that the government hasn't agreed to treaties with the natives there. That's the only thing I can think of stopping this. Just give them a stake, give them money, they desperately need it. There's endless miles of vast untouched wilderness in BC, who the hell cares about some pipeline going along the same path as other pipeline, like WTF PEOPLE.
-
If you re-read my post you'll find I focused on Japan and Europe for such equipment. North America lags behind. And I said nothing about ocean freighters. That is your over reach. And yes the only helicopters I have flown were fueled with JP4 but don't forget, around 27 years ago Dick Rutan flew around the world on solar power.
I do believe it'll happen eventually. Just not any time soon.
-k
-
Where are the electric freight trains?
All over Europe. You realize that practically all freight trains use electric motors, and once you invest in the wires you don't need a diesel generator on board. Europe made that investment decades ago.
-
The "WE" you must be referring to is simply North America, because if you expand your horizons to Japan and Europe, we certainly do have electric construction, agricultural, rail equipment. And as to public transit, I grew up in Toronto and took the subway and street cars most days. Guess what they run on.
Hey great, let's say 100% of cars are now electric. But what type of energy at power plants will be used to generate the electricity need to re-charge these cars across the globe?
-
Hey great, let's say 100% of cars are now electric. But what type of energy at power plants will be used to generate the electricity need to re-charge these cars across the globe?
solar and wind benefit from storage technology, and now you have given it to them.
-
Diesel electric equipment is diesel powered and electrically driven. Using a diesel to drive a generator to power an electric motor takes advantage of the electric motor's ability to make maximum torque from zero RPM. Basically the generator and motor eliminate the need for a transmission and allow the diesel to operate in its most efficient RPM range.
-
Hey great, let's say 100% of cars are now electric. But what type of energy at power plants will be used to generate the electricity need to re-charge these cars across the globe?
That is a concern in some areas for sure. Of course if you have to use coal to generate electricity to charge an electric vehicle, well where's the benefit. However in places like many parts of Canada there is hydro power available to charge your car. No fossil fuels involved there.
-
They use diesel (or nuclear) to generate electricity, and they use electric motors as the main drive because it's just a superior technology. Piston engines would be obsolete very quickly if somebody finds a more efficient way of storing electrical energy. I believe it'll happen sooner or later.
What matters we can't set policy based on the assumption that breakthrough tech will appear in the near future even if it is possible that it might. Like fusion, sometimes the "technology of the future" is always the "technology of the future".
-
What matters we can't set policy based on the assumption that breakthrough tech will appear in the near future even if it is possible that it might. Like fusion, sometimes the "technology of the future" is always the "technology of the future".
So you’re saying we haven’t figured out how to create electricity from solar and wind like we havn’t figured out nuclear fusion?
-
What matters we can't set policy based on the assumption that breakthrough tech will appear in the near future even if it is possible that it might. Like fusion, sometimes the "technology of the future" is always the "technology of the future".
Here's an example of the technology that is already here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV1T5tEgZPA
-
So you’re saying we haven’t figured out how to create electricity from solar and wind like we havn’t figured out nuclear fusion?
Solar and wind are basically useless power sources because they don't provide power when needed. To be useful they need backup and/or storage. Large scale and economic battery storage does not exist. The "worlds biggest battery" in Australia has a few minutes of capacity and is only useful for smoothing out peaks. To make solar/wind useful without fossil fuel backup we need hours, if not days of storage.
-
Here's an example of the technology that is already here.
The devil is in the detail:
At this time, Volvo says the EX2 is purely a proof of concept and the company has no plans to manufacture and put the machine on the market. The company says that it will continue to use the EX2 for research projects, such as durability testing.
The technology clearly has major issues because if it was even remotely viable Volvo would be selling them as fast as they could.
-
So you’re saying we haven’t figured out how to create electricity from solar and wind like we havn’t figured out nuclear fusion?
And ITER (the way) anticipates success on fusion by 2040.
-
I don't think anybody, even Tim, is saying that the technology will never improve.
What people are saying is that for now, and for at least a few decades, fossil fuel remains very important to our quality of life, and for that matter to making life even possible for the amount of people who now live on this planet.
-k
-
Sorry for drifting the thread. Was that me? I think it might have been me. We already had 2 other pipeline threads.
So, on the election front, I have seen wildly varying polls the past couple of days. One had Ford way out in front, one had NDP and PC dead even, one had the NDP maintaining the big lead that a couple of polls showed earlier in the week.
I interpret this to mean that Canadian polls aren't quite the refined science that their American counterparts are.
-k
-
Sorry for drifting the thread. Was that me? I think it might have been me. We already had 2 other pipeline threads.
So, on the election front, I have seen wildly varying polls the past couple of days. One had Ford way out in front, one had NDP and PC dead even, one had the NDP maintaining the big lead that a couple of polls showed earlier in the week.
I interpret this to mean that Canadian polls aren't quite the refined science that their American counterparts are.
-k
American counterparts? Do you think many polls down there projected the fake hairdo nitwit would win?
-
Sorry for drifting the thread. Was that me? I think it might have been me. We already had 2 other pipeline threads.
So, on the election front, I have seen wildly varying polls the past couple of days. One had Ford way out in front, one had NDP and PC dead even, one had the NDP maintaining the big lead that a couple of polls showed earlier in the week.
I interpret this to mean that Canadian polls aren't quite the refined science that their American counterparts are.
-k
I am quite convinced that Wynne will be sidelined, but I don't think either of the other two have the upper hand. I'm waiting to see Ford and Horwath squaring off. Hopefully he won't imitate his brother and just physically run over her when he gets frustrated.
-
Asia isn't going to stop burning fossil fuel just because John Horgan and Andrew Weaver block a pipeline. The rest of the world will keep burning energy with or without Canadian exports.
-k
Your crystal ball ignores the progress made towards alternative energies, even in China (who is much further along on fuel-cell technology than anyone else).
Also, your comment about pulling out of the market completely is a foolish strawman that I'm frankly surprised to see you make. I don't honestly think you're dumb enough to believe that the alternative to spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline is shutting down the entire oil industry. And that's certainly not what I said.
-
Funny how the Ontario election thread became about oil pipelines on the west coast.
-
Sorry for drifting the thread. Was that me? I think it might have been me. We already had 2 other pipeline threads.
So, on the election front, I have seen wildly varying polls the past couple of days. One had Ford way out in front, one had NDP and PC dead even, one had the NDP maintaining the big lead that a couple of polls showed earlier in the week.
I interpret this to mean that Canadian polls aren't quite the refined science that their American counterparts are.
The polls and the seat projections are vastly different. NDP have slight leads in a bunch of polls but are getting killed in seat projections where PC are predicted to be getting a majority. CBC has PC's at 90% probability of winning, NDP at 10%. PC getting ~70 seats, NDP ~50, and Liberals around 1 seat. I'm hoping whoever wins gets a minority so that in a couple of years a fiscally competent leader can come from somewhere and clean the mess of this province up.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/
-
Ontario's debt now stands at 312 billion. There's 7.6 million people in Ontario either employed or looking for work. That's over $40,000 dollars of debt per working person to be paid back. That's absolutely insane. That doesn't even count the federal debt, or people's personal debt like mortgages. Dear god.
-
Your crystal ball ignores the progress made towards alternative energies, even in China (who is much further along on fuel-cell technology than anyone else).
Also, your comment about pulling out of the market completely is a foolish strawman that I'm frankly surprised to see you make. I don't honestly think you're dumb enough to believe that the alternative to spending $4.5 billion on a pipeline is shutting down the entire oil industry. And that's certainly not what I said.
Your "**** for virginity" quip seems to suggest you feel that building the pipeline will promote climate change or that stopping the pipeline will help fight climate change. Neither is true. That market will exist with or without us, and the only question is whether we want to be part of it or not. Being part of it gives Canada prosperity and financial resources to develop and implement renewable energy sources and other green technologies. Building this pipeline also gets provincial buy-in on federal environmental initiatives. Trudeau was blunt in saying that the pipeline would not have been approved without Notley's leadership in environmental initiatives, and you can rest assured that the reverse is true as well. If the pipeline is not built, that cooperation is going to end.
As for my crystal ball, it tells me that the market for fossil fuels will exist for decades to come. The technologies are still in the fledgling stage. And even as they advance, it will still take many many years to phase out old combustion infrastructure, even in prosperous countries. And in less prosperous countries where people and governments simply don't have the money to upgrade infrastructure at the drop of the hat, it will take even longer. I am optimistic that fossil fuel technologies will be in large measure replaced someday, but that day is far in the future and people still need fuel in the meantime.
-k
-
I saw a headline this morning that Wynne has acknowledged she has lost, and is now urging people to vote Liberal to prevent a PC or NDP majority.
-k
-
I saw a headline this morning that Wynne has acknowledged she has lost, and is now urging people to vote Liberal to prevent a PC or NDP majority.
Saw the same. No, the party needs to be vanquished from the legislature. If Wynne had any care for her party or the province she would have resigned her leadership over a year ago instead of clinging on to power for the sake of her own career. Her party is so dumb that they didn't force a horrifically unpopular leader out before getting slaughtered in an election.
-
The polls and the seat projections are vastly different. NDP have slight leads in a bunch of polls but are getting killed in seat projections where PC are predicted to be getting a majority. CBC has PC's at 90% probability of winning, NDP at 10%. PC getting ~70 seats, NDP ~50, and Liberals around 1 seat. I'm hoping whoever wins gets a minority so that in a couple of years a fiscally competent leader can come from somewhere and clean the mess of this province up.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/poll-tracker/
If the Tories don't get a majority it will be Andrea Horvath supported by the Liberals as they go on a spending spree.
-
If the Tories don't get a majority it will be Andrea Horvath supported by the Liberals as they go on a spending spree.
I wonder why people can't spell Horwath? Anyway, she has released a fully costed program spending plan. Doug Ford, he makes lots of promises but seems to have no idea what they will cost. Take your pick.
-
I wonder why people can't spell Horwath? Anyway, she has released a fully costed program spending plan
Like Trudeau did?
-
Like Trudeau did?
Did you miss it?
-
Like Trudeau did?
He did release a costed spending platform before the election. It added 146 billion of deficit spending, but at least he announced it.
Ford has been leader for a few months, so didn't have a luxury of a year+ to cost things out carefully, but he also doesn't have a plan either so...
-
I would like to see the NDP show a costed plan for their sanctuary province and free health care for all our 'guests'
-
He did release a costed spending platform before the election. It added 146 billion of deficit spending, but at least he announced it.
Ford has been leader for a few months, so didn't have a luxury of a year+ to cost things out carefully, but he also doesn't have a plan either so...
Well one economist did some costing on his "plan", (and the other two parties), didn't look so good for Ford and his promises of balanced budget in his second year.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/doug-ford-s-plan-is-furthest-away-from-balanced-budget-economist-says-1.3952848
Mike Moffatt, an economist with Western University’s Ivey Business School, took a closer look at the numbers behind the platforms of Ontario’s three main political parties.
Based on the information Ford has made public, Moffatt predicts the PCs would run the steepest deficits by their third and fourth year in office.
-
I would like to see the NDP show a costed plan for their sanctuary province and free health care for all our 'guests'
What is your 'sweet spot' on spending on this ? If it's $0 then you don't actually need to see a costed plan to make your decision.
-
He did release a costed spending platform before the election.
Which promised a couple of years of $10b deficits then back to surpluses.
How's that going?
-
“The promises add to about $7 billion a year in tax cuts and spending. And it’s not clear where that $7 billion is going to come from,” Moffatt, who previously advised the federal Liberals on Ontario economics, told CTV Toronto on Wednesday.
So we have a Liberal party affiliated economics professors saying that from what he's seen the Tories will have the largest deficit. But of course, the Tories are not talking about how they plan to save money so he's not including any cuts.
-
What is your 'sweet spot' on spending on this ? If it's $0 then you don't actually need to see a costed plan to make your decision.
The idea of 'sanctuary provinces' or 'sanctuary cities' is ludicrous virtue-signalling bullshit, and any politician who backs it should be permanently banned from holding any public office.
-
“The promises add to about $7 billion a year in tax cuts and spending. And it’s not clear where that $7 billion is going to come from,” Moffatt, who previously advised the federal Liberals on Ontario economics, told CTV Toronto on Wednesday.
So we have a Liberal party affiliated economics professors saying that from what he's seen the Tories will have the largest deficit. But of course, the Tories are not talking about how they plan to save money so he's not including any cuts.
I think the basic problem here is that DoFo simply doesn't understand the term "fully costed program"and therefore can't deliver one.
-
The idea of 'sanctuary provinces' or 'sanctuary cities' is ludicrous virtue-signalling bullshit, and any politician who backs it should be permanently banned from holding any public office.
Meh. "war on drugs" "boot camps"
Reactionary politics are everywhere. Kill the appetite for them by fomenting reasonable public.
And my question to the other poster stands.
-
The idea of 'sanctuary provinces' or 'sanctuary cities' is ludicrous virtue-signalling bullshit, and any politician who backs it should be permanently banned from holding any public office.
A sanctuary city in Canada isn't that big of a deal. It seems humane to me.
In Canada, at least, sanctuary status has no bearing on whether a refugee can be detained or deported. The Canada Border Services Agency still enforces immigration law in sanctuary cities, and status doesn’t change the laws governing any police force.
So what’s the difference? In sanctuary cities, municipal services from public health to libraries instruct their staff not to ask people about their immigration status. Councils may ask municipal police boards to develop similar policies; these vary from city to city and from force to force, but the idea is to make sure someone can call 9-1-1 without worrying that they’ll be deported if they do.
https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/what-is-a-sanctuary-city-anyway
-
A sanctuary city in Canada isn't that big of a deal. It seems humane to me.
Yeah, that's the problem with everything lefties want to do. It always seems humane and they never put any thought into the broader picture. They're always deeply generous - with other people's money.
One out of eight people was on welfare when Mike Harris took over. Why? Because the lefties wanted to be humane and they cared so much about people. But they never put together the obvious and glaring problem with their humanity. The more willing you are to give people stuff for free, the more people will show up to hold their hands out.
Make it easier on illegal immigrants and the inevitable result is MORE illegal immigrants crowding around with their hands held out.
I have to pay for the housing, welfare and health care of poorer Canadians. Why the hell should I have to do the same for illegal immigrants who have no business being in this country?
-
Yeah, that's the problem with everything lefties want to do. It always seems humane and they never put any thought into the broader picture. They're always deeply generous - with other people's money.
One out of eight people was on welfare when Mike Harris took over. Why? Because the lefties wanted to be humane and they cared so much about people. But they never put together the obvious and glaring problem with their humanity. The more willing you are to give people stuff for free, the more people will show up to hold their hands out.
Make it easier on illegal immigrants and the inevitable result is MORE illegal immigrants crowding around with their hands held out.
I have to pay for the housing, welfare and health care of poorer Canadians. Why the hell should I have to do the same for illegal immigrants who have no business being in this country?
You seem to think "lefties" as you like to call everybody who doesn't agree with your xenophobic rants do not pay taxes, and that there is something inherently wrong with being humane. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
-
The latest poll I've seen shows the NDP and PC's are completely neck and neck at 37%. It will be interesting to see what strategies will be followed as we head toward Thursday. Will they sit tight and try to hold onto what they have or take a shot and try some tactic to nudge their numbers up a tad?
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-macleans-pollara-ontario-election-poll-ndp-and-pcs-in-deadlock/
-
You seem to think "lefties" as you like to call everybody who doesn't agree with your xenophobic rants do not pay taxes, and that there is something inherently wrong with being humane. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Most lefties DON'T pay taxes. That's why they're lefties. The exception being government unions, of course.
Those who DO pay taxes, especially a lot of taxes, tend to be a hell of a lot less eager to have the government spending their money on foreigners than lefties who pay little or nothing.
And it's not xenophobic to not want to invite the world into Canada for free social services at my expense, you brainless twat.
-
Most lefties DON'T pay taxes. That's why they're lefties. The exception being government unions, of course.
Those who DO pay taxes, especially a lot of taxes, tend to be a hell of a lot less eager to have the government spending their money on foreigners than lefties who pay little or nothing.
And it's not xenophobic to not want to invite the world into Canada for free social services at my expense, you brainless twat.
Yet another bigly assumption from sir argus with no proof to back anything up which of course turns to silly insults for lack of anything better to do. Yep that pretty much sizes up as a brainless twat.
-
Most lefties DON'T pay taxes.
Cite ?
The cities are all left-of-centre. That is also where the money is. I feel I am hearing the wisdom of your ass trumpet once again.
-
Most lefties DON'T pay taxes.
Thank you oh great one for keeping the beer stocked in my mom's basement.
-
Thank you oh great one for keeping the beer stocked in my mom's basement.
As long as we're talking anecdotes... back in the 90s a friend of a friend was a social worker. This person reported back that welfare folks were solid Reform Party supporters...
-
You seem to think "lefties" as you like to call everybody who doesn't agree with your xenophobic rants do not pay taxes, and that there is something inherently wrong with being humane. Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Nothing wrong with being humane. But at a certain point being too nice causes more harm than good.
It's like overbearing parents who are so nice and protective of their child that the child never learns responsibility and independence and becomes stuck in their 30's still living at home sucking off the parent's teet have never really grown up and never had too because it's easier to just suck the teet.
The government should provide a social safety net so when hard times come there's some help to get you back on your feet. The government shouldn't provide longterm means for you to live etc., unless you are disabled or another exceptional situation where you're literally unable to fend for yourself. Same as it's ok to move back in with your parents for a bit if you lose your job or get divorced etc so you can get back on your feet, just don't stay there longterm and be a mooch.
-
Most lefties DON'T pay taxes. That's why they're lefties.
That's ridiculous.
-
Cite ?
The cities are all left-of-centre. That is also where the money is. I feel I am hearing the wisdom of your ass trumpet once again.
I know you lefties refuse to acknowledge there even is such a thing as human behaviour, except where it agrees with you, but I'm going by that. Those who pay little or no taxes are far more likely to want lots of expensive government services than those who do pay a sizable percentage of their income in taxes.
-
I know you lefties refuse to acknowledge there even is such a thing as human behaviour, except where it agrees with you, but I'm going by that. Those who pay little or no taxes are far more likely to want lots of expensive government services than those who do pay a sizable percentage of their income in taxes.
Once again...Cite?
-
So the Ontario debt situation is terrible, but will Doug do anything about that ?
What ?
Layoffs ?
Doesn't seem to be in his wheelhouse somehow.... Firemen ? Cops ? Or just the vile hated teachers ?
-
Firemen ? Cops ? Or just the vile hated teachers ?
I expect health inspectors, so we can have people dying just like the last PC government.
-
Renata Ford and her children have filed a lawsuit against Doug Ford, alleging that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader was a negligent business manager who cost the late mayor’s family millions and deprived them of the money left behind to support them. The lawsuit claims that the Fords’ company, Deco Labels & Tags, lost more than $5-million over the past six years, and that the family’s fortune shrunk to less than $6-million as a result of Doug Ford and his brother Randy’s “ongoing liquidation of investments.”
Next up, liquidating Ontario's assets.
-
So the Ontario debt situation is terrible, but will Doug do anything about that ?
What ?
Layoffs ?
Doesn't seem to be in his wheelhouse somehow.... Firemen ? Cops ? Or just the vile hated teachers ?
There's no PC plan so we don't know yet.
-
The province is screwed no matter who wins. Hopefully someone gets a minority because these parties are all incompetent garbage.
-
The province is screwed no matter who wins. Hopefully someone gets a minority because these parties are all incompetent garbage.
There's nothing wrong with the PCs that a new leader won't solve.
The Liberals ARE indeed incompetent garbage.
The NDP ARE indeed incompetent ideologues without a clue.
-
The province is screwed no matter who wins. Hopefully someone gets a minority because these parties are all incompetent garbage.
It's likely the PC's will get a slim minority mostly because the rural vote will go to them. I guess the fact Ford has no costing for his "programs" doesn't matter.
-
It's likely the PC's will get a slim minority mostly because the rural vote will go to them. I guess the fact Ford has no costing for his "programs" doesn't matter.
A minority government is highly unlkely, especially given that the Libs are about to be trounced. More likely is a PC majority.
-
There's nothing wrong with the PCs that a new leader won't solve.
The Liberals ARE indeed incompetent garbage.
The NDP ARE indeed incompetent ideologues without a clue.
How do you get a new leader if that leader wins an election? The PC's are also rife with corruption.
-
A minority government is highly unlkely, especially given that the Libs are about to be trounced. More likely is a PC majority.
The polls would certainly indicate that is a very unlikely outcome. The PC's and NDP are tied at 37%.
-
How do you get a new leader if that leader wins an election? The PC's are also rife with corruption.
What's corruption? Do they play stupid games around nominations? Yeah. Not happy about that, but it's a hell of a lot less 'corruption' than a party which spends $22 billion of taxpayer money to make itself look good in the run-up to elections, and then cooks the books to try to hide it. This not according to the opposition but it's own Financial Accountability Office and its own Auditor General.
That's not to even mention how many files the Liberals have screwed up, from highways to electricity to health care to the judicial system. I can't actually think of a single thing they haven't screwed up.
No, what I'm hoping is they get in and then Ford gets caught up in some sort of family or background or 'metoo' type scandal and is forced to resign as premier.
Now wouldn't it be hilarious if the fat dick got in and became an amazing premier? :-*
-
There's nothing wrong with the PCs that a new leader won't solve.
... and some new policies.
-
Election day folks, don't forget to vote so you too can be blamed for the next four? years of screw ups.
-
There's nothing wrong with the PCs that a new leader won't solve.
The Liberals ARE indeed incompetent garbage.
The NDP ARE indeed incompetent ideologues without a clue.
There's nothing wrong with the PCs, so long as it isn't the PCs that you have now that elected an imbecile as a leader. But you'll vote for them anyway because you're a partisan hack that doesn't care about a policy platform, principles, or anything else really as long as it has the Conservative name.
-
It's likely the PC's will get a slim minority mostly because the rural vote will go to them. I guess the fact Ford has no costing for his "programs" doesn't matter.
The projections I have been seeing the last few days say it won't be "slim", as even though they are very close in popular support, the NDP support is very concentrated while the PC support is more evenly distributed.
-k
-
There's nothing wrong with the PCs, so long as it isn't the PCs that you have now that elected an imbecile as a leader. But you'll vote for them anyway because you're a partisan hack that doesn't care about a policy platform, principles, or anything else really as long as it has the Conservative name.
The choice is between parties a clear platforms designed to kill the Ontario economy or a party led by an imbecile. Spoiling ones ballot is a temping option but voting NDP is not.
-
The choice is between parties a clear platforms designed to kill the Ontario economy or a party led by an imbecile. Spoiling ones ballot is a temping option but voting NDP is not.
The imbicile's platform will do the most damage, his deficit will skyrocket and to make up for it he will need to fire teachers, nurses,and health inspectors.
-
The choice is between parties a clear platforms designed to kill the Ontario economy or a party led by an imbecile. Spoiling ones ballot is a temping option but voting NDP is not.
Partisan fear-mongering trash.
Vote for parties that have a plan or vote for the meathead that only has a high school education, released no policy platform, and his only political experience is a single term as a Toronto city councilor.
BUT THE ECONOMY!
I'm sure Ford will inspire just a ton of economic confidence. ::)
-
https://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/how-exactly-did-ontario-liberals-balance-the-budget/
Something from LAST YEAR. It's hard to believe that MacLeans gave the Liberals a 'pass' for their fiscal plan so recently, prior to Wynne's attempt to win the election by introducing new programs.
The thing is: it didn't work. She would have been better off to stick to the original plan.
-
Ford isn't perfect and wouldn't have been my choice, however there is no other choice for government now unless you want more of the incompetent corrupt Liberals or radical Marxists - yes I do mean radical as the Ontario NDP is just an evil ideology populated with as nutty a bunch of fruitcakes you'll ever find. Howarth stands by them too. Then there is the radical foreign funded groups supporting them
https://www.marxist.ca/ndp/619-ontario-new-democratic-youth-activism-wins.html
these people think the NDP made a right turn
http://ndpsocialists.ca/about/
-
radical Marxists
You lose all credibility when you use the hyperbolic language of rabid right wing nutjobs.
-
Now wouldn't it be hilarious if the fat dick got in and became an amazing premier?
With a platform as in depth as "cutting gas prices by 10 cents a litre to introducing buck-a-beer ", how could he ever go wrong? ::)
-
BUT THE ECONOMY!
I'm sure Ford will inspire just a ton of economic confidence. ::)
More like Horwath inspires a ton of economic fear.
There are three words that, when put together, strike fear into the hearts of Ontario’s top money managers and economic minds: Premier Andrea Horwath. Asked to describe the worst possible outcome in Thursday’s provincial election from a markets and economic perspective, every financial expert contacted by BNN Bloomberg pointed to the possibility of Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats winning a majority government at Queen’s Park.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/what-bay-street-views-as-worst-case-scenario-in-the-ontario-election-1.1089166
-
You lose all credibility when you use the hyperbolic language of rabid right wing nutjobs.
Marxists can't be radicals?
Socialists are often Marxists. Socialists can't be radicals?
The NDP is full of Socialists. None of them are radicals as compared to the mainstream?
-
More like Horwath inspires a ton of economic fear.
And it's all nothing more than capitalist manipulation of electoral politics in order to sustain their exploitative practices.
-
Well I voted, in rural hicksville, and you could hear echos in the polling station. Maybe the get-out-the-vote didn't work because even the farmers know that Ford is a losing proposition.
-
Don’t worry. You’ll soon have who The Beaverton calls “drug dealing Biff Tannen” as your premier because people like Argus and Tim are afraid of commies.
-
Don’t worry. You’ll soon have who The Beaverton calls “drug dealing Biff Tannen” as your premier...
:D :D i like that one. A puffy overwight Biff lo.
-
The imbicile's platform will do the most damage, his deficit will skyrocket and to make up for it he will need to fire teachers, nurses,and health inspectors.
This is all speculation. He doesn't have a clear platform, that's the problem.
-
And it's all nothing more than capitalist manipulation of electoral politics in order to sustain their exploitative practices.
Why?
-
This is all speculation.
One could argue the exact same thing about all the parties.
-
The Globe and Mail has an excellent endorsement op-ed. Essentially they say it's impossible to endorse any of the leaders/parties for the same reasons I say, they each suck, so they suggest picking the best candidate in your particular riding to hold their leaders to account.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-for-ontario-voters-leadership-and-vision-are-not-on/
But we know that voters, like us, must make a choice, and that all but those who are partisan beyond recovery will have to compromise their values. So we offer this thought.
This election has been a forlorn hunt for the needed mixture of integrity and smart policy. The electorate cannot vote for leadership where it does not exist, or for platforms that are wrong for the times. So if you are lucky enough to have a local candidate who embodies integrity and principle, we encourage you to support him or her. The representatives you choose will need to be strong to hold the next premier to account. Who do you trust to do so?
-
One could argue the exact same thing about all the parties.
True. But you're saying he's going to do X when there's no real indication he's going to do that. Where do you get that he's going to fire nurses and teachers for instance?
-
True. But you're saying he's going to do X when there's no real indication he's going to do that. Where do you get that he's going to fire nurses and teachers for instance?
Same place he dug up that the NDP is going to raise gas prices by 35 cents, cause a disaster, and all the other lies they are spreading on the radio.
-
Even with the worst possible leader for the OPC party, they were still endorsed by most of the editorial boards for the print media.
The liberal bias in the media meme is clearly bullshit.
-
Even with the worst possible leader for the OPC party, they were still endorsed by most of the editorial boards for the print media.
The liberal bias in the media meme is clearly bullshit.
Print media in this country, with the sole exception of the Toronto Star, always tilts right.
-
Print media in this country, with the sole exception of the Toronto Star, always tilts right.
Pretty much. I guess they know their audience lol. Young people don't buy newspapers or watch the evening news like the older generations do. Similar to talk radio i guess.
Then again, there's a pretty big concentration of ownership in print news.
-
Then again, there's a pretty big concentration of ownership in print news.
Yes, how did we allow that to happen again. Wasn't it Thompson in the 70's, and we put a stop to it, and now we are back in the same space.
-
One NDP candidate has said he wants to raise carbon taxes by that much but it is indicative of the mindset. Ford has never said he will cut healthcare or fire nurses etc. in fact he has said he will hire more, that's one of the big lies from the NDP which sure points to a lack of ethics of their part.
The Star is not the only left tilting media, most of them tilt to the left including the very left wing Huff Po.
-
very left wing Huff Po.
What news stand can I pick that one up at?
-
huffingtonpost.ca (and .com) don't forget the very left wing CBC , Press Progress, Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail. The G & M tends to be conservative financially but otherwise, tilts left. I used to think CTV was fairly middle of the road but they tend to lean left nowadays.. there's more
-
huffingtonpost.ca (and .com) don't forget the very left wing CBC , Press Progress, Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail. The G & M tends to be conservative financially but otherwise, tilts left. I used to think CTV was fairly middle of the road but they tend to lean left nowadays.. there's more
Would you prefer the likes of Fox?
-
Same place he dug up that the NDP is going to raise gas prices by 35 cents, cause a disaster, and all the other lies they are spreading on the radio.
That was based on carbon taxes.
Mind you, I don't think there's any way he can lower the price of gas, nor stop the feds from imposing carbon taxes. But that's still better than the Liberals dumbass cap and trade scheme.
-
Even with the worst possible leader for the OPC party, they were still endorsed by most of the editorial boards for the print media.
The liberal bias in the media meme is clearly bullshit.
Drivel. Nobody could endorse the Wynne Liberals after their sorry performance over the past 15 years. Nor was it a time to endorse a rigid NDP of the far left who promised more of the same. Now if the NDP had a more reasonable leader and policies like Mulcair they might well have won.
-
I suspect Doug was cut from the same cloth as his brother. Poor old Ontario.
-
FREE STICKERS & LABELS FOR EVERYBODY
-
I no longer need to run away and join the circus, for the clown show has come to town.
-
40% of the vote = 60% 0f seats.
-
Ontario now has it's own version of Trump. Let's get thsoe coal mines reopened.
-
40% of the vote = 60% 0f seats.
= 100% of the power
Welcome to FPTP, the most undemocratic system possible
-
Welcome to FPTP, the most undemocratic system possible
Only because you have no clue what the word democracy means.
-
DOUG WINS BIG
Conservatives were in power for 8 years out of the last 33. I'm ok with FPTP.
-
Ontario is going to be the circus of Canada.
-
DOUG WINS BIG
Conservatives were in power for 8 years out of the last 33. I'm ok with FPTP.
You mean 12 out of 27, and 16 out of 31 if they win in 2022.
-
Drivel. Nobody could endorse the Wynne Liberals after their sorry performance over the past 15 years. Nor was it a time to endorse a rigid NDP of the far left who promised more of the same. Now if the NDP had a more reasonable leader and policies like Mulcair they might well have won.
It was absolutely the time to endorse a drug-dealing meathead who's running his family business into the ground and had no policy platform to speak of. Perfect time for that.
-
Only because you have no clue what the word democracy means.
Democracy would be a Liberal-NDP coalition with 60% of the seats because that's how people voted.
Meanwhile, your definition of "democracy" is a world where 20% more votes means 100% more seats.
-
Democracy would be a Liberal-NDP coalition with 60% of the seats because that's how people voted.
Nonsense. Democracy is one person one vote in free elections and that is what we have. The details of how those votes are translated into elected representatives are the result of complex trade offs between individual and geographic interests that don't change the fundamental nature of the system which is democratic. It is also not just me, The Economist looked different countries and decided that based on its definition of democracy Canada ranks near the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
For me, the most important feature of a democracy is the ability to clean house and let another group of people run things. We got that yesterday like we got in Alberta 3 years ago. Under any PR like system the same players become perpetual parts of every government which is a recipe for stagnation.
-
You mean 12 out of 27, and 16 out of 31 if they win in 2022.
You can see how it roughly aligns with support.
If my wife and I both want to drive, it makes more sense for one person to drive 1/2 the time and the other to drive 1/2 the time. Not for her to have her left hand on the wheel while I have my right hand on it.
-
Also to point out:
FPTP has produced the incredible balance of interests that we have today. Why **** with that ? Do you think you will make the 30-40% of conservatives disappear or change their minds ?
No.
-
If my wife and I both want to drive, it makes more sense for one person to drive 1/2 the time and the other to drive 1/2 the time. Not for her to have her left hand on the wheel while I have my right hand on it.
Poor analogy, a simple task like driving is in no remote way comparable to the complexities of running a province/country.
-
Poor analogy, a simple task like driving is in no remote way comparable to the complexities of running a province/country.
Ok, so since sharing power for driving is less complicated than running a govt it means we should do it continuously and permanently for government ?
-
FPTP has produced the incredible balance of interests that we have today.
Wrong, it has produced a seesawing between different philosphies that are destroying our province with little progress. We need long term committment, not wiping out everything every few years. The perfect example is Dotard down south trying to undo everything the black guy did because he is a racist ****. We have similar, but less intense stupidity here, like cancelling contracts that end up costing us billions.
-
Wrong, it has produced a seesawing between different philosphies that are destroying our province with little progress. We need long term committment, not wiping out everything every few years. The perfect example is Dotard down south trying to undo everything the black guy did because he is a racist ****. We have similar, but less intense stupidity here, like cancelling contracts that end up costing us billions.
You say 'seesawing' I say continuous improvement. Things aren't "wiped out". The US example isn't relevant because Trump.
-
Agree about FPTP but now of course there will be an explosion of calls for electoral reform even tho the people calling for reform will be the same people who were very happy with a 39% Wynne Majority and same for Trudeau.
-
Wrong, it has produced a seesawing between different philosphies that are destroying our province with little progress.
PR systems with no clear accountability simply ensures that bad policies will never be corrected.
The perfect example is Dotard down south trying to undo everything the black guy did because he is a racist ****.
And in some cases what Obama did was stupid ideologically driven nonsense so it is good thing that the system allows for a reset. My biggest concern is the Democrats will blow the opportunity to go after the moderate middle and instead pander to the racist **** in their own party. BTW - in a presidential system there can only be one president so the idea that power can shared is nonsense - it has to alternate with the swings in policy that come with that.
-
Nonsense. Democracy is one person one vote in free elections and that is what we have.
I'm not quite sure you understand what one person, one vote means. The PC party only got 20% more votes than the NDP yet won 100% more seats. That means one PC vote is worth far more than one NDP vote.
-
I'm not quite sure you understand what one person, one vote means. The PC party only got 20% more votes than the NDP yet won 100% more seats. That means one PC vote is worth far more than one NDP vote.
Is 20% some kind of threshold ? What is acceptable ?
-
I'm not quite sure you understand what one person, one vote means. The PC party only got 20% more votes than the NDP yet won 100% more seats. That means one PC vote is worth far more than one NDP vote.
One person had one vote for a representative of riding. The ridings are not equal but they are close enough so all votes are equal. Once elected the representative represents all voters from the riding. Party affiliation is irrelevant.
-
Is 20% some kind of threshold ? What is acceptable ?
What is acceptable is having a representative legislative assembly. The average population of a riding is 100,000 people (that's honestly a conservative estimate). So an additional 400,000 votes roughly translate to 4 seats. The PC party has 36 more seats. That's over-representation of 32 seats, relative to the NDP. I'm giving you the facts here. I'm not sure how anyone could look at these numbers and think our electoral system is legitimate.
And before idiots get on their partisanship high horses, this was an especially concerning problem for the Atlantic provinces in the last federal election. Every last MP in 4 provinces was Liberal. They got 100% of the seats. That's not representative of the electorate's views either.
-
One person had one vote for a representative of riding. The ridings are not equal but they are close enough so all votes are equal. Once elected the representative represents all voters from the riding. Party affiliation is irrelevant.
And a difference of 400,000 translated to 32 more seats, when each riding is roughly 100,000 people. There is no reasonable way to argue that FPTP is representative at all.
-
What is acceptable is having a representative legislative assembly. The average population of a riding is 100,000 people (that's honestly a conservative estimate). So an additional 400,000 votes roughly translate to 4 seats. The PC party has 36 more seats. That's over-representation of 32 seats, relative to the NDP. I'm giving you the facts here. I'm not sure how anyone could look at these numbers and think our electoral system is legitimate.
Because any representative system distorts percentages. I take exception to the fact that people post the distortions as abhorrent and illogical defects of our system when they have always happened.
If you want 0% distortion use direct democracy.
And before idiots get on their partisanship high horses, this was an especially concerning problem for the Atlantic provinces in the last federal election. Every last MP in 4 provinces was Liberal. They got 100% of the seats. That's not representative of the electorate's views either.
Your opposition MP has zero power anyway. If you want to fix our democracy don't do it by setting up permanent Liberal minority governments and thinking we'll all be great.
-
"Distortions" is a cute way of glossing over the fact that you no longer have a representative government in Ontario. Getting 36 more seats for a mere 400,000 votes should disgust you. Hell, with the PC numbers, you would expect the Green Party to have 18 seats. Think about that. The Green Party shouldn't have 18 seats for 262,000 votes and neither should the PC party have 36 more seats for only 400,000 more votes. That's how bad the "distortion" is. It's not distorted. It's completely incoherent.
-
Agree about FPTP but now of course there will be an explosion of calls for electoral reform even tho the people calling for reform will be the same people who were very happy with a 39% Wynne Majority and same for Trudeau.
This is the essence of the issue. People only want to change things that aren't working out their way. If they're in power, things obviously worked out pretty well for them. Mr Trudeau was a big fan of changing the FPTP system, until the FPTP system gave him the power to change it.
-k
-
With Dug now elected Premier, I assume the dumb-guy types are ecstatic.
FORD NAY-SHUNNNNN!! yuh-yuh-YEAAAAHHHHH!!
-k
-
I take exception to the fact that people post the distortions as abhorrent and illogical defects of our system when they have always happened
That is not logic, that is accepting wrong just because.
-
This is the essence of the issue. People only want to change things that aren't working out their way. If they're in power, things obviously worked out pretty well for them. Mr Trudeau was a big fan of changing the FPTP system, until the FPTP system gave him the power to change it.
Trudeau may be a lying failure, but I call bullcrap on saying people cheered his majority because it distorted the power.
-
And a difference of 400,000 translated to 32 more seats, when each riding is roughly 100,000 people. There is no reasonable way to argue that FPTP is representative at all.
I would agree. The PC's got ~ 7% more of the pop. vote and nearly double the number of seats.
-
I would agree. The PC's got ~ 7% more of the pop. vote and nearly double the number of seats.
20% more votes than the NDP; 100% more seats.
-
That is not logic, that is accepting wrong just because.
It isn't proven wrong. It's simply claimed that it's wrong when it has always happened.
Why is this a problem ? Why do we need to demolish and remake our entire system to address it ? Is there a smaller way to try this out instead of deploying it on millions of people first ?
-
Having a vote doesn't mean you are guaranteed a representative you voted for. That is not what democracy is about. Under PR you could wind up having no local representative depending on how seats are allocated by the parties.
We are going to have a vote on PR in BC this year and I will need satisfactory answers to some serious questions before I will consider supporting it.
-
Under PR you could wind up having no local representative depending on how seats are allocated by the parties.
Under the current system you don't have a local representative either, all you have is a puppet. Yes, they have an office, but that is simply to replace the Service Canada that Harper canceled that was supposed to replace local offices for the various departments. The employees in the local constituency office are no better than having proper Service Canada or other employees to help you.
-
Having a vote doesn't mean you are guaranteed a representative you voted for. That is not what democracy is about. Under PR you could wind up having no local representative depending on how seats are allocated by the parties.
We are going to have a vote on PR in BC this year and I will need satisfactory answers to some serious questions before I will consider supporting it.
Agreed. Trudeau backed off from it after he saw some of the implications also.
-
We are going to have a vote on PR in BC this year and I will need satisfactory answers to some serious questions before I will consider supporting it.
We could end up with a nightmare system because 30% of the electorate liked it.
-
We could end up with a nightmare system because 30% of the electorate liked it.
Don't you think when a 7% advantage of the popular can elect almost 100% more candidates that the system maybe needs a tweak or two? Even thoygh I imagine you are likely a DoFo fan.
-
Every time someone's party does not win an election they want proportional-rep. When their party wins, not a peep.
Anyone who thinks you get stable government with proportional rep. is a putz. It produces permanent minority coalitions and not democracy but behind the door power deals constantly coming and going. The British parliamentary system was designed on purpose to avoid fractured constant behind the door minority coalitions with constant turmoil. So I am with MH and Tim G and Wilber on this one and think MH's analogy with the two hands on the steering wheel is dead on.
Look the seats don't match the popular vote, we get that. Its true it doesn't. But its a better system than multiple parties bickering and fighting with no consensus ever. Yes true democracy means everyone should have a say. The fact is that is not practical. Nothing would get done.
The kind of minority governments we have in Canada some argue get things done much better than majority governments. Yes I have heard that argument. First its not necessarily true although it can be true. Next when it is true, these minority governments are never a permanent state of chaos as they are in states with proportional rep. and this usually lasts only long enough for time for another vote and everyone knows that.
Why anyone would want to have an elected assembly and the chaos of Italy is beyond me. In fact look at the nations with it. They are no less corrupt and usually far more inefficient than British parliamentary ones.
That said I respect why some feel proportional is more democratic. I mean it is in the sense that you have more parties. But every party has its cliques that prevent true free flowing free speech In any systems cliques form and these cliques or power networks push the changes.
Look the books in Ontario are empty. Wynn is a lying sob. She was tossed. I a surprised the Liberals got 7 seats. Horvath's promises to spend with a bankrupt province were insulting to anyone's intelligence. Like most Ontarians I am a moderate smack in the centre. I voted for change not because I like Ford-I voted for change and fiscal sanity.
He has a mess. He has a bankrupt province and he has to find a way to make cuts in a high unemployment province saturated with unskilled and homeless people. He's headed for a showdown with Trudeau. To get business back he will be in direct conflict with Trudeau over the economy, environment and immigration among other things. That is what Ontario does. It votes the opposite party of the feds in.
I hope we can salvage our economy. If I were Trudeau I would pay attention. Wynne was a provincial clone of Trudeau.
I agree with some commentator-pundits that I hope Ford realizes his mandate is not to be extremist right because if he does that he will simply polarize the province and fuel the NDP and enable a Liberal rebuild. His best bet is to stay calm and moderate and do what has to be done but without polarizing language. Can he avoid his true bully boy baboon behaviour? He did through the campaign so let's see. He deserves a chance.
As for Wynn she won her seat. Not a bad cushy job for that lying sack of manure.
-
There are many proportional systems that work excellent in Europe, but they always cite Italy. That is the same as calling socialism NAZIs.
-
There are many proportional systems that work excellent in Europe, but they always cite Italy. That is the same as calling socialism NAZIs.
The consequences of a PR system depend a lot on the political culture of the country. No one can reasonably argue that a good outcome is guaranteed in Canada which means the possibility of a very bad outcomes matter. The "devil you know" is a very compelling argument.
-
We could end up with a nightmare system because 30% of the electorate liked it.
They should require a supermajority to change it. Or do a pilot or something.
-
Under the current system you don't have a local representative either, all you have is a puppet. Yes, they have an office, but that is simply to replace the Service Canada that Harper canceled that was supposed to replace local offices for the various departments. The employees in the local constituency office are no better than having proper Service Canada or other employees to help you.
At least you can elect someone who actually lives in your community. There is no guarantee of that in PR and even if there was, it could be someone who got far fewer votes than another local candidate, just because that party got more of the popular vote. They aren't puppets but they are subject to party discipline. That won't change with PR. My sister spent 8 years as a personal assistant to Vicki Huntingdon, an independent BC MLA. Most of her time was spent on local issues.
The devil is in the details for me.
-
They should require a supermajority to change it. Or do a pilot or something.
A super-majority should be required but since we have the minority (the greens) imposing its will on the majority we get a rigged referendum. The entire referendum process is a perfect example of why PR means fringe parties have way too much power and why we don't want it for this country.
-
Democracy would be a Liberal-NDP coalition with 60% of the seats because that's how people voted.
Meanwhile, your definition of "democracy" is a world where 20% more votes means 100% more seats.
The system isn't based on who the most popular party is. It's based on which party has the most seats. You don't vote for a party or a premier, you vote for a representative in your riding to represent you in the legislature, whether they're in a party or not.
This system is still 50%+1 and that's what happened in each riding, it just doesn't equate to the popular vote because, in this type of system, the popular vote is irrelevant. It's similar in the US.
The problem in this system isn't necessarily the popular vote split (though one can definitely argue that), the problem within this particular system is the power hierarchy within each party where backbench MPP's don't have much of a voice and everyone has to tow the party line instead of towing the interests of the riding constituents. It's problem when the leader has so much power when the role of the premier I believe is similar to the PM where it's not even mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
-
Party discipline is a political issue, not an election issue. The way our system works, the issue of party discipline will remain regardless of how we elect people.
-
Wrong, it has produced a seesawing between different philosophies that are destroying our province with little progress. We need long term committment, not wiping out everything every few years.
What if the previous government was crap and the people want change, and obviously didn't know before they voted politicians in that those politicians were going to do things they didn't like? Trump couldn't change obama-era legislation without Congress to actually vote for wipe them out. The voters voted for the change, they weren't happy at all with congress or the direction the Democrats were taking the country.
It would be nice to have longterm good policy-making, but how do you do that without also having the ability to stop and reverse policy when it inevitably goes bad? The Wynne government is a perfect example of longterm stability in gov that went terrible. The more people stay in power, the more corrupt and arrogant they tend to become.
-
This is the essence of the issue. People only want to change things that aren't working out their way. If they're in power, things obviously worked out pretty well for them. Mr Trudeau was a big fan of changing the FPTP system, until the FPTP system gave him the power to change it.
-k
And that makes it so hard to change campaign financing, because you have to be beholden to the people who got you to the dance.
-
Ontario is going to be the circus of Canada.
Not as long as we have BC.
-
It was absolutely the time to endorse a drug-dealing meathead who's running his family business into the ground and had no policy platform to speak of. Perfect time for that.
I rather doubt he's dealing drugs, and from all accounts he was actually an excellent manager of the family business.
-
Agree about FPTP but now of course there will be an explosion of calls for electoral reform even tho the people calling for reform will be the same people who were very happy with a 39% Wynne Majority and same for Trudeau.
Yeah. The unfairness of FPTP only seems to come up when the conservatives win an election.
-
"Distortions" is a cute way of glossing over the fact that you no longer have a representative government in Ontario.
We no longer have the representative government in Ontario we had with Wynne, who got an even lower percentage of the vote?
-
There are many proportional systems that work excellent in Europe, but they always cite Italy.
So you prefer Austria's?
-
I rather doubt he's dealing drugs, and from all accounts he was actually an excellent manager of the family business.
He's a slimy dumb-ass piece of crap. How do you know he was an excellent manager? I want #'s.
-
I rather doubt he's dealing drugs, and from all accounts he was actually an excellent manager of the family business.
He may have been doing drugs but maybe not dealing them. All accounts DO NOT say he is an excellent manager of the family business and he refuses to release the numbers so what does that tell you. And he now has a serious lawsuit from his sister in law to add to the debits.
https://ipolitics.ca/2018/06/05/ford-refuses-to-release-companys-financial-records-maintains-deco-is-incredible/
-
Not as long as we have BC.
Well we have the previous Ford circus as an example. I hope not but I kinda thing Doug is cut from the same cloth.
-
Yeah. The unfairness of FPTP only seems to come up when the conservatives win an election.
Of course, did the Trudeau Liberals complain when they won with 39% of the vote, did the Ontario Liberals et al complain when Wynn won a majority with 38.7% of the vote... and surely there would be no complaints this time had the Liberals or the NDP won with similar numbers.
-
He's a slimy dumb-ass piece of crap. How do you know he was an excellent manager? I want #'s.
Deco, they said, was well run under Doug Ford. But after the 2010 election, when he stepped away from day-to-day management, it descended into something between managerial gridlock and absolute chaos under the leadership of Randy Ford, Doug and Rob’s brother.
http://nationalpost.com/news/they-donąt-want-us-to-win-ford-accuses-media-pollsters-of-conspiring-against-ontario-pc-victory-in-email-blasts
The Tory chief was once an accomplished businessman, but as he migrated toward a political life, Deco suffered under bosses who lacked his skills, they say.
http://nationalpost.com/news/former-executives-say-doug-ford-was-a-good-businessman-but-his-label-company-went-downhill-when-he-turned-to-pol
-
But after the 2010 election, when he stepped away from day-to-day management
What was he doing, he had the worst attendance record at Toronto city council. What about the past 4 years, he lost his bid for mayor so has he not returned to Deco?
-
I got an email from one of the online ammo shops I buy from. It declared Thursday "a great day for Ontario!" and welcomed the impending return of "cheaper gas, lower hydro rates and more business growth." I guess we'll see about that... but in the meantime I can buy ammo at 17% off to celebrate Dug Ford. Yee-haw!
-k
-
It isn't proven wrong. It's simply claimed that it's wrong when it has always happened.
Why is this a problem ? Why do we need to demolish and remake our entire system to address it ? Is there a smaller way to try this out instead of deploying it on millions of people first ?
We’re one of the last remaining FPTP Westminster systems parliamentary democracies on earth and you’re so dramatic about alternative that you’d think someone suggested letting Ontario sleep with your wife.
-
Under the current system you don't have a local representative either, all you have is a puppet. Yes, they have an office, but that is simply to replace the Service Canada that Harper canceled that was supposed to replace local offices for the various departments. The employees in the local constituency office are no better than having proper Service Canada or other employees to help you.
More importantly what does a local representative matter in federal politics anyway? We are globally connected and can instantly communicate with anyone. Issues that are big enough are handled by massive online campaigns these days too. The importance of local candidates and even ridings is from a bygone era.
-
Every time someone's party does not win an election they want proportional-rep. When their party wins, not a peep.
You mean every election?
I’ve been calling for PR for years.
-
Yeah. The unfairness of FPTP only seems to come up when the conservatives win an election.
I brought it up when the LPC won. I also mentioned their sweep of the Atlantic provinces here.
-
More importantly what does a local representative matter in federal politics anyway?
It is even more important for federal politics because it matters a lot having a representative from your community that understands the issues in your community. The suggestion that the country can be run by a bunch of MPs from Ontario and Quebec because that is where the majority of the population lives is absurd.
-
The suggestion that the country can be run by a bunch of MPs from Ontario and Quebec because that is where the majority of the population lives is absurd.
To suggest anyone suggested that is absurd.
-
More importantly what does a local representative matter in federal politics anyway? We are globally connected and can instantly communicate with anyone. Issues that are big enough are handled by massive online campaigns these days too. The importance of local candidates and even ridings is from a bygone era.
Huh? You don't think there's issues than affect people different locally? You don't think things than affect people in Sudbury are different than downtown Toronto?
-
Luckily Doug Ford didn't Trump out and supported Trudeau today.
-
To suggest anyone suggested that is absurd.
If that is the the case then cybercoma does not understand the implication of his words since he did say that local representation does not matter which clearly implies the country could be run by a bunch of MPs from Toronto as long as they had the right party affiliation. If he disagrees with consequence that then he should retract his statement that local representation does not matter.
-
Huh? You don't think there's issues than affect people different locally? You don't think things than affect people in Sudbury are different than downtown Toronto?
Im not naive enough to think a local MP makes a damn bit of difference in our current system. More importantly those needs could be heard and addressed any number of ways which don’t require a local MP.
-
Im not naive enough to think a local MP makes a damn bit of difference in our current system. More importantly those needs could be heard and addressed any number of ways which don’t require a local MP.
How is the whole of the province (or the country federally) supposed to be represented in the legislature if you don't have at least 1 politician coming from and residing in that geographical area? It seems the most representative way to do things.
What would you prefer, a bunch of people from Toronto and Ottawa & cities in general pretending to represent and know the issues that affect various rural/northern areas?
-
How is the whole of the province (or the country federally) supposed to be represented in the legislature if you don't have at least 1 politician coming from and residing in that geographical area? It seems the most representative way to do things.
What would you prefer, a bunch of people from Toronto and Ottawa & cities in general pretending to represent and know the issues that affect various rural/northern areas?
I don't think geographical distribution is useful anymore. How that changes is up for debate. People's interests these days reside in their identification with various communities. And by communities, I mean the absolute furthest thing from geographic community because people are increasingly disconnected from their local communities. Communities are global. People form groups with which they have an affinity and gone are the days of face-to-face clubs, assocations, and communities. The idea of a geospatially local representative is completely outdated.
-
I don't think geographical distribution is useful anymore. How that changes is up for debate. People's interests these days reside in their identification with various communities. And by communities, I mean the absolute furthest thing from geographic community because people are increasingly disconnected from their local communities. Communities are global. People form groups with which they have an affinity and gone are the days of face-to-face clubs, assocations, and communities. The idea of a geospatially local representative is completely outdated.
I just don't agree it's outdated. If you want electoral politics to turn into tribal identity politics rubbish that's a pretty dangerous idea. Ontario legislation should deal with Ontarians and their unique needs, and shouldn't pander to more globalization.
If you think face-to-face associations are outdated you need to leave your house more and get off the internet. People still care about their local schools, universities, hospitals, highways etc. Some people still talk to their neighbours, and more people should spend more time doing that than hanging out on twitter.
-
What would you prefer, a bunch of people from Toronto and Ottawa & cities in general pretending to represent and know the issues that affect various rural/northern areas?
Again you are making the false equivalency that TimG is. There is a world of difference between local representation and a bunch of people from Toronto and Ottawa. For sure there are regional issues that need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean local. Our current system has those "local" people being anything but. Andrew Sheer is a perfect example, born and raised in Ottawa. He moved to Regina when he was a young man for a couple of years, and then returned to Ottawa where he supposedly represents the interests of Saskatchewan. I am not saying he is doing a poor job representing their interests, just pointing out that he is far from "local".
-
Again you are making the false equivalency that TimG is. There is a world of difference between local representation and a bunch of people from Toronto and Ottawa. For sure there are regional issues that need to be addressed, but that doesn't mean local. Our current system has those "local" people being anything but. Andrew Sheer is a perfect example, born and raised in Ottawa. He moved to Regina when he was a young man for a couple of years, and then returned to Ottawa where he supposedly represents the interests of Saskatchewan. I am not saying he is doing a poor job representing their interests, just pointing out that he is far from "local".
Well I don't like when politicians representing ridings don't really come from those riding.
If you get rid of local representation you're going to have even more of a lack of their voice. Bob from the middle of nowhere isn't going to have much of a shot at winning office if elections become nothing more than a pure popularity contest. Candidates from big cities will have a natural advantage at drumming up voter support because of population density, media penetration etc. And who the heck is going to bother knocking on doors in rural areas anymore if houses are minutes apart from each other, and small towns 20 minutes apart etc. Easier to hit up a condo building. Less populated areas and even provinces feel alienated enough already.
I'm not saying i'm against PR, i'm no expert on it, but i'm saying there's merit to local & geographical representation.
-
I just don't agree it's outdated. If you want electoral politics to turn into tribal identity politics rubbish that's a pretty dangerous idea
Turn into?
-
Well I don't like when politicians representing ridings don't really come from those riding.
Yet often times that's exactly what you get, especially with party leaders and other party executives.
-
How am I not surprised to see that this thread has turned into implying that DoFo's mandate is illegitimate because it's only 40%.
JT couldn't even ram Election reform through. As he said, there's no consensus.
And I strongly disagree with the sentiment that geography is meaningless in regards to how a legislature is made up. Why have a legislator if the people involves aren't representing actual people in actual places? Otherwise just have a country/province run by a board of directors.
-
Why have a legislator if the people involves aren't representing actual people in actual places?
So if I live in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan, that means I think like everyone else in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan? I work in the same mill, and drive the same car, and live in the same shanty?
PR represents real people far, far, far, far better than FPTP.
-
So if I live in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan, that means I think like everyone else in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan? I work in the same mill, and drive the same car, and live in the same shanty?
PR represents real people far, far, far, far better than FPTP.
People in certain ridings have certain concerns and needs. With a PR model, you're only representing your party. Again, why have legislators if they don't represent a riding.
Again this is stupid. No election in Canada in the last few decades had a winner get a majority of the vote. Parties in power never want to cede to perpetual minorities. That's why JT balked.
-
People in certain ridings have certain concerns and needs.
Absolutely, but what percentage of those concerns and needs are local only? I suggest that a far higher percentage of common concerns and needs are distributed than localized.
-
Again this is stupid. No election in Canada in the last few decades had a winner get a majority of the vote. Parties in power never want to cede to perpetual minorities. That's why JT balked.
Go back to the birth of the NDP and you will find NO party has had 51%+ in 51+ years !
-
Absolutely, but what percentage of those concerns and needs are local only? I suggest that a far higher percentage of common concerns and needs are distributed than localized.
You are also missing that you mess with the balance.
That means:
-Regions will have less power
-Rural populations will have less power
-Conservatives will have less power
This represents a risk and I would say a significant one to how our democracy works. What problem, exactly, are we trying to solve ? And by problem I mean 'real problem' not "the math doesn't work". Because you are redistributing real power you need to be solving real problems with this.
-
I've researched PR a bit more. It seems promising but a bit messy, seems like neither fptp or PR is perfect, i like the PR open list system. I don't like the mixed member system that uses closed party lists where the party determines the candidate list to be elected based on the vote, though i like how it still includes local geographic representation.
I think PR would work better in smaller countries (by land area) because the districts won't be as diverse. New Zealand or Switzerland or say Malta would be fine with PR because districts would be smaller. Canada and the US are huge area-wise so bigger differences between rural and urban areas, or west vs east or north vs south.
-
So if I live in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan, that means I think like everyone else in Crooked Creek Saskatchewan? I work in the same mill, and drive the same car, and live in the same shanty?
PR represents real people far, far, far, far better than FPTP.
You would think like more people in Crooked Tree Saskatchewan than people in Quebec City or Hamilton.
-
You are also missing that you mess with the balance.
What balance? You continue to talk about this like PR isn’t a thing in any other advanced industrial society.
-
You would think like more people in Crooked Tree Saskatchewan than people in Quebec City or Hamilton.
People move around he country all the time. The running joke is that there’s more Maritimers in Alberta than the Maritimes. Arbitrary political boundaries are a relic of a past where people settled. It is part of a Fordist industrial past where industries were immobile and people settled for generations around their employers. That’s not the way our society works anymore, except in primary industries, and even then hey draw people from around the country. Today, industry is defined by flexibility. Workers aren’t tied to assembly lines. Businesses move, have offices everywhere, employees are transferred across country and even between countries. People change jobs more frequently and move more frequently. The local no longer exists.
-
People move around he country all the time. The running joke is that there’s more Maritimers in Alberta than the Maritimes. Arbitrary political boundaries are a relic of a past where people settled. It is part of a Fordist industrial past where industries were immobile and people settled for generations around their employers. That’s not the way our society works anymore, except in primary industries, and even then hey draw people from around the country. Today, industry is defined by flexibility. Workers aren’t tied to assembly lines. Businesses move, have offices everywhere, employees are transferred across country and even between countries. People change jobs more frequently and move more frequently. The local no longer exists.
Yes and local issues are always local issues. I've lived in BC, Alberta and Ontario. In each case, local issues and representation mattered even on a national political level.
-
I’m not sure why you think they won’t be addressed. Parties would lose support by not addressing concerns. MPs are lapdogs now anyway, so it’s not like they ever actually address any local concerns in any meaningful way anyway.
-
MP'a are advocates for their ridings within their parties. Any time I have contacted an MLA or MP, I have had a response and my questions addressed, even if I wasn't happy with the outcome. If an MP has no tie to and is not answerable an area they are supposed to represent, why should they give a ****, especially if they only hold their seat because of a popular vote that doesn't reflect the way people in their supposed riding voted? The devil is in the details for me. The details matter.
-
What balance? You continue to talk about this like PR isn’t a thing in any other advanced industrial society.
It makes countries into very different entities. The religious far right has a lot of pull in Israel, for example.
-
It makes countries into very different entities. The religious far right has a lot of pull in Israel, for example.
Religious conflict in Israel is your example? ???
You've got to be trolling or just grasping at straws.
-
Religious conflict in Israel is your example? ???
You've got to be trolling or just grasping at straws.
Large coalitions that require kowtowing to fringe parties.
-
Large coalitions that require kowtowing to fringe parties.
Why don't you use Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, or Greenland as your examples.
If all of the highest ranking countries in the world are using PR, your fear-mongering not only makes no sense but is completely wrong and irrelevant. Countries that have PR government have better outcomes than countries that do not.
You pick Israel, as if the history of violent religious and cultural clashes in the region isn't the reason behind their political problems. Others pick Italy as the example of PR being a nightmare, ignoring all of the other countries that are incredibly successful using it. Do you suppose Canada under PR would be more like Israel or more like New Zealand? The answer is obvious.
-
If all of the highest ranking countries in the world are using PR, your fear-mongering not only makes no sense but is completely wrong and irrelevant. Countries that have PR government have better outcomes than countries that do not.
Better how ?
You pick Israel, as if the history of violent religious and cultural clashes in the region isn't the reason behind their political problems. Others pick Italy as the example of PR being a nightmare, ignoring all of the other countries that are incredibly successful using it. Do you suppose Canada under PR would be more like Israel or more like New Zealand? The answer is obvious.
I would hope it's like NZ, and - no - I didn't mean to associate all of Israel's problems with PR. Just that you will have coalition governments with fringe parties supporting the government.
I don't see how permanent minority governments solve any of our problems, frankly.
-
Coalition is how parliamentary democracies are supposed to work. You say we will have coalition governments as if that's a problem, when it's not. You say fringe parties as a pejorative, implying all kinds of radicalism, which is also not a problem since most PR systems set a threshold of 4-5% of the popular vote. It's also not the case that the "fringe" would dictate government, since they still have to get the agreement of the larger parties in the coalition. The problems you're describing just aren't as big of an issue as you seem to think they are.
And if you don't know how the Nordic countries are the best in the world, then you've got some catching up to do. I can't imagine I need to actually explain to you that they're happier and healthier on every metric. Go play around on the UN data site and see.
-
Coalition is how parliamentary democracies are supposed to work. You say we will have coalition governments as if that's a problem, when it's not.
Giving Conservative governments majority control for a number of years, proportional to their support has resulted in our excellent balance. You would rather they have greatly reduced influence but I fear the result. I am not Conservative but they have contributed greatly to our prosperity and our democracy. In the name of giving the NDP, effectively, balance of power for 20% of the historic vote you would eliminate it for conservative voters.
You say fringe parties as a pejorative, implying all kinds of radicalism, which is also not a problem since most PR systems set a threshold of 4-5% of the popular vote. It's also not the case that the "fringe" would dictate government, since they still have to get the agreement of the larger parties in the coalition. The problems you're describing just aren't as big of an issue as you seem to think they are.
5% of the vote is easy to get for, say, the Christian Coalition of God party.
And if you don't know how the Nordic countries are the best in the world, then you've got some catching up to do. I can't imagine I need to actually explain to you that they're happier and healthier on every metric. Go play around on the UN data site and see.
As with Israel, I don't credit PR with causing/solving all of a countries' problems.
-
And again I ask what problems this is supposed to solve ? And is there a way to pilot it without implementing it permanently ?
-
You're being disingenuous now. The problems have been explained repeatedly. You say there's excellent balance. I fundamentally disagree with that. You haven't defined balance at all. As far as I can tell, an absolute dictatorship would be balance for you because it wouldn't have the messiness of collaboration and compromise.
I don't see much need to address your other points. I shouldn't need to tell you this, but there is a Christian Coalition party in Canada. They haven't received 5% of the popular vote in Canada ever. The Green Party barely comes close to hitting 5%.
-
You're being disingenuous now. The problems have been explained repeatedly. You say there's excellent balance. I fundamentally disagree with that. You haven't defined balance at all. As far as I can tell, an absolute dictatorship would be balance for you because it wouldn't have the messiness of collaboration and compromise.
Balance is evidenced in the result - our country is well-positioned to prosper and provide for its people thanks to a tradition of negotiation with a party... that has power.
-
Balance is evidenced in the result - our country is well-positioned to prosper and provide for its people thanks to a tradition of negotiation with a party... that has power.
Yet our country doesn’t provide as well as countries with PR. So if balance is in he result, then we don’t have balance.
-
Yet our country doesn’t provide as well as countries with PR. So if balance is in he result, then we don’t have balance.
Those countries are more socialist in their makeup than we are. You won't change that by legislating away conservatism. In fact, I suspect there would be a backlash.
-
Canada has a strong socialist history. Even the right wing in this country has socialist roots in the West.
-
Those countries are more socialist in their makeup than we are. You won't change that by legislating away conservatism. In fact, I suspect there would be a backlash.
Why would that be legislating away conservatism? There have been numerous elections in Canada, both federally and provincially, where the popular vote did not select who formed government. The conservatives have had more than their fair share.
-
Didn't Italy just elect a coalition of racist anti-immigrant populist parties using PR?
Are we going to derail every election thread after the result doesn't produce a 51% popular vote because FPTP gave that party a majority in parliament.
FPTP isn't anywhere.
-
BTW I was luke warm about this election, I didn't actually even vote. I was out of the country and didn't motivate myself to figure out the advanced balloting system.
But with DoFo being elected, I actually am kind of relieved. I'm hoping gas prices will level off, if not go down. I'm hopeful that we won't see such an intrusive government that we did before.
I'm actually hopeful that this government will be very good. DoFo is just a populist front and not terribly impressive. But there will be a lot of capable ministers that will put a check on him.
I think that's the main reason the NDP was never going to take the leap. Who did they have in their caucus who could actually govern?
-
BTW I was luke warm about this election, I didn't actually even vote. I was out of the country and didn't motivate myself to figure out the advanced balloting system.
But with DoFo being elected, I actually am kind of relieved. I'm hoping gas prices will level off, if not go down. I'm hopeful that we won't see such an intrusive government that we did before.
I'm actually hopeful that this government will be very good. DoFo is just a populist front and not terribly impressive. But there will be a lot of capable ministers that will put a check on him.
I think that's the main reason the NDP was never going to take the leap. Who did they have in their caucus who could actually govern?
Comparisons have often been made between DoFo and Trump and I think quite accurately so. Lot's of pie ion the sky promises but no actual program details.So why might it not turn out that the PC's in Ontario turn out just like the GOP in the US who for the most part hide under their desks rather than speak out about their dear leader. Your gas prices might go down but I'd keep an eye on the debt/deficit.
-
I am not Conservative but they have contributed greatly to our prosperity and our democracy.
...and they can do so in a PR system as well. It is called making compromises, that is what government is all about. It is not about dictatorships like conservatives seem to think.
-
I'm hoping gas prices will level off, if not go down.
The only thing DoFo will (can) do is trade gas dollars for tax dollars. Any thought otherwise is ill informed.
-
I don't see much need to address your other points. I shouldn't need to tell you this, but there is a Christian Coalition party in Canada. They haven't received 5% of the popular vote in Canada ever. The Green Party barely comes close to hitting 5%.
Because most people don't want to waste their vote on a party that is certain to not elect anyone. But put in PR and things change. You'll have an anti-abortion party with actual seats in the commons. You'll have an anti-immigrant party with lots of seats in parliament, just like there is all over Europe. And you'll have very weak government, like they have all over Europe, unable to make decisions without six months of negotiation and compromise.
You want to talk about Germany? Angela Merkel very much needs to increase the budget for the military. There was a report a short time back that Germany had something like a couple of dozen fighter jets capable of actual flying. And they had only enough missiles for 4, yes, 4 fighters. The rest of their military is similarly falling apart. Right now, Russia could basically walk across Europe with nothing to stop them. The only thing that stops them is the US, run by a guy named Trump, who could very well pull out of NATO any day.
But Merkel doesn't have a majority and her social democratic partners want nothing to do with more money for the military. And she can't bring herself to get into a coalition with other right wing parties because they're far right and virulently anti-immigrant. That's your vaunted PR for you.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/02/luftwaffe-four-combat-ready-eurofighters-pressure-builds-weak/
-
And if you don't know how the Nordic countries are the best in the world, then you've got some catching up to do. I can't imagine I need to actually explain to you that they're happier and healthier on every metric. Go play around on the UN data site and see.
I have long been an admirer of the Nordic countries efficiency. But they are small, highly homogenous nations - or were. Now that they're being overrun with migrants their happy little homes are starting to crumble and far right groups are gaining strength amid rising crime and burgeoning welfare rolls.
-
Angela Merkel very much needs to increase the budget for the military.
Needs? Needs?
Neither you, nor Trump, gets to decide what Gremany needs to do, that is up to their citizens.
-
Comparisons have often been made between DoFo and Trump and I think quite accurately so. Lot's of pie ion the sky promises but no actual program details.So why might it not turn out that the PC's in Ontario turn out just like the GOP in the US who for the most part hide under their desks rather than speak out about their dear leader. Your gas prices might go down but I'd keep an eye on the debt/deficit.
Trump comparison are fear mongering to the level of troops in the streets ads.
Wynne compared Ford to Trump and her party got decimated.
Only people on the fringe left would think Ford, who was elected in Liberal Toronto, is even remotely like Trump.
-
Only people on the fringe left would think Ford, who was elected in Liberal Toronto, is even remotely like Trump.
Only people on the extreme right would be so blind as to say that.
-
Canada has a strong socialist history. Even the right wing in this country has socialist roots in the West.
So... what happened ?
-
...and they can do so in a PR system as well. It is called making compromises, that is what government is all about. It is not about dictatorships like conservatives seem to think.
How ? They will be in permanent opposition...
-
Trump comparison are fear mongering to the level of troops in the streets ads.
Wynne compared Ford to Trump and her party got decimated.
Only people on the fringe left would think Ford, who was elected in Liberal Toronto, is even remotely like Trump.
Pretty hard to ignore the obvious similarities don't ya think?
He is a businessman turned anti-establishment politician who stunned observers by rising to the top of his party. He often shuns expertise and peppers interviews and speeches with boasts and falsehoods. And despite being the son of a wealthy entrepreneur, he rails against elites, who – in his words – “look down on the common folk, drinking champagne with their pinkies in the air”.
In the weeks since Doug Ford was elected to lead Ontario’s conservatives, comparisons to Trump have been unavoidable, sparking wide debate as to whether the divisive wedge politics that have rattled the US – and other countries around the world – have now landed in Canada.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/30/doug-ford-ontario-conservative-trump-comparison-canada
-
So... what happened ?
Irrelevant to the point about FPTP vs PR
-
Irrelevant to the point about FPTP vs PR
No, it's not. Canada is actually culturally getting to the left, relative to our closest cultural max to the south. But that comes from a long process of discussion, trying policies and keeping the best of them.
Pragmatism will convince the core of the people of the worth of policies, not outlawing conservative governments.
Do you believe conservatives have added anything of value to Canadian culture in the last 30 years ?
-
Do you believe conservatives have added anything of value to Canadian culture in the last 30 years ?
By words, or by actions?
-
No, it's not. Canada is actually culturally getting to the left, relative to our closest cultural max to the south. But that comes from a long process of discussion, trying policies and keeping the best of them.
Pragmatism will convince the core of the people of the worth of policies, not outlawing conservative governments.
Do you believe conservatives have added anything of value to Canadian culture in the last 30 years ?
I disagree entirely with your premises. Your opinion is that Canada is "getting to" the left. I say Canada has shifted to the right. We've had more Conservative governments in the last 30 years of our history than any other time. We also have a Liberal Party that supports neo-liberal, austerity-lite policies, particularly Paul Martin under the Chretien Liberals.
I also fundamentally disagree with your premise that PR somehow "outlaws" conservative governments. It actually allows the Conservatives to break off again into their principled parts, instead of pretending to be some homogeneous whole. The most recent leadership campaign and the comments from MPs at the end of Harper's leadership showed the divisions clearly.
FPTP gives undue power to groups that do not have the equivalent level of support amongst the voters. The Liberals in the federal government have more seats than they are worth and the Conservatives in Ontario likewise. This isn't about parties and any attempt to make it so, is only meant to obfuscate the clear fact that FPTP does not produce representative legislative bodies.
-
Pretty hard to ignore the obvious similarities don't ya think?
He is a businessman turned anti-establishment politician who stunned observers by rising to the top of his party. He often shuns expertise and peppers interviews and speeches with boasts and falsehoods. And despite being the son of a wealthy entrepreneur, he rails against elites, who – in his words – “look down on the common folk, drinking champagne with their pinkies in the air”.
In the weeks since Doug Ford was elected to lead Ontario’s conservatives, comparisons to Trump have been unavoidable, sparking wide debate as to whether the divisive wedge politics that have rattled the US – and other countries around the world – have now landed in Canada.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/30/doug-ford-ontario-conservative-trump-comparison-canada
Unconventional tactics and previous wealth don't mean they're also racist, xenophobic and will fight with our closest allies.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/05/08/how-doug-ford-is-different-than-donald-trump.html
Trump’s appeal was based largely on who he was — a politically incorrect celebrity running on a simple, nativist platform to make America great again.
By contrast, Ford’s appeal is based on who he is not: He is not Kathleen Wynne. Many voters know little more about him than that.
And so he is more careful than Trump. In Monday’s televised leaders’ debate, he avoided saying anything unduly outrageous. Indeed, at times it was if he were on the sidelines, watching his two rivals duke it out.
The only odd thing he said was that Wynne has a nice smile. But I doubt that will get him in much trouble with voters.
So, too, was he careful in his flip-flop on the green belt, that ring of protected land around the Greater Toronto Area.
Earlier this year, Ford told builders he would allow development in the green belt. When that pledge became public and attracted criticism, Ford simply reversed himself and became the green belt’s biggest supporter.
It wasn’t an elegant flip-flop. Nor did it reflect a Trumpian refusal to admit mistakes. But for a party leader anxious to avoid being labelled an environmental troglodyte, it was politically wise.
Finally, Ford is being forced to deal with the contradictions within his own party. He was happy to accept the help of outspoken social conservatives like Tanya Granic Allen to win the PC leadership.
But like other Tory leaders before him, he balked at the idea of allowing such social conservatives to define the party. When the Liberals released footage showing Granic Allen making disparaging comments about gay marriage, Ford axed her as a PC candidate in the June 7 election — even though she had already won the party’s Mississauga Centre nomination.
Just like with Godwin, when everyone is Hilter, then no one is Hitler. And now if any politician from the right with a brash persona is now Trump Lite then soon everyone will be a comparison to Trump.
-
Also, now DoFo has a base that's far more diverse than Trump. He didn't win because he's got strong support with "Rural Folk". He won because the 905 overwhelmingly rejected Kathleen Wynne. That's where elections are won in Ontario, and we're a fickle bunch he can't just stick to a narrative and pray his base sticks with him.
The other thing about Ford, is that his base is actually from Toronto. He was able to win seats that Tories could only dream about since the early 80's.
-
By words, or by actions?
By actions. One doesn't need to be in government to speak.
-
Unconventional tactics
Unconventional is an interesting adjective for describing the illegal financial exchanges that took place in his leadership bid and thereafter. He's an uneducated criminal thug who had zero policy platform, promising people $1 beer. It's the most asinine campaign anyone has ever run and old people stupidly bought into it because they flip flop between Liberal and Conservative only.
-
I disagree entirely with your premises. Your opinion is that Canada is "getting to" the left. I say Canada has shifted to the right. We've had more Conservative governments in the last 30 years of our history than any other time. We also have a Liberal Party that supports neo-liberal, austerity-lite policies, particularly Paul Martin under the Chretien Liberals.
That's fair. The whole world has shifted to the right, but relative to that and keeping a longer timeframe in mind:
- We are far more open to pluralism than our cultural neighbours, which gives us more options in investment and immigration policy
- Cheaper and more effective nationalized healthcare is engrained in our culture
- We have a general expectation of sharing the benefits of economic growth
Of course we have given up ideas of nationalization, reduced the roles of unions and bought into an globalized business agenda but everyone has. If you listen to our conservatives, even Doug Ford and Harper, you will hear ideas that are regarded as 'left' in the US.
That process comes from years of living with policies that were proven to work, not from legislating conservative governments away. Furthermore, major changes were implemented thanks to strong government mandates.
Conversely, the FTA was put onto us by a government that received 43% of the vote and is now part of our culture. Would a PR elected government have put that in ? I don't think so.
I also fundamentally disagree with your premise that PR somehow "outlaws" conservative governments. It actually allows the Conservatives to break off again into their principled parts, instead of pretending to be some homogeneous whole. The most recent leadership campaign and the comments from MPs at the end of Harper's leadership showed the divisions clearly.
It doesn't matter how you break it down. The conservatives never get 51% of the votes so they will always have a natural disadvantage.
FPTP gives undue power to groups that do not have the equivalent level of support amongst the voters. The Liberals in the federal government have more seats than they are worth and the Conservatives in Ontario likewise. This isn't about parties and any attempt to make it so, is only meant to obfuscate the clear fact that FPTP does not produce representative legislative bodies.
This is what I call the "math" argument. Framing the problem as a math issue, ie. % of seats doesn't match % of vote has some problems.
- This sets up a problem as an abstract issue, which means the goal is geometric and perfect, ie. 0% divergence from how people vote. Of course you can shrug and say "no the idea is to make representation % better" but then what is the number ? What is the goal ? Only direct democracy presents perfect mapping of support and if you accept that you can't have that then you are falling into the same principle that you argue AGAINST for PR. In other words, if 40% of the votes getting 60% of the seats is unfair, why is 40% of the votes getting 42% of the seats ok ? If the argument is that it's better than why not go for direct democracy ?
- The math provides trade-offs for FPTP that come out of the system such as giving more power to regions, more power to rural vs urban and so on. These are a direct result of the balance we have created. If you feel that the balance is off, fair enough, but at least acknowledge the huge risk of giving subgroups like: the west, Quebec, farmers... less of a voice. That is why I suggest a limited timeframe implementation or pilot at least. Math arguments are pure abstraction which doesn't fit well with people. The entire dairy industry question that we are facing now with the US depends on dairy industry having an inordinate say in national affairs.
- Instead of giving 35% of the people 35% of the say at any one time, which is pretty much useless, it gives 35% of the people control of the government for 35% of the time. You can argue that 20% of the people get the say for 0% of the time but the NDP does get to run provincial governments, and will get a chance federally one day too.
Instead of 'fixing' FPTP to give the NDP more power (and don't be disingenuous so as to say this has nothing to do with the NDP gaining power; it's all NDP people who push for PR and related systems) why don't we fix our basic democratic processes to feed local discussion into MPs and national discussions ? Why don't we spend some time letting Canadians discuss issues and learn more about economics ?
If we are too dumb for that then we're too dumb for democracy. I don't think we are.
-
By actions. One doesn't need to be in government to speak.
Then I would be interested in knowing what you think "conservative" means. It certainly has nothing to do with fiscal competence, because governments in Canada (federal, Ontario, Alberta, etc.) with "conservative" in their name have the absolute worst records in that respect.
-
Conversely, the FTA was put onto us by a government that received 43% of the vote and is now part of our culture. Would a PR elected government have put that in ? I don't think so.
Hes all those PR governments inEurope would never enter into a trade agreement, never? Think man, think.
Your whole "math" argument is complete hokum, if conservatives don't get 51% of the vote then they don't deserve 51% of the power, let alone the 100% you want to give them. The exact same thing for liberals, socialists, or anti-abortionists.
-
Then I would be interested in knowing what you think "conservative" means. It certainly has nothing to do with fiscal competence, because governments in Canada (federal, Ontario, Alberta, etc.) with "conservative" in their name have the absolute worst records in that respect.
Ok - in terms of questions asked and got answers for, I am 0 for 1 and you are 1 for 1. Can you answer my question about the value provided by conservatives ?
-
Hes all those PR governments inEurope would never enter into a trade agreement, never? Think man, think.
I am always interested in framing the PR question into our current culture. As such, Canada voted decisively AGAINST Free Trade in 1988.
Your whole "math" argument is complete hokum, if conservatives don't get 51% of the vote then they don't deserve 51% of the power, let alone the 100% you want to give them. The exact same thing for liberals, socialists, or anti-abortionists.
I want to give them 100% of the power for x% of the time.
-
Ok - in terms of questions asked and got answers for, I am 0 for 1 and you are 1 for 1. Can you answer my question about the value provided by conservatives ?
That's because your question is a red herring and entirely irrelevant. No one questioned Conservative Parties' value to the political system or the electorate. For at least the third time, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an issue of legitimacy that is a problem that arises in the gulf between support and power.
I'm not sure how to make you see that it is a massive problem to have a party with 100% power and less than 50% support. Hell, even a simple majority 50%+1 was questionable when it came to the legitimacy of secessionist referenda that were held. Yet, you're sitting here supporting, even advocating, for a system that gives 100% power to a party who was opposed by over 60% of the electorate.
This discussion is tedious because you're not being honest here. You actively refuse to acknowledge the glaring problem with that arrangement and for no other reason than a vague notion of "stability" -- to which I argued that a dictatorship provides the most stability then. Obviously a dictatorship is not preferable because there is value in an electoral system. The value is in the legitimacy it provides to power. That legitimacy comes from concept of democratic representation. 100% of the power with over 60% of the people opposed to you is not representative. The election was "fair" because it was legal, but it was not fair in any sense of the concept of representation. And for the last damn time, it's not about Conservatives and Liberals because it was no less fair in the federal election when the Liberals got 100% of the seats in the Atlantic provinces. That's an even more skewed result and they got more than 50% of the popular vote out here.
-
Needs? Needs?
Neither you, nor Trump, gets to decide what Gremany needs to do, that is up to their citizens.
She wants to raise the budget substantially. And you're right ,the Germans can go on placidly chewing their cud until Putin's tanks roll across the borders.
-
Then I would be interested in knowing what you think "conservative" means. It certainly has nothing to do with fiscal competence, because governments in Canada (federal, Ontario, Alberta, etc.) with "conservative" in their name have the absolute worst records in that respect.
Proven wrong on so many occasions I feel no need to do so again. The mere fact that before every election left wing politicians warn of the terrible danger of the conservatives getting elected because they will cut and slash programs speaks for itself.
-
You'll have an anti-abortion party with actual seats in the commons.
ummm... those are currently called backbench PC members...
-
Proven wrong on so many occasions I feel no need to do so again. The mere fact that before every election left wing politicians warn of the terrible danger of the conservatives getting elected because they will cut and slash programs speaks for itself.
We all know the NDP have the best fiscal record.
-
That's because your question is a red herring and entirely irrelevant. No one questioned Conservative Parties' value to the political system or the electorate.
I questioned it. I get to ask questions, you don't have 2/3 control of government YET ! :D
For at least the third time, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an issue of legitimacy that is a problem that arises in the gulf between support and power.
You are becoming more strident in your responses. "For the third time" means nothing to me when every single person in my Facebook feed pining for PR is an NDP fellow traveller.
I'm not sure how to make you see that it is a massive problem to have a party with 100% power and less than 50% support.
So Canada has had this massive problem for over 50 years. Hard to believe we have taken so long to prioritize this problem and also hard to believe only NDPers seem to be overly concerned about it.
Hell, even a simple majority 50%+1 was questionable when it came to the legitimacy of secessionist referenda that were held. Yet, you're sitting here supporting, even advocating, for a system that gives 100% power to a party who was opposed by over 60% of the electorate.
Yes because secession is an existential question, one that can't be turned back and not on the same scale as a general election.
This discussion is tedious because you're not being honest here. You actively refuse to acknowledge the glaring problem with that arrangement
I actually wrote quote a long post just above. Speaking of tedious you are simply restating that "this isn't partisan" and don't seem to be addressing my points at all.
and for no other reason than a vague notion of "stability" -- to which I argued that a dictatorship provides the most stability then.
Exactly. And direct democracy provides zero distortion. So where are we ? I think we are at a point where we agree that this changes have a huge impact and need to be taken carefully. Dare I say that 50% of Canadians would have to approve it ?
Obviously a dictatorship is not preferable because there is value in an electoral system. The value is in the legitimacy it provides to power. That legitimacy comes from concept of democratic representation. 100% of the power with over 60% of the people opposed to you is not representative.
That is an assumption - that 60% of people "oppose" a new government.
The election was "fair" because it was legal, but it was not fair in any sense of the concept of representation.
And no election is fair. And yet we have a viable country going here.
And for the last damn time, it's not about Conservatives and Liberals because it was no less fair in the federal election when the Liberals got 100% of the seats in the Atlantic provinces. That's an even more skewed result and they got more than 50% of the popular vote out here.
Ok - for the last damn time, I don't personally know anyone who cares about this who votes Conservative. Can you explain the fairness in that ?
Also - please go back and answer my previous points if you are so exasperated with me.
-
We all know the NDP have the best fiscal record.
The early prairie NDP didn't do badly, but the rest are tax and spend socialists.
-
The early prairie NDP didn't do badly, but the rest are tax and spend socialists.
Ah, tax and spend is what all governments do. Doing it in a balanced way is what is important.
-
Didn't Italy just elect a coalition of racist anti-immigrant populist parties using PR?
They're racist? Have you been to Italy lately? They're directly across from Africa, they have boats full of asylum seekers coming over constantly. At what point do you stop people from the poorest continent on earth from migrating into your country? There's 7.6 billion people in the world, the vast majority living in very poor conditions compared to our standards, so we can't save them all, so at some point you have to say "enough".
-
Comparisons have often been made between DoFo and Trump and I think quite accurately so. Lot's of pie ion the sky promises but no actual program details.So why might it not turn out that the PC's in Ontario turn out just like the GOP in the US who for the most part hide under their desks rather than speak out about their dear leader. Your gas prices might go down but I'd keep an eye on the debt/deficit.
Well lucky for Ontario that Doug doesn't seem near as aggressively vindictive whenever someone challenges him. As much as they are mindless dolts, the Ford brothers seem like a pretty glad bunch of fellows. Trump would rip the arms off anyone who dared give him a questionable look and then hump the dead carcass if he could get away with it.
-
the Ford brothers seem like a pretty glad bunch of fellows
Despite his substance abuse problems, and buffoonery, Rob did seem fairly nice. Doug however is nothing but a thug. I haven't heard much about Randy, but what I have heard is not very nice.
-
They're racist? Have you been to Italy lately? They're directly across from Africa, they have boats full of asylum seekers coming over constantly. At what point do you stop people from the poorest continent on earth from migrating into your country?
If you're a progressive the answer is never, under any circumstances. And to even contemplate doing so is racist.
-
But Merkel doesn't have a majority and her social democratic partners want nothing to do with more money for the military. And she can't bring herself to get into a coalition with other right wing parties because they're far right and virulently anti-immigrant. That's your vaunted PR for you.
But that's compromise. There are anti-immigrant and Christian parties because that's what those voters care about. If Merkel has to compromise on immigration to get military reform then that's what many voters want anyways, so democracy would be working.
It can be well argued it's not very democratic when 40% of voters are represented in decision making in government, while the wishes of the other 60% are almost entirely shut out. Then you keep having a back and forth every few years of different parties of differing ideologies, when things could go smoother if more voters and thus parties had a say in decisions and had to compromise so that the collective voice of most people in the country was reflected in policy.
The flip-flop between Liberal and conservative parties in power in this country shows us that voters care more about competent & ethical government than with ideology when selecting a party to support every election.
-
If you're a progressive the answer is never, under any circumstances. And to even contemplate doing so is racist.
And we've come to know well what the answer is if you're a xenophobe.
-
Despite his substance abuse problems, and buffoonery, Rob did seem fairly nice. Doug however is nothing but a thug. I haven't heard much about Randy, but what I have heard is not very nice.
He is a thug, but a lot of me sees Doug as doing bad things but being so dumb that he doesn't even realize his behaviour is wrong much of the time. Like a dog who bites their owner when they get between them and their food. Similar with Rob.
My point is that i see Doug as corrupt, but not as purposely malicious, at least not near like Trump.
-
The gas companies, I’m putting you on notice.
::)
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/06/15/doug-ford-puts-gasoline-companies-on-notice-over-weekend-price-hikes.html
-
DoFo.... $3 billion down the toilet for ideological reasons.
Ford will either have to hand over $3 billion of our tax money to compensate the aggrieved companies, or fight a lengthy court battle, which we would pay for, and possibly still have to shell out the cash.
And speaking of legal costs, we also found out that Ford is budgeting $30-million to fund his legal challenge to the federal government’s carbon tax.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4287733/bill-kelly-doug-ford-environment/
Challenge the Feds ability to set taxes? LOL A losing proposition if I've ever seen one. More bluster. I guess conservatives will enjoy the "standing up to Trudeau" rhetoric while wasting tax dollars.
No more incentives to buy green energy vehicles... no more rebates to update homes to make them more energy efficient...
This guy is off to a flying start!!
-
The only thing I can say about the Cap and Trade penalties, did you blame McGuinty for not being able to get out of the 407 even though he campaigned on it.
I'm less than not worried about the Green Energy rebates. Those were just an invitation for car makers to raise prices. If a Chevy Volt costs $40,000 to make then it's not an affordable car for most people. The prices need to come down.
The price of Furnaces and ACs in this province are completely out of control because HVAC companies know that the government will give some of that money back to the consumer after the fact.
The price of being environmentally friendly needs to come down more, and clearly government intervention isn't really working.
-
Greater efficiency costs more up front money unfortunately. The cost of materials and technology required to make a 97% efficient furnace compared to a 70% efficient unit is a lot more than 27%. Same goes for vehicles. The question is, does government have a place in making more efficient technologies available to more people?
-
The only thing I can say about the Cap and Trade penalties, did you blame McGuinty for not being able to get out of the 407 even though he campaigned on it.
I blamed McGuinty for not reversing the brain dead Electricity Act of 1998, and have done so many times in this forum and the other. I never really thought about the 407 because I simply did not drive on it once the greedy corporate capitalists raised the prices over 3 fold.
-
premier Ford says he will cut $6 billion dollars of the provincial budget and not a single civil servant will lose their job... in fact, the civil service will increase.
It’s all about efficiencies, apparently... LOL
Does anyone actually believe this?
-
I certainly didn't believe Kathleen Wynne was going actually give EVERYONE free daycare and Pharmacare.
I think this'll all be all about perception. Cutting wasteful programs, putting wage freezes on public servants will certainly get people on his side.
Every new government plays this game where they promise **** then say they didn't realize the mess the last government left them in. I suspect DoFo's government will be no different.
-
I certainly didn't believe Kathleen Wynne was going actually give EVERYONE free daycare and Pharmacare.
I think this'll all be all about perception. Cutting wasteful programs, putting wage freezes on public servants will certainly get people on his side.
Every new government plays this game where they promise **** then say they didn't realize the mess the last government left them in. I suspect DoFo's government will be no different.
Are you looking forward to your buck a beer? He's going to hold those brewery's feet to the fire, don'tcha know....
-
Are you looking forward to your buck a beer?
I have my pot on the stove, waiting for the chicken to appear.
-
I have my pot on the stove, waiting for the chicken to appear.
I guess the cheap swill appeals to some folks... no thanks.
-
President's Choice non alcoholic. Comes in a red and a blonde. Rather like the red and it is 10 bucks a dozen.
-
Are you looking forward to your buck a beer? He's going to hold those brewery's feet to the fire, don'tcha know....
And beer in Corner Stores. How about we treat adults like adults?
I like that he put a Hold on the prohibition of vaping in public. It's not the same as smoking.
-
President's Choice non alcoholic. Comes in a red and a blonde. Rather like the red and it is 10 bucks a dozen.
You joking?
-
I guess the cheap swill appeals to some folks... no thanks.
Well then no one should be allowed to spend less than $2 for a beer then. ::)
-
You joking?
Nope. It's not the best beer in the world but quite acceptable on a hot day and it won't put you to sleep.
-
And beer in Corner Stores. How about we treat adults like adults?
I like that he put a Hold on the prohibition of vaping in public. It's not the same as smoking.
I have no problem with the beer thing,but I'm glad that where I live we consider vaping the same as smoking and have outlawed it inside any public establishment long ago.
-
And beer in Corner Stores. How about we treat adults like adults?
I have no problem with that. The issue is how do you cover the $3 billion + shortfall in government revenues you are creating? Your tax bill must increase by that amount, it is just like his brain dead shift Hydro One profits to the consumer and make up the shortfall with tax revenue. Don't give me the proven false story that beer prices will drop, all that will happen as has happened elsewhere like Alberta is that private companies will reap profits.
-
I have no problem with that. The issue is how do you cover the $3 billion + shortfall in government revenues you are creating? Your tax bill must increase by that amount, it is just like his brain dead shift Hydro One profits to the consumer and make up the shortfall with tax revenue. Don't give me the proven false story that beer prices will drop, all that will happen as has happened elsewhere like Alberta is that private companies will reap profits.
Ahh so Alcohol sales is all about government revenue now?
Perhaps not employing so many Unionized Cashiers will help with revenue. People will still pay for the alcohol, just at different places.
-
Well then no one should be allowed to spend less than $2 for a beer then. ::)
Pay whatever the market will bear. It's a bit crazy for the government to make a promise of regulating beer prices. Conservative sure do cherry pick around things like "free markets".
-
Ahh so Alcohol sales is all about government revenue now?
I am pointing out a revenue problem you will create by privatizing alcohol, that is all. It is your problem, how are you going to solve it?
The cashiers have nothing to do with the revenue problem, this is government revenue (ie. sole shareholder profits) and has nothing to do with cost of sales.
-
I don't think the LCBO should run a profit, unless those profits go specifically towards funds to help initiatives that somehow help people harmed via alcohol consumption.
Personally I think the LCBO should be disbanded, monopolies are terrible for consumers and government-run organizations are costly and inefficient.
-
I don't think the LCBO should run a profit, unless those profits go specifically towards funds to help initiatives that somehow help people harmed via alcohol consumption.
I have not problem with that, other than the management overhead.
I really don't care if government revenues come from LCBO or taxes or whatever, but cutting them and then whining we have a spending problem is dumb ass stupid. Unfortunately we have a lot of that in the Ontario PC government for the past 25 years.
-
I don't think the LCBO should run a profit, unless those profits go specifically towards funds to help initiatives that somehow help people harmed via alcohol consumption.
Personally I think the LCBO should be disbanded, monopolies are terrible for consumers and government-run organizations are costly and inefficient.
Well i don't know how it works in Ontario but in BC if you go to a private store you will pay more for the same bottles or cans of your choice and I will guarantee you the clerk isn't making government wages so the math tells you the government store isn't working for profits. I don't really care about the liquor store but certain things should not be run for profit such as health, education, welfare. Well unless you prefer a **** show like the US has.
-
Pay whatever the market will bear. It's a bit crazy for the government to make a promise of regulating beer prices. Conservative sure do cherry pick around things like "free markets".
What do you think putting a minimum price on alcohol is? Getting rid of buck-a-beer was regulating prices.
-
I have not problem with that, other than the management overhead.
I really don't care if government revenues come from LCBO or taxes or whatever, but cutting them and then whining we have a spending problem is dumb ass stupid. Unfortunately we have a lot of that in the Ontario PC government for the past 25 years.
One of the things that'll happen, which the social responsibility zealots freak out about, if Ontario's Alcohol laws are relaxed, is that people will be able to buy beer and wine at extended hours, holidays, after 5 on a Sunday. Whenever a store that's willing to sell it is open.
Meaning more chances for profit.
The LCBO makes a lot of money because it's the only game in town. Who's to say letting more people in on the game won't create more tax revenue? It's what we need to do with Pot as well.
-
Who's to say letting more people in on the game won't create more tax revenue? It's what we need to do with Pot as well.
Tax revenue is a small part of the revenue the government gets from the LCBO. They negotiate the wholesale prices with their suppliers, and set the retail prices. Their retail prices are competitive with other provinces that have private liquor sales, so the revenue is the profit the companies rake in. Again I have no problem with opening this up, just figure out how to replace that revenue.
Pot currently doesn't have a revenue stream so either method is fine with me. The only issue I have with pot is that we make sure (which the federal government has) that people can grow it at home for private consumption just like they do for beer and wine. I do have concerns with distilling spirits at home, but that is a safety concern. A limit on number of plants seems like a practical compromise to ensure people are not running commercial operations out of their home, and to address a potential mold problem.
-
SexEd program may be updated after all.
I have low expectations for this government but this would be a happy surprise.
-
SexEd program may be updated after all.
I have low expectations for this government but this would be a happy surprise.
The last time the update was done without much effort, it seemed to me, to placate parents, many of whom, esp in the TO area, are from very conservative Asian countries. Ford is from that area and I very much doubt he will update it the same way as it was. That would be angering his own people and going against a campaign pledge.
-
The last time the update was done without much effort, it seemed to me, to placate parents, many of whom, esp in the TO area, are from very conservative Asian countries. Ford is from that area and I very much doubt he will update it the same way as it was. That would be angering his own people and going against a campaign pledge.
You mean Wynne ? They did a ton of consulting, but this is according to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, though, as there was a lot to be considered.
-
You mean Wynne ? They did a ton of consulting, but this is according to them. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, though, as there was a lot to be considered.
And if they 'consulted' how much attention did they pay to parents? Not a lot, it seems. It sounds like they were more interested in pleasing various activist groups.
-
A lot. Only a noisy minority objected to the curriculum.
-
A lot. Only a noisy minority objected to the curriculum.
Mostly made up of Christians and Muslims from what I saw. Where are the usual hysterical objectors to "Imposition of backwards religious beliefs in our Western culture"? I guess the association of Christians to the objections makes it ok.
-
A lot. Only a noisy minority objected to the curriculum.
Political parties don't make major promises that only interest a 'noisy minority'. Political parties do a lot of polling to find out what will turn votes their way or turn voters off.
-
Mostly made up of Christians and Muslims from what I saw. Where are the usual hysterical objectors to "Imposition of backwards religious beliefs in our Western culture"? I guess the association of Christians to the objections makes it ok.
I've been saying for years that the buildup of very religious people coming in through immigration is going to have an impact on our society and politicians that lefties aren't going to appreciate. Where you been?
-
I've been saying for years that the buildup of very religious people coming in through immigration is going to have an impact on our society and politicians that lefties aren't going to appreciate. Where you been?
Christians have been here since the beginning.
-
Christians have been here since the beginning.
But shrinking in numbers, and becoming increasingly more moderate.
-
Political parties don't make major promises that only interest a 'noisy minority'. Political parties do a lot of polling to find out what will turn votes their way or turn voters off.
That's a core PC support group, though, which Doug courted.
-
But shrinking in numbers, and becoming increasingly more moderate.
Clearly still pretty f"ckin powerful lobby anyway. Do you suppose for a minute that Ford would have been dismantling this sex-ed curriculum if Muslims had been leading the objections rather than Christians? Or would his promise have been "No Muslims will tell us what sex-ed cirriculum we'll have!"
-
Always blame the Christians. ::)
You'd be racist to claim Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims also wanted the Sex Ed Curriculum changed back.
-
Do you suppose for a minute that Ford would have been dismantling this sex-ed curriculum
Maybe it is getting dismantled because it deserves to be dismantled because of the "gender fluidity" nonsense. Anyone who argues that kids should be told that self mutilation is a solution to teenage angst needs to give their head a shake.
-
TimG, whatever you may think on the topic this definition of gender will be the one we use in the end. No it has strong politics behind it.
-
Always blame the Christians. ::)
You'd be racist to claim Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims also wanted the Sex Ed Curriculum changed back.
I already said the Christians were supported by Muslim groups. Don't know if any organized Hindu or Sikh groups added their objections. Do you?
But again, if any *other* religious group than Christians were the primary objectors to this curriculum, would the political play still have been to cancel it, or would it have been politically expedient to support it against these "foreign" people and religions?
-
Maybe it is getting dismantled because it deserves to be dismantled because of the "gender fluidity" nonsense. Anyone who argues that kids should be told that self mutilation is a solution to teenage angst needs to give their head a shake.
I did take a look at this curriculum some time ago and saw nothing in it that recommended self-mutilation as a salve to teenage angst so this claim sounds like more religiously motivated Conservative hyperbole.
But please, if I missed that part of the curriculum, please cite it for me.
-
But again, if any *other* religious group than Christians were the primary objectors to this curriculum, would the political play still have been to cancel it, or would it have been politically expedient to support it against these "foreign" people and religions?
And again all you are demonstrating is you have no clue what Ford country looks like. The masses of mostly east asian and black voters in north Toronto and the suburbs are the people the Ford brothers have courted for years, and who are their enthusiastic supporters. While all the sneering white progressives in central TO had no time for the crass Ford brothers, minorities embraced them like brothers (perplexing the hell out of progressives), and Ford would not do anything to alienate these people.
-
Remember Patrick Brown backtracked on changing the Sex Ed Curriculum. See what happened to him.
This had to happen for the PC's to keep their base.
-
But please, if I missed that part of the curriculum, please cite it for me.
The curriculum discusses sex changes as a "solution" to for teens facing identity issues then it is promoting child abuse.
It is not just the religious who objective to the unscientific gender propaganda being foisted on teens:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-ontarios-sex-ed-backlash-isnt-about-childrens-safety/
I, too, was once a vocal supporter of the updated sex-ed curriculum, but watching how its unscientific claims about gender identity have spread so prevalently has dampened my enthusiasm. The curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender identity is socially constructed.
The fact that few people have pointed out how these teachings aren’t based in science should raise a red flag in parents’ minds.
-
It is not just the religious...
The ask was for Tim to cite where the curriculum teaches mutilation.
-
And again all you are demonstrating is you have no clue what Ford country looks like. The masses of mostly east asian and black voters in north Toronto and the suburbs are the people the Ford brothers have courted for years, and who are their enthusiastic supporters. While all the sneering white progressives in central TO had no time for the crass Ford brothers, minorities embraced them like brothers (perplexing the hell out of progressives), and Ford would not do anything to alienate these people.
Clearly then, the claim that JT imports people from these backwards, religious countries in order to increase the Liberal voting base is wrong.
Nonetheless, if the perception among voters was that Muslims/immigrants were the ones driving the objections to SOGI, Ford would not have been able to use aboloshing it as a way to garner votes because of those who would fuss about "giving up Canadian culture".
-
“Personally, I went out to Jane and Finch, put on a bulletproof vest and spent [7 p.m. to 1 a.m] visiting sites that had previously had bullet ridden people killed in the middle of the night,” he said. “The police need tools to work with, they are doing an incredible job ensuring that our streets are safe.
“And it’s our job — I’m not a police officer — but what I can tell you is they need skills, they need tools to work with. Our work will be to ensure working with the communities to make sure we build trust and that we have those tools provided to them to be able to do their jobs properly.”
NDP Leader Andrea Horwath tweeted, “Conservative minister Michael Tibollo’s comment this morning about wearing a bulletproof vest at Jane and Finch is inexcusably racist. Anyone who would say something so divisive has no credibility to continue to oversee Ontario’s Anti-Racism Directorate.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/4338697/mpp-called-racist-jane-finch-comments/
ummm... am I missing something here? What was racist about saying he donned a bullet proof vest to do a ride along with the cops?
-
ummm... am I missing something here? What was racist about saying he donned a bullet proof vest to do a ride along with the cops?
Yeah, isn't it standard practice for both police and ride-alongs to wear bulletproof vests? Bad guys with guns can be anywhere, after all.
-
ummm... am I missing something here? What was racist about saying he donned a bullet proof vest to do a ride along with the cops?
I think it's going to be an ongoing tactic on the part of the Liberals and NDP at both the federal and provincial level to depict them as racist, bigoted and intolerant. We saw the same thing from the federal immigration minister when Ontario complained about the cost of migrants. Note that when Quebec complained even more bitterly, the Liberals jumped to help them, and actually promised them they'd send a lot of those migrants - to Ontario. When Ontario complains they're divisive and intolerant and fearmongering.
-
I guess implying that Jane and Finch is dangerous is racist, because it's in a black community.
He didn't need to include that he had to put on a bullet-proof vest, because they would have made him do that regardless. I heard the analysis that he was just trying to be macho.
But hey, either violence in poor black communities are a problem or it's not. If you simply want to deal with poverty and root causes, that'll always be a struggle in any society. But if you want to stop violent people from being violent, the police need certain tools.
-
Yeah, isn't it standard practice for both police and ride-alongs to wear bulletproof vests? Bad guys with guns can be anywhere, after all.
The officers wear them but it wasn't for ride alongs when I went with our department, all I got was a great big mag light flashlight (they wouldn't say it was for self defence but that was the impression) and a hand held radio. That was nearly ten years ago.
Wouldn't surprise me if some departments have them for ride alongs.
-
I heard the analysis that he was just trying to be macho.
I agree.... that's probably what he was doing.... but then call him a macho idiot... not a racist! ;D
-
Agree he was probably trying to be macho and everything I've read states that wearing a vest is mandatory. I guess the NDP now feel that a neighbourhood is a race.
-
My man DoFo has dropped a bomb on the City of Toronto.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2018/07/27/mayor-john-tory-to-move-emergency-motion-for-referendum-on-size-of-council.html
Mayor John Tory will move an emergency motion Friday aimed at heading off Premier Doug Ford’s sudden plans to slash the size of council in half by holding a referendum instead.
“It is my job to stand up for the people of Toronto,” Tory said. “You don’t change the rules in the middle of the game. That is not right and that is not fair.”
Tory’s comments come after the Star published Ford’s intentions to remake council mid-campaign and restart the nomination period later this summer, stretching until mid-September.
Election day, the Star was told, would still be Oct. 22.
The mayor told the Star late Thursday night he had a “very animated” conversation with the premier by phone after learning the news.
Tory told reporters Friday he said to Ford the process, without consultation, around this “stunning and massive” change is “not right.”
The hand-ringing for this will be from those who never did or would never vote PC. If you're a Conservative, you're for smaller government. That's what this is. It's actually really smart. As an average citizen, I really couldn't care less if he trims the size of local councils.
DoFo also, thankfully, will unveil plans next week to have Pot sales in private locations and not have it as another arm of the awful LCBO. Hopefully that means he'll move on the LCBO's monopoly next.
Go DOFO!!!
-
It's almost like Mike Harris never lived.
-
Ottawa did this some time ago, and the poor quality of our city government has continued unabated. There are just fewer morons wasting money.
-
I have some hope in Tory but just a smidge
-
The amount of hysteria over this from progressives is ridiculous. Who gives a damn if there are fewer city councilors in Toronto anyway? I wouldn't care even if I was living in Toronto. Yet the CBC and CTV make it THE national news story, breathlessly spending half their newscasts informing the bored residents of Burnaby BC and Gander Newfoundland about how horrible it will be for democracy if there are fewer city Councillors in TO. Meanwhile, columnists issue furious denunciations of the move.
Gah. ::)
-
1. The amount of hysteria over this from progressives is ridiculous. Who gives a damn if there are fewer city councilors in Toronto anyway?
2. I wouldn't care even if I was living in Toronto. Yet the CBC and CTV make it THE national news story, breathlessly spending half their newscasts informing the bored residents of Burnaby BC and Gander Newfoundland about how horrible it will be for democracy if there are fewer city Councillors in TO.
1. Well, it is a pure political strategy move to undermine his opponents and set up a distraction. Harris did the same thing to improve Toronto's efficiency. How did that turn out ? As such, it makes his 'for the people' pose into an outright lie. Also it's grossly unfair as people have spent their own money on campaigns only to find out that their jurisdiction has changed.
2. Are you saying this shouldn't have been the #1 story on CBC Radio all day Friday ???? :D :D :D
-
1. Well, it is a pure political strategy move to undermine his opponents and set up a distraction. Harris did the same thing to improve Toronto's efficiency. How did that turn out ? As such, it makes his 'for the people' pose into an outright lie. Also it's grossly unfair as people have spent their own money on campaigns only to find out that their jurisdiction has changed.
I'll agree that it's unfair to do this in the middle of a campaign. Now people really don't know what election they're taking part in. We see former PC leader Patrick Brown was running for chair of Peel Region only to have to do an about face and run for the Mayor of Brampton.
BUT I'll push back on your assertion that this flies in the face of his "For the People" mantra. streamlining municipal politics is good for the people. It's well known that it's very difficult to get anything done in Toronto City Council. Cities that are 2 and in some case 3 times larger than Toronto can get by with under 30 councillors.
-
Some perspective:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-cutting-toronto-city-council-down-to-size-is-a-much-needed-jolt-to-democracy?video_autoplay=false
Bigger is not necessarily better.
The timing sucks but it is preferable to leaving a dysfunctional system in place for 4 years.
What made the Wynne government think Ontario needed another layer of elected politicians?
-
BUT I'll push back on your assertion that this flies in the face of his "For the People" mantra. streamlining municipal politics is good for the people. It's well known that it's very difficult to get anything done in Toronto City Council. Cities that are 2 and in some case 3 times larger than Toronto can get by with under 30 councillors.
It's more about doing it without any pretence of consultation even.
-
It's more about doing it without any pretence of consultation even.
His brother campaigned on it in 2010. Council will never voluntarily reduce their ranks. It would have to be something handed down from above. He was elected in June, how much consultation could he have accomplished before the election.
I think this issue exposes those that are solely motivated by increasing the size of government. This is not an issue about improving the lives of people. The rage against this is mostly coming from career politicians who see their livelihood at risk. This is the type of move that actually effects John Q Public the least and to see the rage coming from the political class is, quite frankly, telling.
The dog an pony show at Toronto City Council in response to this is an example of how useless a council of this size is. To have consultations about whether they can challenge the move in court that won't come back until it'll be way to late to challenge it anyway is such deliciously ironic evidence of how inefficient government is.
-
Your post makes no sense to me.
- nobody was talking about increasing the size of the government of Toronto. This therefore is not a response.
- Toronto has a council that fits it's size
- Harris already did this move. Did it work?
- the people complaining about this in my feed atr saying it's Ford's revenge for us not electing him mayor
- I am sure some conservatives are getting screwed by this action too
-
Your post makes no sense to me.
- nobody was talking about increasing the size of the government of Toronto. This therefore is not a response.
They were going to increase the number of councillors, by three seats, this election.
- Toronto has a council that fits it's size
Much bigger cities globally get by with far fewer councillors.
- Harris already did this move. Did it work?
Because governments never want to contract. They still kept old city hall's active. And if the Mega City was such a failure, why didn't progressive mayors or premiers that followed reverse it.
- the people complaining about this in my feed atr saying it's Ford's revenge for us not electing him mayor
That's a theory. Or it's something the Ford's have wanted to do since Rob was mayor and council never let him do it. Now DoFo has the power to do it, so he's doing it.
I am sure some conservatives are getting screwed by this action too
There were councillors that supported this move. You're only getting screwed if you feel being elected to council is your God-given right.
-
I think this issue exposes those that are solely motivated by increasing the size of government.
That only plays to the non-thinkers. Council, even if it had 100 members would still be less than a small fraction of a percent the size of government. Loud mouths like Ford like to equate these things because they are clueless, and preaching to even more clueless people.
-
That only plays to the non-thinkers. Council, even if it had 100 members would still be less than a small fraction of a percent the size of government. Loud mouths like Ford like to equate these things because they are clueless, and preaching to even more clueless people.
A smaller council would actually get more done. Toronto is always looking to other cities to see how things are done. Other cities that are larger than Toronto get by with much smaller councils.
To pretend this is a "thinkers" issue is one of the more ridiculous arguments I've seen.
You're right it doesn't really save a whole lot of money. But it makes city government run way more efficiently.
-
A smaller council would actually get more done.
A smaller council would make decisions faster, but that does not mean they would be well considered. A single mayor could decide everything, but then we would end up with a complete mess.
-
A smaller council would make decisions faster, but that does not mean they would be well considered. A single mayor could decide everything, but then we would end up with a complete mess.
And what about Toronto isn't a complete mess?
New York, run by the Swiss, they used to call it. LOL. NOBODY ever calls it that any more.
As someone said the city has identified public transit as their most important issue since Noah was in short pants and they still haven't fixed it. Traffic is an absolute mess, housing costs are ridiculous, largely due to short sited legislation on rent control and trying to deter single family homes, they have a garbage problem, they can't pay their bills....
-
Transit is getting better - it had to - but the guy who did all of the improvements went to NYC. The big problem is the cost to live in the city, and the poor are getting shafted just as they will when the boom pops and all the jobs go away. At that point will be in a cash crisis since we are not making ends meet today with increased revenue.
-
Transit is getting better - it had to - but the guy who did all of the improvements went to NYC. The big problem is the cost to live in the city, and the poor are getting shafted just as they will when the boom pops and all the jobs go away. At that point will be in a cash crisis since we are not making ends meet today with increased revenue.
This is the point I keep making about Canada as a whole. If we can't balance a budget today, in great economic times, what are we going to do come the next recession?
The city's housing problem is due to rent controls and laws that make it very hard to develop new land outside the core. The city is encouraging tall skyscraper condos and discouraging low rises and single family homes.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would buy a condo. Even after you've paid off your mortgage you've got a hefty monthly condo fee + taxes. In downtown Ottawa that would easily amount to $1200-1400 a month for a mortgage free condo. You might as well rent.
-
This is the point I keep making about Canada as a whole. If we can't balance a budget today, in great economic times, what are we going to do come the next recession?
The city's housing problem is due to rent controls and laws that make it very hard to develop new land outside the core. The city is encouraging tall skyscraper condos and discouraging low rises and single family homes.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would buy a condo. Even after you've paid off your mortgage you've got a hefty monthly condo fee + taxes. In downtown Ottawa that would easily amount to $1200-1400 a month for a mortgage free condo. You might as well rent.
There's no room for single-family homes in Toronto. You really don't need one in Downtown Toronto anyway. Only very wealthy people actually own homes in downtown urban centres.
The benefits of buying a Condo is lower property taxes and insurance. You also get the piece of mind that you won't be on the hook personally for large capital expenses. It'd be great to be able to rent, but no one is building rental properties for people with any money. Renting a condo only works if the unit is paid for, otherwise you're paying off the owners mortgage.
BTW No hand-wringing yet about DoFo's government scrapping the pilot project for a guaranteed income? I think in theory such a thing may work. But there's no way the povery industry will just cease to exist? If people blow through their $20,000 a year would everyone be cool with those people starving on the street with no welfare, food banks etc?
-
Here comes the state-run Conservative political party propaganda machine... paid for by taxpayers.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4363921/ontario-news-now-twitter/
On Tuesday, during a media availability with Lisa Macleod, Ontario’s minister of children, community and social services, PC staff began clapping in unison to drown out reporters after only a few had put their questions to the minister.
When asked about the incident on Wednesday, Macleod she said she wanted to “apologize if that offended anybody.”
The behaviour, which appears to be designed to limit questions, was something journalists observed throughout the Ford campaign. It has also been apparent at press conferences since the premier took office last month.
-
Here comes the state-run Conservative political party propaganda machine... paid for by taxpayers.
I wonder when he beings to tweet 5 times a day.
-
Here comes the state-run Conservative political party propaganda machine... paid for by taxpayers.
Well the Liberals have had a state run Liberal political party propaganda machine for years. It is called the CBC.
-
Well the Liberals have had a state run Liberal political party propaganda machine for years. It is called the CBC.
What do you think of the PC's tactic to have paid staffers (paid by the taxpayer, btw) start clapping to drown out questions from reporters?
Do you think that indicates professionalism and respect? Or are those not important factors in governance?
-
The hypocrisy of Ford's gov't sure started quickly with this "news" nonsense. Hey, is this the real fake news???
Trigger warning: This is a CBC News column about using taxpayers' money to fund partisan propaganda.
I recognize that certain heads will explode over the supposed irony. So in the interest of getting past this, do allow me to pre-emptively relieve the burden of my friends in the comment section:
This is rich coming from a CBC hack.
The CBC is the biggest waste of taxpayer money on the planet.
Hey, look! Another CBC writer with Ford Derangement Syndrome.
Apologies if I've missed anything, but after years of writing columns as a supposed Conservative puppet obsessed with Ontario Liberal waste, I'm struggling to embrace my new position as a Liberal stooge.
------------------------------------
It was all pretty grotesque, and the Opposition Progressive Conservatives howled with disapproval. Rightfully so.
Wynne Liberals spending millions more on ads: auditor
Ontario still adjusting to Doug Ford's fast and furious governing style
Now those same Progressive Conservatives — today in government and headed by a different leader — have embraced their own grotesque misuse of taxpayer dollars through an operation called "Ontario News Now." It looks and sounds like a media outlet, but is actually a taxpayer-funded propaganda machine, where a PC staffer poses as a "reporter."
-------------------------------
This is not respect for each cent of taxpayers' dollars — this is the PCs adopting the same abuse of taxpayers' money they decried when the Liberals were in power.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ontario-news-now-opinion-1.4770244
-
What do you think of the PC's tactic to have paid staffers (paid by the taxpayer, btw) start clapping to drown out questions from reporters?
It's childish.
Do you think that indicates professionalism and respect? Or are those not important factors in governance?
The most important factors in governance are a willingness to shrink or at least stop the expansion of the state.
A leader that demonstrates professionalism does us no favors if the policies lead to further expansion of spending entitlements and/or unnecessary regulations.
-
It's childish.
The most important factors in governance are a willingness to shrink or at least stop the expansion of the state.
For you.
For anyone paying attention they realize that an aging population requires additional medical care and social support so they don't suffer from poverty. Worse still we have a dramatic shift in available wage labour, which the majority of society is dependent upon to support themselves. We also have rapidly advancing technologies that when left unregulated can have dire consequences on people's health, welfare, and financial stability. Further still, it's more expensive than ever to manage the complex systems we already have, let alone what we ideally need.
So no. The most important factor isn't shrinking the damn state. It's recognizing what kind of society we need and effectively directing resources to accomplish those goals. That likely means expanding the state even further and also supporting international projects to address global risks from globally financial crises, to demographic shifts in disease and illness, to the continued degradation of the environment.
-
For you.
For anyone paying attention they realize that an aging population requires additional medical care and social support so they don't suffer from poverty.
Gee, then maybe we should stop encouraging tens of thousands of third world migrants to settle in Ontario every year, huh?
-
Gee, then maybe we should stop encouraging tens of thousands of third world migrants to settle in Ontario every year, huh?
More xenophobic trash from you. Typical.
-
There's no room for single-family homes in Toronto. You really don't need one in Downtown Toronto anyway. Only very wealthy people actually own homes in downtown urban centres.
It doesn't have to be downtown. Toronto now encompasses a broad swath of territory where there certainly is room, and there are nearby suburbs as well. Nor does it have to be single family.You can develop row houses or low rises which are still kid friendly. 40 story condos are not kid-friendly.
The benefits of buying a Condo is lower property taxes and insurance. You also get the piece of mind that you won't be on the hook personally for large capital expenses. It'd be great to be able to rent, but no one is building rental properties for people with any money. Renting a condo only works if the unit is paid for, otherwise you're paying off the owners mortgage.
You certainly ARE on the hook for large capital expenses. I'm going to have to lay out something like $10,000 this year or early next year to the condo board for new windows on the condo I own. And the reason nobody is building rental properties is because of rent control.
BTW No hand-wringing yet about DoFo's government scrapping the pilot project for a guaranteed income? I think in theory such a thing may work. But there's no way the povery industry will just cease to exist? If people blow through their $20,000 a year would everyone be cool with those people starving on the street with no welfare, food banks etc?
Of course not. The project was stupid, and there's no way it would have worked, particularly with so many third world migrants flooding into the province.
-
... so many third world migrants flooding into the province.
Is this line going to be in every one of your posts from now on?
-
Is this line going to be in every one of your posts from now on?
If I feel it's pertinent to the matter under discussion.
Anyone weeping about a lack of resources to help the poor shouldn't be supporting bringing in more poor.
-
Gee, then maybe we should stop encouraging tens of thousands of third world migrants to settle in Ontario every year, huh?
Gee maybe you should curtail your xenophobia from clouding your vision as to the fact that if you want social programs to be maintained, especially as people get older, leave work, and eventually get sicker, you need people taking up the jobs the old folks leave. Plus, with regard to refugees, maybe think a bit as to why so many have become refugees, and who is causing those problems. Do you think people in Syria pack up their kids and jump into a flimsy boat because they heard the weather in Ontario is nice in January?
-
Gee maybe you should curtail your xenophobia from clouding your vision as to the fact that if you want social programs to be maintained, especially as people get older, leave work, and eventually get sicker, you need people taking up the jobs the old folks leave.
And that's gonna be some guy from Nigeria who can't speak English and has a grade 5 education? Maybe he can take over your job at Tim Hortons when you retire, but he ain't gonna be paying taxes.
-
...he ain't gonna be paying taxes.
Because the corporate world has won the game of lowering wages and keeping the profits to themselves maybe ?
-
And that's gonna be some guy from Nigeria who can't speak English and has a grade 5 education? Maybe he can take over your job at Tim Hortons when you retire, but he ain't gonna be paying taxes.
Sorry but there's no Tim Horton's anywhere near where I live. I'll leave that to you then.
-
Because the corporate world has won the game of lowering wages and keeping the profits to themselves maybe ?
Wages have not gone down. What has changed is that successive governments have gradually eliminated taxes from lower income workers, pushing up the income level needed to qualify for taxpayer status. Add in the child tax benefit, which is non-taxable, and can deliver $25,000 to a family with three kids, and the basic personal amount, and you can easily have an income of $60,000 and pay zero tax on it.
-
Because the corporate world has won the game of lowering wages and keeping the profits to themselves maybe ?
Well to be fair, the whole point of owning a business or shares in a business is to keep most of the profits to yourself, minus expenditures (including wages). It's not a game, it's the basis of capitalism.
Wage earners who are smart and recognize this and start investing 10% of every paycheck from a young age to buy up portions of these corporations so they can enjoy some of those profits too and retire with a nice hefty portfolio for early retirement.
The real shame is that the political game is rigged for the wealthy so they can hide their income/investments and avoid taxes etc. and they don't pay their fair share.
-
Well to be fair, the whole point of owning a business or shares in a business is to keep most of the profits to yourself, minus expenditures (including wages). It's not a game, it's the basis of capitalism.
And that's why the Left is so uncomfortable with business. It's so... mercenary! It should be in the business of providing good jobs for its employees at a fair living wage and good benefits, and taking care of them and their families, and showing loyalty, and providing daycare and wiping their employees noses when they get sick and...
The Left sees business as morally deficient because it's concerned with profit and not taking care of people. And it sees government's main job as taking care of people too. Whatever they need, the government should be there to help!
In fact, neither is designed for that. Business is designed to compete and earn profits. Government is designed to take care of the country, not the individuals within, by ensuring infrastructure is maintained, the borders are secure, and the rule of law prevails.
-
the Left
What the frig is "the Left" that you are going postal on?
-
What the frig is "the Left" that you are going postal on?
Not the Liberal Party of Canada for sure no.
-
BUCK A BEER IS BACK!!!!
-
What the frig is "the Left" that you are going postal on?
I get embarrassed debating with people who stray towards such broad generalizations. They don't realize how it makes their arguments so overly simplistic and meaningless that you can't even make a counter-argument without feeling like an idiot.
-
I get embarrassed debating with people who stray towards such broad generalizations.
Yes, of course, because you're all so unbiased and politically neutral. Yup. Can't generalize about what you'd be thinking on any given issue. Not you. Quite even handed and unpredictable, too. Many beliefs which fall on either side of the political spectrum, of course.[/sarcasm]
-
Not the Liberal Party of Canada for sure no.
Please list the conservative beliefs of the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader.
In my experience, most of those who say the Liberals aren't on the Left believe Fidel Castro was way too conservative and Mao was admirable, but didn't go far enough.
-
Yes, of course, because you're all so unbiased and politically neutral. Yup. Can't generalize about what you'd be thinking on any given issue. Not you. Quite even handed and unpredictable, too. Many beliefs which fall on either side of the political spectrum, of course.[/sarcasm]
You can generalize but you're pretty much always wrong.
-
Please list the conservative beliefs of the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader.
Maintaining the corporate, capitalist status quo that has been the hallmark of western democratic society practically since its inception?
-
In my experience, most of those who say the Liberals aren't on the Left believe Fidel Castro was way too conservative and Mao was admirable, but didn't go far enough.
Ah, experience.
-
Not the Liberal Party of Canada for sure no.
Oh yes they are.
-
Maintaining the corporate, capitalist status quo that has been the hallmark of western democratic society practically since its inception?
?????
Maintaining a capitalist economy doesn't make you conservative, it means you support the only post-industrial economic system proven to work well in large-scale societies. Liberals aren't laissez-faire capitalists by any stretch of the imaginations, they've largely been responsible for building a mixed capitalist economy that can also be described as social democracy. There's currently no viable alternative shown to statistically perform better.
The grand-daddy of all Liberals, Pierre Elliot, was a communist sympathizer. Liberals are left-of-center. Trudeau is a leftist without question, though not as left as your typical NDP/Green Party member.
-
?????
Maintaining a capitalist economy doesn't make you conservative, it means you support the only post-industrial economic system proven to work well in large-scale societies. Liberals aren't laissez-faire capitalists by any stretch of the imaginations, they've largely been responsible for building a mixed capitalist economy that can also be described as social democracy. There's currently no viable alternative shown to statistically perform better.
The grand-daddy of all Liberals, Pierre Elliot, was a communist sympathizer. Liberals are left-of-center. Trudeau is a leftist without question, though not as left as your typical NDP/Green Party member.
Then under that criteria, the Conservative Party of Canada is a social democrat, left of centre party because they aren't laissez-faire capitalists by any stretch of the imagination either.
-
For you.
For anyone paying attention they realize that an aging population requires additional medical care and social support so they don't suffer from poverty. Worse still we have a dramatic shift in available wage labour, which the majority of society is dependent upon to support themselves. We also have rapidly advancing technologies that when left unregulated can have dire consequences on people's health, welfare, and financial stability. Further still, it's more expensive than ever to manage the complex systems we already have, let alone what we ideally need.
So no. The most important factor isn't shrinking the damn state. It's recognizing what kind of society we need and effectively directing resources to accomplish those goals. That likely means expanding the state even further and also supporting international projects to address global risks from globally financial crises, to demographic shifts in disease and illness, to the continued degradation of the environment.
When it comes to the Ontario government specifically, what Tim said ("The most important factors in governance are a willingness to shrink or at least stop the expansion of the state) is correct, at least according to voters, which is why they voted for a bafoon over the status quo (Liberals or NDP).
That's not to say certain parts of the state don't need to be expanded. Health care is an example that will need more funding. But overall, the direction of state expansion the Liberal gov was going was not sustainable because the ON gov can't afford it. Voters rejected universal childcare, universal dental etc. the NDP & Liberals were promising.
-
Then under that criteria, the Conservative Party of Canada is a social democrat, left of centre party because they aren't laissez-faire capitalists by any stretch of the imagination either.
The CPC isn't very conservative, mainly because they know many of their right-wing ideas would make them less electable. I'd say the CPC overall are somewhere around centrists, though they do seem to lean to the right a bunch of issues.
Economically, the CPC governed pretty centrist, maybe even a bit left-of-center.
-
The CPC isn't very conservative, mainly because they know many of their right-wing ideas would make them less electable. I'd say the CPC overall are somewhere around centrists, though they do seem to lean to the right a bunch of issues.
Economically, the CPC governed pretty centrist, maybe even a bit left-of-center.
And so is the Liberal Party. So that's a pretty big "The Left" Argus must be talking about. It practically includes everybody who believes in western democracy and freedom.
-
BUCK A BEER IS BACK!!!!
I support the Ford gov removing the price minimums on beer so that, if a company chooses to sell beer for a buck, they have the market freedom to do that. I don't support Ford saying he's going to provide incentives like giving advertising space in the LCBO etc to promote those company products that do sell buck-a-beer.
Why can't the government just stop interfering in this and and let the manufacturers and consumers determine the price of beer/alcohol??? Keep a sin tax on it for all the healthcare and crime problems alcohol causes and call it a day. Or even better, remove the sin tax and charge people who have illnesses and crimes influenced by alcohol that costs society.
-
And so is the Liberal Party. So that's a pretty big "The Left" Argus must be talking about.
The Liberal Party isn't centrist, it's to the left of the CPC.
It practically includes everybody who believes in western democracy and freedom.
Minus like half of the USA and maybe around 1/3 of most other western countries.
-
The Liberal Party isn't centrist, it's to the left of the CPC.
That's a false choice. Both parties can be left/right and centrist and usually are.
-
though not as left as your typical NDP/Green Party member.
The Green party is right wing, just not the conspiracy theorist idiot kind.
-
That's a false choice. Both parties can be left/right and centrist and usually are.
That's fine, but it's common knowledge that the LPC is to the left of the CPC, and the NDP/Greens are to the left of the LPC. When it comes to virtually every issue it almost always falls the same way
-
The Green party is right wing, just not the conspiracy theorist idiot kind.
Yes and the PC party are Marxist-Leninists!
-
Well it seems quite likely we wont have to worry about Andrew Scheer anytime soon. I for one don't trust he wouldn't try to shove his religious beliefs down our throats even though he promised not to.
-
Well it seems quite likely we wont have to worry about Andrew Scheer anytime soon.
Why is that? I honestly don't know anything about the guy. His interim predecessor seemed so much better though.
I for one don't trust he wouldn't try to shove his religious beliefs down our throats even though he promised not to.
Sounds like something I suspected before that never happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1YhMVdpb0g
-
Maintaining the corporate, capitalist status quo that has been the hallmark of western democratic society practically since its inception?
So Sweden is conservative? Finland?
Accepting the necessity of capitalism doesn't make you a conservative. It just makes you sane.
Conservative, in the Canadian context means a goal of less government intrusion in people's lives and decisions, smaller government, fiscal prudence, balanced budgets. It means seeing government as an organization designed to protect the borders, keep peace and order within it, see to infrastructure and maintain a sound business environment with only what regulations are required. Those goals might not always be realized but they are unquestionably the basic, bedrock goals.
That is not how the Liberals are operating. They do not embrace or aspire to any of those things. They see government as a means for social engineering, both in terms of income redistribution and power sharing among diverse identity groups. Everything else takes a back seat to those things.
-
Why is that? I honestly don't know anything about the guy.
His abortion policy, his gun policy, his environment policy. He's out of step on all.
-
The Green party is right wing, just not the conspiracy theorist idiot kind.
If by 'right wing' you mean a party willing to run the economy into the ground and put us all into mud huts if that's necessary to lower CO2 emissions.
-
So Sweden is conservative? Finland?
Accepting the necessity of capitalism doesn't make you a conservative. It just makes you sane.
Conservative, in the Canadian context means a goal of less government intrusion in people's lives and decisions, smaller government, fiscal prudence, balanced budgets. It means seeing government as an organization designed to protect the borders, keep peace and order within it, see to infrastructure and maintain a sound business environment with only what regulations are required. Those goals might not always be realized but they are unquestionably the basic, bedrock goals.
That is not how the Liberals are operating. They do not embrace or aspire to any of those things. They see government as a means for social engineering, both in terms of income redistribution and power sharing among diverse identity groups. Everything else takes a back seat to those things.
I guess we all saw how well your conservative buddy Harper did with balanced budgets. Nary a one, unless you count robbing the contingency fund as a last ditch effort.
-
His abortion policy, his gun policy, his environment policy. He's out of step on all.
He doesn't HAVE an abortion policy. He's personally opposed to it, like anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of Canadians, but has no intention on legislating on it.
You don't even know what his gun policy is either. All you know is he's a Christian believer and you loath them.
You're fine with Muslms whose beliefs are far, far, far more retrograde and conservative than his, but you can't stand a Christian who believes in Christianity.
Christian who is uncomfortable with gay marriage = hateful homophobic religious fanatic
Muslim who thinks gays should be imprisoned = tolerant and moderate example of the Muslim mainstream because he's opposed to terrorism.
-
So Sweden is conservative? Finland?
Accepting the necessity of capitalism doesn't make you a conservative. It just makes you sane.
Conservative, in the Canadian context means a goal of less government intrusion in people's lives and decisions, smaller government, fiscal prudence, balanced budgets. It means seeing government as an organization designed to protect the borders, keep peace and order within it, see to infrastructure and maintain a sound business environment with only what regulations are required. Those goals might not always be realized but they are unquestionably the basic, bedrock goals.
That is not how the Liberals are operating. They do not embrace or aspire to any of those things. They see government as a means for social engineering, both in terms of income redistribution and power sharing among diverse identity groups. Everything else takes a back seat to those things.
They're all capitalist corporate governments that believe in a strong government that can provide infrastructure and social services and opportunities for advancement for all its citizens. They all want a sustainable economy, which requires sustainable environmental management. They all pursue similarly high taxation, but that appears to be necessary to maintain the standard of living we all want to maintain.
And then there's the few extremist wingnuts on either side who try to draw the rest of us over with black-and-white arguments that paint everyone on the so-called "other side" as "the Left" or "the Right" and who argue only in terms of extremism, where the environmentalists just want to destroy the economy and the liberals just want to waste taxpayers' money and the conservatives are all fascists, etc.
You even started off by trying to insist I am a perfect caracature of an Antifa protester, but you could never express an instance where I expressed an opinion that suited that stereotype. It's a ridiculously simplistic approach to politics and it just feels dumb perpetuating it.
-
How about the 1.1 billion for his fake lake at the G20 for instance?
Trudeau is not much better. $600 million for the G7 a couple of months back. We need to stop it with these useless summits.
-
Trudeau is not much better. $600 million for the G7 a couple of months back. We need to stop it with these useless summits.
I would agree. World leaders need to talk for sure but why not just pick up the phone for a conference call. We don't need all the frilly bits which we pay for.
-
His abortion policy, his gun policy, his environment policy. He's out of step on all.
Did a wiki search. I don't agree with him on a lot of his social policies, too conservative for me. ie: He opposed same-sex marriage in the mid-2000's.
-
That's fine, but it's common knowledge that the LPC is to the left of the CPC, and the NDP/Greens are to the left of the LPC. When it comes to virtually every issue it almost always falls the same way
No argument here.
-
The Green party is right wing, just not the conspiracy theorist idiot kind.
They used to be, but they're not anymore. You should read the federal party's policy document (https://www.greenparty.ca/sites/default/files/platform_english_web.pdf). If you still think they're on the right, I would be interested in knowing which specific parts you find right wing.
-
That's fine, but it's common knowledge that the LPC is to the left of the CPC, and the NDP/Greens are to the left of the LPC. When it comes to virtually every issue it almost always falls the same way
The Green Party used to be to the right of the LPC. They were made up of the Mulroney-era liberal-conservatives.
-
If by 'right wing' you mean a party willing to run the economy into the ground and put us all into mud huts if that's necessary to lower CO2 emissions.
I mean, if you're just going to make stupid and false assumptions for an argument, then I guess the Conservatives are going to have us all goose-stepping and gassing the undesirables.
-
And then there's the few extremist wingnuts
That would be you.
You even started off by trying to insist I am a perfect caracature of an Antifa protester,
I did? When?
You certainly are a perfect caricature of a snotty, petulant leftist who despises anyone who disagrees with his views, and always have been.
-
Did a wiki search. I don't agree with him on a lot of his social policies, too conservative for me. ie: He opposed same-sex marriage in the mid-2000's.
Shocking! So did most Liberals, btw.
So you would say you would never vote for a Muslim? Muslims don't believe in gay marriage. Rather violently opposed to it, in fact.
-
I mean, if you're just going to make stupid and false assumptions for an argument, then I guess the Conservatives are going to have us all goose-stepping and gassing the undesirables.
Given the leader of the greens is a shrill extremist I don't think I'm much out of line.
-
You certainly are a perfect caricature of a snotty, petulant leftist who despises anyone who disagrees with his views, and always have been.
[/quote]
Pot attempting to call kettle?
-
That would be you.
I did? When?
In your subsequent sentence
You certainly are a perfect caricature of a snotty, petulant leftist who despises anyone who disagrees with his views, and always have been.
I love everybody. But you can't ascribe any position I've taken to be "leftist", other than when I point out how your arguments are simplistic and rudimentary. I'm sorry I don't try harder to live up to the stereotype you have for all who disagree with you, but that would be stupid.
-
Given the leader of the greens is a shrill extremist I don't think I'm much out of line.
Funny how everyone who might disagree with you is a shrill extremist. Did you ever wonder if maybe it's just you?
-
Funny how everyone who might disagree with you is a shrill extremist. Did you ever wonder if maybe it's just you?
You people on the far left are always protesting that you're not at all extreme, not at all ideological, and that I am.
But I can show numerous policy beliefs I support (publicly) which are on the Left side of the political spectrum, as neutrally as one places the line.
I oppose the death penalty and support abortion rights. I support gender rights (though beneath an overriding support in merit), and gay rights. I support reasonable gun control, and have spoken repeatedly of my disdain for the lack of same in the US. I despise Trump, and for that matter, the whole Republican party, particularly the Tea Party. I support a social safety net, including public health care. I've opposed corporate handouts, and a TFW program which allows business to bring in foreign workers instead of offering up higher salaries to Canadian workers, and in support of union rights. All are among freely accessible postings I've made over the last ten or more years.
And yet people on the Left constantly sneer at me and try to make the case I'm some kind of far right extremist.
How about you? How about you demonstrating you're not at all a Lefty by reciting the list of right wing policy beliefs you support and have posted about?
-
But I can show numerous policy beliefs I support (publicly) which are on the Left side of the political spectrum, as neutrally as one places the line.
...
I oppose the death penalty and support abortion rights. I support gender rights (though beneath an overriding support in merit), and gay rights. I support reasonable gun control, and have spoken repeatedly of my disdain for the lack of same in the US.
...
I've opposed corporate handouts, and a TFW program which allows business to bring in foreign workers instead of offering up higher salaries to Canadian workers, and in support of union rights.
Those in your first group have absolutely nothing to do with left wing politics as you try an define it when pressed.
Corporate handouts is questionable if it is a right wing policy.
TFW program could be consider being on the side of unions, or it could simply be another way to keep foreigners out.
-
You people on the far left are always protesting that you're not at all extreme, not at all ideological, and that I am.
I support what you support. We're no different. I'm probably more socially conservative though, like when it comes to pornography. You just like to paint other people into ideological stereotypes because it fits your simplistic arguments.
-
Those in your first group have absolutely nothing to do with left wing politics as you try an define it when pressed.
Really? Both the NDP and the Liberals ban anyone from running for office who is not full out pro-choice. But that's nothing to do with Left wing politics, right?
The Left fairly consistently opposes the death penalty, and those who support it are invariably conservative.
You just can't accept reality and have to make up your own facts.
Corporate handouts is questionable if it is a right wing policy.
TFW program could be consider being on the side of unions, or it could simply be another way to keep foreigners out.
I'm waiting for you to tell us all about YOUR right wing views to show how you're not an ideologue.
-
I support what you support. We're no different. I'm probably more socially conservative though, like when it comes to pornography. You just like to paint other people into ideological stereotypes because it fits your simp
I have never seen you once take a position which was remotely conservative on any issue.
-
Really? Both the NDP and the Liberals ban anyone from running for office who is not full out pro-choice. But that's nothing to do with Left wing politics, right?
I'm opposed to banning candidates from a party based on one particular wedge issue. They should try harder to be big tent parties.
The Left fairly consistently opposes the death penalty, and those who support it are invariably conservative.
What about Communist China? WHat about Cuba? Are those some of your invariables?
You just can't accept reality and have to make up your own facts.
I'm waiting for you to tell us all about YOUR right wing views to show how you're not an ideologue.
- I believe middle class people are at the upper limit of taxation and they are due for tax relief.
- I believe in minimum sentences for violent crimes, and heinous crimes should result in no chance of parole.
- I believe meth addicts should be incarcerated in secure treatment facilities until they are no longer a threat.
- I believe pornography laws should be strengthened to protect children.
I could go on.
-
Did a wiki search. I don't agree with him on a lot of his social policies, too conservative for me. ie: He opposed same-sex marriage in the mid-2000's.
Asterisks: doesn't mean Scheer will govern the CPC by way of his personal beliefs. The CPC didn't govern by Harper's social beliefs, because they wouldn't get re-elected if they did.
-
So you would say you would never vote for a Muslim? Muslims don't believe in gay marriage. Rather violently opposed to it, in fact.
Not unless the other candidates were even worse.
-
Both the NDP and the Liberals ban anyone from running for office who is not full out pro-choice. But that's nothing to do with Left wing politics, right?
What the frig does that, or any of the other stuff have to do with smaller government? I keep saying the idea of a left/right political spectrum is bullshit, but you and the other die hards keep telling me I am the wrong one and get back to your smaller government story. So you agree that on all previous instances you were full of ****?
-
I mean, if you're just going to make stupid and false assumptions for an argument, then I guess the Conservatives are going to have us all goose-stepping and gassing the undesirables.
He was clearly purposefully exaggerating, but he's not wrong, some of the Green Party's environmental policies would harm the economy, at least in the short-term. There's a reason why the only green motorized vehicles i recall seeing used by organizations around town are ones used by city workers: they're more expensive and hurt the bottom line.
I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing in the long run, I'm just stating facts.
-
He was clearly purposefully exaggerating, but he's not wrong, some of the Green Party's environmental policies would harm the economy, at least in the short-term. There's a reason why the only green motorized vehicles i recall seeing used by organizations around town are ones used by city workers: they're more expensive and hurt the bottom line.
I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing in the long run, I'm just stating facts.
Short term pain for long term gain. We've done it successfully many times. How could cleaning up the air we breath be harmful?
-
some of the Green Party's environmental policies would harm the economy, at least in the short-term
Government can't be run on quarterly results. Companies go out of business that way, and societies crumble.
-
What the frig does that, or any of the other stuff have to do with smaller government? I keep saying the idea of a left/right political spectrum is bullshit,
It's not bullshit and nobody sane would say it is. You need only look at this web site for the predictability of the left/right conflict. When I write something here I know who is going to be challenging it, usually insultingly. It's the same cast of characters every time. And you all share virtually all the same social/political beliefs. I mean, you don't see me having nasty back and forth spats with Tim, Graham, Goddess, Wilber or Kimmy here. I have disagreed with them on occasion (though we are normally in agreement on most things), and they with me, and we've argued our points without insults and moved on.
Now WHAT might be different about them as opposed to you, Omni, Cyber, Bubber and Dia?
-
Short term pain for long term gain. We've done it successfully many times. How could cleaning up the air we breath be harmful?
The problem is the lack of evidence of this 'gain' you speak of.
-
When I write something here I know who is going to be challenging it, usually insultingly.
Let me see, I was responding to your statement where you said I just can't accept reality and am a lying ideologue.
I called your bullshit.
-
Let me see, I was responding to your statement where you said I just can't accept reality and am a lying ideologue.
I called you bullshit.
Cite.
Not that I suspect you of being a lying ideologue or anything. I'm sure that was a direct quote, right?
-
The problem is the lack of evidence of this 'gain' you speak of.
If you ever lived in a big city (Toronto maybe) back in the 70's you would know of what I speak of.
-
If you ever lived in a big city (Toronto maybe) back in the 70's you would know of what I speak of.
Today's issue is not about air pollution it's about CO2 and global warming.
-
Today's issue is not about air pollution it's about CO2 and global warming.
And reduction of emissions is what cleaned up your air in TO back then, and it's how we will get a handle on AGW going forward.
-
Cite.
You must be getting old, forgetting what you said at 5:30 today. I can understand if you forget something from months ago, but 4 hours?
-
You must be getting old, forgetting what you said at 5:30 today. I can understand if you forget something from months ago, but 4 hours?
I guess so. Care to cite it?
-
Now WHAT might be different about them as opposed to you, Omni, Cyber, Bubber and Dia?
What have I said that you have taken issue with? I imagine you can't provide a single example. And do you really feel comfortable being self-righteous about what you consider to be rude?
-
What have I said that you have taken issue with?
How about that I'm an extremist? Or that I believe "everyone' who disagrees with me is one?
-
How about that I'm an extremist? Or that I believe "everyone' who disagrees with me is one?
But when you characterize "the Left" as a bunch of Antifa extremists who are just using environmentalism to destroy the economy, how could a reasonable, reality-based person not perceive that as the rantings of a right-wing extremist?
-
Short term pain for long term gain. We've done it successfully many times. How could cleaning up the air we breath be harmful?
Econominimimics.
-
Government can't be run on quarterly results. Companies go out of business that way, and societies crumble.
If you want to use cleaner energies fine, it's just going to cost more, that's a fact. It's proven every day by every company that chooses to use smelly fossil fuels over renewables because they are by necessity cost-minimizing entities. And that's probably not going to change until the technology advances to that point.
Ontario got rid of all of its coal plants. People's hydro bills are crazy (not the only reason, but still).
Elizabeth May can't save the world from climate change. Canada makes up 1.5% of global CO2 output. China is 30%. If Canada magically dropped to zero it would make hardly any difference if others don't follow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#2016_Top_Emitters
-
If you want to use cleaner energies fine, it's just going to cost more, that's a fact. It's proven every day by every company that chooses to use smelly fossil fuels over renewables because they are by necessity cost-minimizing entities. And that's probably not going to change until the technology advances to that point.
Ontario got rid of all of its coal plants. People's hydro bills are crazy (not the only reason, but still).
Elizabeth May can't save the world from climate change. Canada makes up 1.5% of global CO2 output. China is 30%. If Canada magically dropped to zero it would make hardly any difference if others don't follow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#2016_Top_Emitters
It always amazes me when people choose to ignore the population difference between Canada and China when talking about fuel consumption. Here's a liittle info for ya, Canada~ 35 million China 1.4 billion. Maybe math is not your strong suit but I bet you can figure out that that many more people would use a little more fuel.
-
But when you characterize "the Left" ...
Also, can we agree that the Liberal Party of Canada is only the "left" as a fashion or as a brand ?
-
Really? Both the NDP and the Liberals ban anyone from running for office who is not full out pro-choice.
Because they're political parties that expect their candidates to agree with the party's position on political topics. Ask Preston Manning how it works out when you let your candidates run amok.
-
He was clearly purposefully exaggerating, but he's not wrong, some of the Green Party's environmental policies would harm the economy
You know what else is harming the economy, right now? Human-caused environmental damage and all of its consequences.
-
Also, can we agree that the Liberal Party of Canada is only the "left" as a fashion or as a brand ?
The Liberal Party of Canada is not a left-wing party. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology.
-
It always amazes me when people choose to ignore the population difference between Canada and China when talking about fuel consumption. Here's a liittle info for ya, Canada~ 35 million China 1.4 billion. Maybe math is not your strong suit but I bet you can figure out that that many more people would use a little more fuel.
First of all, thanks for the insulting and condescending response. Maybe if you and others stop acting like little children around here we can actually get somewhere in these discussions. Grow up and treat me with respect please, because I don't talk to you like this.
As for the rest, yes obviously it has to do with population. 35 million people reducing their carbon emissions to zero will only reduce global CO2 output by 1.5% which will obviously have virtually no impact, as was my point. Implementing costly policies that will harm our economy while doing very little to slow the actual problem because everyone else will go on emitting is absolutely ridiculous, and only harms ourselves while making us feel good via delusion.
I'm all for helping the CO2 problem but it has to be a global solution to a global problem. There is merit to reducing air pollutants though (smog etc). As for May's other environmental platforms, I'm sure she has some good suggestions. We need to protect our fresh water etc. and we have control over that.
-
The Liberal Party of Canada is not a left-wing party. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology.
In theory and name only.
Liberalism is not a right-wing ideology. It began as a radical leftwing ideology against the conservatives who wished to maintain the power of the monarchy. It's still a radical ideology in most countries that want to reform or overthrow the traditional despotic rulers & systems.
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
There's both left and right aspects to that, in sum in the western perspective today it's neither right nor left.
-
First of all, thanks for the insulting and condescending response. Maybe if you and others stop acting like little children around here we can actually get somewhere in these discussions. Grow up and treat me with respect please, because I don't talk to you like this.
As for the rest, yes obviously it has to do with population. 35 million people reducing their carbon emissions to zero will only reduce global CO2 output by 1.5% which will obviously have virtually no impact, as was my point. Implementing costly policies that will harm our economy while doing very little to slow the actual problem because everyone else will go on emitting is absolutely ridiculous, and only harms ourselves while making us feel good via delusion.
I'm all for helping the CO2 problem but it has to be a global solution to a global problem. There is merit to reducing air pollutants though (smog etc). As for May's other environmental platforms, I'm sure she has some good suggestions. We need to protect our fresh water etc. and we have control over that.
Both China and India are implementing costly policies to reduce their emissions because they both have come to realize it's a pay me now or pay me later situation.
-
Because they're political parties that expect their candidates to agree with the party's position on political topics. Ask Preston Manning how it works out when you let your candidates run amok.
That's not the point. The Harper tories were, according to almost everyone, the epitime of controlling in terms of reigning in their MPs. But you could still be pro choice or anti-abortion, could be in favour of or against gay marriage, could be in favour of or against the death penalty, and weren't policed in terms of other social views.
As far as MPs running amok, I wish they would. The biggest problem Canadian democracy has is that MPs are trained seals, with none of the independence that British MPs have. A Jacob Rees-Mogg is unthinkable in Canada, as he'd be turfed from his party the instant he publicly criticized the PM or government policy.
-
You know what else is harming the economy, right now? Human-caused environmental damage and all of its consequences.
Well, let's get rid of those bloody humans then!
-
The Liberal Party of Canada is not a left-wing party. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology.
There is an agreed-upon spectrum of politics. The midpoint of those views shifts from country to country. All Canadian parties are left wing if we assess them on American standards. The Tories and Liberals (pre Trudeau) were both right of centre by European standards.
By CANADIAN standards, the Tories are Right/Centre Right, the Liberals Left/Centre Left, and the NDP further to the Left. Now that spectrum has shifted since Trudeau moved the Liberals further left to outflank the NDP, so I would say that for the most part they are Left now, having basically stolen almost all the NDP policies.
-
Both China and India are implementing costly policies to reduce their emissions because they both have come to realize it's a pay me now or pay me later situation.
Or say they are. Both countries are incredibly corrupt from top to bottom. Indian and Chinese manufacturers cheat on even the weaker environmental laws of today. Hell, they recently discovered that some Chinese companies are still secretly manufacturing CFC gases which deplete the ozone layer. So I'm afraid I take anything these governments say with numerous grains of salt.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952
-
Well, let's get rid of those bloody humans then!
We're working on it.
Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
-
There is an agreed-upon spectrum of politics. The midpoint of those views shifts from country to country. All Canadian parties are left wing if we assess them on American standards. The Tories and Liberals (pre Trudeau) were both right of centre by European standards.
By CANADIAN standards, the Tories are Right/Centre Right, the Liberals Left/Centre Left, and the NDP further to the Left. Now that spectrum has shifted since Trudeau moved the Liberals further left to outflank the NDP, so I would say that for the most part they are Left now, having basically stolen almost all the NDP policies.
The Liberals didn't move left. The NDP moved to the right. They don't even give preferential votes to labour anymore. They're also insistent on not raising taxes and other such nonsense that comes from a Liberal mindset.
-
We're working on it.
Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health
None of that sounds very good for The Economy.
-
The only thing DoFo has done that irritates me is cancelling Wind Projects that were already underway. The only difference between that and the Gas Plant scandal is that Ford didn't decide to do those projects and didn't try to hide the motives of the cancellation like the Liberals did.
But Liberals are really trying hard to get super mad about anything.
- Buck-a-Beer: They're just lowering the minimum price of beer. Beer makers probably won't even do that because inflation has made it unaffordable since we last saw buck a beer. But the option is there. What they need to do next is allow for Beer and Wine to be sold in corners stores. Allowing Cannabis to be sold in private stores is a great step towards that goal.
- Sex Ed: This is a raw bone to the base, there are a lot of people that don't want sex being taught in school and they're a vocal enough group that politicians listen. Doesn't mean schools are now going to allow cyber bullying, **** and Gay violence. . . moreso than they did before.
- Removing retrofits rebates and rebates on Green car: Those rebates just allowed companies to raise prices to make up the difference. If the actual cost of a Chevy Volt is $50,000 then it's not worth it.
- Removing the Guaranteed Income Pilot Project: I'm 100% skeptical that this would ever work because it would have to put the poverty industry out of business. You give a poor person $20,000 and if they spend it all on something other than food an housing then it's no one's problem but themselves? No further social safety net? They can die on the street for all we care?
- Scrapping Cap and Trade: I'd rather have a revenue Neutral Carbon Tax where my taxes go down. . .BUT! I'd like to see a Liberal government actually get elected on Carbon pricing, they always do this afterwards. We've created a society that runs on gas. How about we move away from those technologies before we penalize people for actually contributing to the economy.
- Cutting Toronto City Council: WAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! A handful of career politicians don't have a job for life anymore. This is the biggest nothingburger. Rob Ford campaigned on this in 2010, so to say this is a surprise is putting your head in the sand. Cities that are far bigger than Toronto run fine with far few than 25 councillors.
I'm pretty happy with DoFo so far. The people that are upset aren't the people that would ever get him thrown out in 2022 anyway.
-
The Liberals didn't move left. The NDP moved to the right. They don't even give preferential votes to labour anymore. They're also insistent on not raising taxes and other such nonsense that comes from a Liberal mindset.
Mulcair moved rightward fiscally, because the big rap on the NDP was they couldn't be trusted with money, and it paid dividends. I'm not entirely what broke their hopes because it looked like they might actually win. Then suddenly it was all reversed and Trudeau pushed far ahead. But Trudeau's policies definitely were meant to appeal to NDP voters. No worries about spending cuts, more social programs, more identity politics.
-
Both China and India are implementing costly policies to reduce their emissions because they both have come to realize it's a pay me now or pay me later situation.
They don't care much about carbon they care about smog. They have billions of very poor people to feed. That's the tragedy in all of this, it's either 1. we continue with fossil fuels until the green tech gets cheaper and the climate likely changes somewhat significantly medium/long-term or 2. several generations of most humans across the planet in the short/medium term will suffer economically by using more expensive green technology.
Either way, we're effed.
If we choose #2 we have to be prepared for the almost inevitable outcome that these people, especially the poorest & most vulnerable, across the developing world will suffer setbacks in their country's development because of the economic impact, meaning poorer maternal health, children's health, overall life expectancy etc as medicine/health care will be harder to afford, along with food, shelter, education, and other necessities. Many poor people will suffer and die as cost of living rises, do people understand this? Most in the developed world like us will be fine, we just will have to do without some modern conveniences, but poor people in our communities will be hit hardest.
The only hope i can see is if economies of scale would mean after an initial cost in widescale investment that green technologies drop in price similar or lower than fossil fuels. But that would be extremely expensive too. And it would also mean gas/oil/coal prices would drop with lower demand, meaning it could possibly still compete better with green energy.
-
They don't care much about carbon they care about smog. They have billions of very poor people to feed. That's the tragedy in all of this, it's either 1. we continue with fossil fuels until the green tech gets cheaper and the climate likely changes somewhat significantly medium/long-term or 2. several generations of most humans across the planet in the short/medium term will suffer economically by using more expensive green technology.
Either way, we're effed.
If we choose #2 we have to be prepared for the almost inevitable outcome that these people, especially the poorest & most vulnerable, across the developing world will suffer setbacks in their country's development because of the economic impact, meaning poorer maternal health, children's health, overall life expectancy etc as medicine/health care will be harder to afford, along with food, shelter, education, and other necessities. Many poor people will suffer and die as cost of living rises, do people understand this? Most in the developed world like us will be fine, we just will have to do without some modern conveniences, but poor people in our communities will be hit hardest.
The only hope i can see is if economies of scale would mean after an initial cost in widescale investment that green technologies drop in price similar or lower than fossil fuels. But that would be extremely expensive too. And it would also mean gas/oil/coal prices would drop with lower demand, meaning it could possibly still compete better with green energy.
For starters just take current fossil fuel subsidies and continue to put it into renewables. Some of the poorest people in the world are already benefiting by having low cost solar energy being provided so they can cook a meal and it has provided jobs.
Morocco is setting an example for the African continent. It has a renewable energy target of 42% of total electrical capacity by 2020, has recently established an agency dedicated to solar energy and is working to develop a “super grid” that integrates solar power, wind power, hydropower and biomass.
Renewable energy investment in Morocco grew from $297m in 2012 to $1.8bn in 2013, due in part to reduced fossil fuel energy subsidies.
-
Morocco is setting an example for the African continent.
Maybe, but it's no example for us. We don't happen to live in a desert.
-
It has a renewable energy target of 42% of total electrical capacity by 2020
1) That renewable target includes hydro power which will make up close 70% of the total renewables.
2) Morocco faced with growing electrical demand will double coal power production and quintuple gas power production over the next 10 years.
Solar and wind are sideshows in a grid that will have the majority of power coming from reliable baseload and/or dispatchable sources such as oil, gas, nuclear and hydro.
-
Maybe, but it's no example for us. We don't happen to live in a desert.
You don't have to live in a desert to have sun and wind.
-
1) That renewable target includes hydro power which will make up close 70% of the total renewables.
2) Morocco faced with growing electrical demand will double coal power production and quintuple gas power production over the next 10 years.
Solar and wind are sideshows in a grid that will have the majority of power coming from reliable baseload and/or dispatchable sources such as oil, gas, nuclear and hydro.
Currently at 32% renewables and heading for 42% BY 2020. They're heading in the right direction. And yes, we all know that when the sun goes down in your neighborhood the solar panels stop working.
-
Currently at 32% renewables and heading for 42% BY 2020.
Canada is already at 60% renewables if you include hydro. I guess that makes Canada a renewable leader.
-
Canada is already at 60% renewables if you include hydro. I guess that makes Canada a renewable leader.
Not everybody has the waterways available to them that we do to produce hydro so they have to look to other forms of renewables that are not quite so easy/dependable.
-
Not everybody has the waterways available to them that we do to produce hydro so they have to look to other forms of renewables that are not quite so easy/dependable.
And Morocco has hydro - a lot of it.
Given their current plans Morocco expects get about 15% of the power from wind or solar in 2030.
https://germanwatch.org/en/download/15120.pdf
Note that is 15% of their power production - not 15% of installed capacity. The reference above tries to make solar/wind seem more important by quoting installed capacity rather than estimated production.
So Morocco is spending a lot of money on a relatively small part of the energy mix and will depend on coal and gas for the majority of the power.
This is sad because poor countries have more important things to do with their limited resources.
This is a script that will play out over and over again no matter how much the spin doctors try to hide that fact.
-
For starters just take current fossil fuel subsidies and continue to put it into renewables. Some of the poorest people in the world are already benefiting by having low cost solar energy being provided so they can cook a meal and it has provided jobs.
Morocco is setting an example for the African continent. It has a renewable energy target of 42% of total electrical capacity by 2020, has recently established an agency dedicated to solar energy and is working to develop a “super grid” that integrates solar power, wind power, hydropower and biomass.
Renewable energy investment in Morocco grew from $297m in 2012 to $1.8bn in 2013, due in part to reduced fossil fuel energy subsidies.
Hey if it works i'm all for it. There's nothing redeemable about fossil fuels other than cost really.
-
Hey if it works i'm all for it. There's nothing redeemable about fossil fuels other than cost really.
Not true. Fossil fuels are portable (i.e. can be used in vehicles) and suitable for producing reliable baseload electricity almost anywhere. Even if there was no cost advantage the functional benefits make them preferable.
The biggest barrier to replacing fossil fuels is the functional benefits. If it was simply a matter of cost we would have already gotten rid of them.
-
And Morocco has hydro - a lot of it.
Given their current plans Morocco expects get about 15% of the power from wind or solar in 2030.
https://germanwatch.org/en/download/15120.pdf
Note that is 15% of their power production - not 15% of installed capacity. The reference above tries to make solar/wind seem more important by quoting installed capacity rather than estimated production.
So Morocco is spending a lot of money on a relatively small part of the energy mix and will depend on coal and gas for the majority of the power.
This is sad because poor countries have more important things to do with their limited resources.
This is a script that will play out over and over again no matter how much the spin doctors try to hide that fact.
They are aiming for 42% renewable by 2020.
The Moroccan Government has set up an ambitious target of meeting 42% of its energy requirements using renewable resources (2GW solar and 2GW wind) by 2020.
https://www.ecomena.org/renewable-energy-in-morocco/
-
Not true. Fossil fuels are portable (i.e. can be used in vehicles) and suitable for producing reliable baseload electricity almost anywhere. Even if there was no cost advantage the functional benefits make them preferable.
The biggest barrier to replacing fossil fuels is the functional benefits. If it was simply a matter of cost we would have already gotten rid of them.
Um, electricity can also be used in cars, and many countries that use a lot of cars are heading that way.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/autos/countries-banning-diesel-gas-cars/index.html
-
They are aiming for 42% renewable by 2020.
Are incapable of reading and understanding an argument or do you simply believe that ignoring arguments which you can't refute is an effective tactic?
Nameplate capacity means little. What matters is actual energy production. Even if their alleged 42% of nameplate capacity goal is reached, solar and wind will provide no more that 15% of the energy produced.
85% of their energy will come from coal, gas and hydro.
Um, electricity can also be used in cars, and many countries that use a lot of cars are heading that way.
You are assuming these regulations will not be revoked as the deadlines near and as politician realize it was a pipe dream. You also miss the point: electrical cars cannot compete with gas vehicles when it comes to refueling convenience. This matters and will continue to matter no matter how much you wish otherwise.
-
Are incapable of reading and understanding an argument or do you simply believe that ignoring arguments which you can't refute is an effective tactic?
Nameplate capacity means little. What matters is actual energy production. Even if their alleged 42% of nameplate capacity goal is reached, solar and wind will provide no more that 15% of the energy produced.
85% of their energy will come from coal, gas and hydro.
You are assuming these regulations will not be revoked as the deadlines near and as politician realize it was a pipe dream. You also miss the point: electrical cars cannot compete with gas vehicles when it comes to refueling convenience. This matters and will continue to matter no matter how much you wish otherwise.
I can read the article as well as you can. And "range anxiety" for EV's will reduce as charging stations become more prevalent. In the meantime people will opt for hybrids.
-
I can read the article as well as you can.
Obviously not because you completely ignored the important distinction between nameplate capacity and actual production. For all of the hype Morocco expects to have approx 15% of production in 2030 from solar/wind at a great cost. What is the point?
And "range anxiety" for EV's will reduce as charging stations become more prevalent.
I am not talking about range anxiety. I am talking refueling time that is so long it requires careful planning.
In the meantime people will opt for hybrids.
Hybrids will be the long term solution.
-
Um, electricity can also be used in cars, and many countries that use a lot of cars are heading that way.
https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/11/autos/countries-banning-diesel-gas-cars/index.html
Well I just read that a Tesla takes 40 minutes at a supercharger station to charge up 80% and 75 minutes to charge up 100%. At home it takes over 5 hours to fully charge. So Tim seems right. Not to mention the electricity the cars are charged with will have to come from renewable power plants/sources to even be worth a damn.
Tesla has never made a profit ever, it's burning money, and ordinary people and businesses aren't going to buy them any time soon. It's all just hype so far, like the Segways still sitting in a warehouse or landfill somewhere. Wishful thinking and confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
The market will tell us when all this tech is ready. Hybrids sound like a better option if people are gungho.
-
Well I just read that a Tesla takes 40 minutes at a supercharger station to charge up 80% and 75 minutes to charge up 100%. At home it takes over 5 hours to fully charge. So Tim seems right. Not to mention the electricity the cars are charged with will have to come from renewable power plants/sources to even be worth a damn.
Tesla has never made a profit ever, it's burning money, and ordinary people and businesses aren't going to buy them any time soon. It's all just hype so far, like the Segways still sitting in a warehouse or landfill somewhere. Wishful thinking and confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
The market will tell us when all this tech is ready. Hybrids sound like a better option if people are gungho.
Your home charger is slower because it is single phase so it's an overnight thing. However if you are on the road at a charging station they are 3 phase and you can get juiced up in~30 minutes. So yeah maybe you need to plan a lunch stop. I suspect in the interim people who are buying EV's are using them to get to work downtown and then home. Longer range of course you may need the hybrid. Very many of the taxi's in my town are hybrids. Their fuel savings are bigly.
-
Well I just read that a Tesla takes 40 minutes at a supercharger station to charge up 80% and 75 minutes to charge up 100%.
...
The market will tell us when all this tech is ready.
There are zero technical issues around battery swap, that was demonstrated by Musk several years ago. 90 seconds to swap in a fully charged battery, or about half the time it takes to fill a gasoline tank. It is a logistic issue, not technology.
-
There are zero technical issues around battery swap, that was demonstrated by Musk several years ago. 90 seconds to swap in a fully charged battery, or about half the time it takes to fill a gasoline tank. It is a logistic issue, not technology.
Obvious solution and the Chinese are working on it as well.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-05/china-s-top-ev-maker-starts-battery-swap-service-to-lure-users
-
There are zero technical issues around battery swap, that was demonstrated by Musk several years ago. 90 seconds to swap in a fully charged battery, or about half the time it takes to fill a gasoline tank. It is a logistic issue, not technology.
Yet P.T. Barnum Musk has not produced any cars with such a battery and instead pays to set up fast charging stations. The biggest engineering problem I see is the need for a standard which would then limit innovation in battery design/manufacturing. There is also the critical mass problem. i.e. you need a fairly large number of EVs before such a business would be viable which means you need to get people to accept the charge times that come with the current generation of EVs before there is any chance of creating the battery swap infrastructure to reduce those charge time. I don't see that happening given the competition from hybrids.
-
Yet P.T. Barnum Musk has not produced any cars with such a battery and instead pays to set up fast charging stations. The biggest engineering problem I see is the need for a standard which would then limit innovation in battery design/manufacturing. There is also the critical mass problem. i.e. you need a fairly large number of EVs before such a business would be viable which means you need to get people to accept the charge times that come with the current generation of EVs before there is any chance of creating the battery swap infrastructure to reduce those charge time. I don't see that happening given the competition from hybrids.
This one company in the article plans to have 1100 battery swap stations in place by 2020. And it takes ~ 2 minutes to swap out the battery in their vehicle. Perhaps the pace of new technology is outpacing your desire to absorb it.
-
There are zero technical issues around battery swap, that was demonstrated by Musk several years ago. 90 seconds to swap in a fully charged battery, or about half the time it takes to fill a gasoline tank. It is a logistic issue, not technology.
Well again, this is all hype and tech demos and hypotheticals. The market will say if and when this tech is ready and able. It's almost always a surprise when a big new technology or company takes off because it's so organic and happens so fast it's very hard to predict without evidence (sales).
-
This one company in the article plans to have 1100 battery swap stations in place by 2020.
A Chinese company seeking to money from investors spins a tale. The idea that they could build enough stations to make a mass market vehicle convenient to use while making a profit is as plausible as moviepass.com.
-
My first adopter buddy has a Laserdisc and Betamax player lying around somewhere.
-
The Phantom Menace sucked, The Matrix came out the same spring, much better.
-
A Chinese company seeking to money from investors spins a tale. The idea that they could build enough stations to make a mass market vehicle convenient to use while making a profit is as plausible as pets.com.
You think Chinese don't know how to handle money? And as the article points out it doesn't take much to build a charging/swap station. Much simpler than building a gas station for sure.
-
You think Chinese don't know how to handle money? And as the article points out it doesn't take much to build a charging/swap station. Much simpler than building a gas station for sure.
1) You need land in good locations - not cheap in Chinese cities;
2) You need capital to pay for enough spare batteries to handle your expected turnover which are generally expensive;
3) You need grid connections to charge banks of batteries - not cheap and potentially technically difficult depending on the local grid.
4) The potential customer base is limited to people who purchase a vehicle from the maker which makes it much tougher to recover the costs from 1, 2 and 3.
Gas stations require the land but have a much much greater customer base, lower capital requirements and do not require upgrades to the electrical grid.
-
---
-
1) You need land in good locations - not cheap in Chinese cities;
2) You need capital to pay for the batteries which are generally expensive;
3) Providing grid connections needed for charging banks of batteries - not cheap and potentially technically difficult depending on the local grid.
4) The potential customer base is limited to people who purchase a vehicle from the maker which makes it much tougher to recover the costs from 1 2 and 4.
Gas stations require the land but have a much much greater customer base and the capital requirements and do not require upgrades to the electrical grid.
1. How much land do you think it would take to run some wires into a charger and stack some batteries? As opposed to a gas station which for starters has to have a bunch of tanks plunked in the ground which will likely eventually leak.
2. As the article points out, if you will need to use the battery swap then you pay a fee which of course would be to cover the cost of the batteries and the use of the swap stations.
3. see #1
4. see#2 and btw, car batteries are car batteries. I have a mazda truck and a gmc truck. Can't really see a lot of difference in the batteries. Easy enough to make EV batteries the same way.
-
30 years ago you took your propane tank in to get it refilled, today that is the exception.
Swap stations are highly compatible with solar energy.
-
30 years ago you took your propane tank in to get it refilled, today that is the exception.
Swap stations are highly compatible with solar energy.
Sure. Feed solar in during the day and when the voltage drops below a certain level come evening, click, on comes the grid.
-
30 years ago you took your propane tank in to get it refilled, today that is the exception.
A propane tank is <$5 to manufacture. EV batteries are >4K. It is completely different cost structure.
Swap stations are highly compatible with solar energy.
Only if you can't do math. A battery swap station that handled 10 cars/hour would need 300KW of continuous power. 300KW of solar panels is 1000 2mx1m solar panels or about 20,000 square feet of unobstructed real estate for panels that could only deliver the power requirements some of the time. This kind of station requires direct connection to reliable grid power. If you assume you have 240 batteries that are charged during peak solar you would need ~1M of solar power over an 8 hour period to charge the batteries needed for the next day. That is a lot of power that requires some hefty grid connections - and that is just for one station. More importantly, you would need the back up fossil fuel plants to supply that 1M on cloudy days since commuters don't stop driving because the sun is obscured.
-
Mulcair moved rightward fiscally, because the big rap on the NDP was they couldn't be trusted with money, and it paid dividends. I'm not entirely what broke their hopes because it looked like they might actually win. Then suddenly it was all reversed and Trudeau pushed far ahead. But Trudeau's policies definitely were meant to appeal to NDP voters. No worries about spending cuts, more social programs, more identity politics.
The bottom fell out for the NDP because Mulcair was insincere. He was not a social democrat, let alone a democratic socialist. He couldn't appeal to the NDP base, so they abandoned the party and put their support behind the only federal party that was offering a platform that contained policy elements similar to what the Scandinavian countries are doing: The Green Party. Those swing voters who were only flirting with the NDP and had no interest in social democracy found a strong and likeable leader in Trudeau. Mulcair was lacking in both charisma to compete with Trudeau and the sincerity he needed to compete with May.
-
A propane tank is <$5 to manufacture. EV batteries are >4K. It is completely different cost structure.
Only if you can't do math. A battery swap station that handled 10 cars/hour would need 300KW of continuous power. 300KW of solar panels is 1000 2mx1m solar panels or about 20,000 square feet of unobstructed real estate for panels that could only deliver the power requirements some of the time. This kind of station requires direct connection to reliable grid power. If you assume you have 240 batteries that are charged during peak solar you would need ~1M of solar power over an 8 hour period to charge the batteries needed for the next day. That is a lot of power that requires some hefty grid connections - and that is just for one station. More importantly, you would need the back up fossil fuel plants to supply that 1M on cloudy days since commuters don't stop driving because the sun is obscured.
Average cost of a gallon of gas in Washington State just under $3.00. Equivalent cost of charging an EV battery, $.84 cents. Oh but this will never catch on eh?
-
The bottom fell out for the NDP because Mulcair was insincere. He was not a social democrat, let alone a democratic socialist. He couldn't appeal to the NDP base, so they abandoned the party and put their support behind the only federal party that was offering a platform that contained policy elements similar to what the Scandinavian countries are doing: The Green Party. Those swing voters who were only flirting with the NDP and had no interest in social democracy found a strong and likeable leader in Trudeau. Mulcair was lacking in both charisma to compete with Trudeau and the sincerity he needed to compete with May.
But Mulcair was appealing to a lot of centrist and centre-left voters who usually vote Liberal. That's why they shot to number one in the polls. But I think once the election started Trudeau had more to offer in the form of easily explained policies that promised people lots of stuff. The Conservatives, by contrast, offered nothing but more of the same. The NDP didn't have a lot to offer since they wanted to keep the budget balanced. Trudeau simply had more to spend. It's not a coincidence every seat east of Quebec went Liberal.
I have been an admirer of the Scandinavian countries for a long time, but their ability to offer up extremely generous social programs without a ton of people stopping work to take advantage of that was based largely on them having small, homogenous communities with strong work ethics, great schools, and a sense of personal responsibility. Those are wavering now as a result of mass immigration and as a result they're having to cut back on the generosity.
You can't have mass immigration and a generous welfare state together.
-
But Mulcair was appealing to a lot of centrist and centre-left voters who usually vote Liberal. That's why they shot to number one in the polls. But I think once the election started Trudeau had more to offer in the form of easily explained policies that promised people lots of stuff. The Conservatives, by contrast, offered nothing but more of the same. The NDP didn't have a lot to offer since they wanted to keep the budget balanced. Trudeau simply had more to spend. It's not a coincidence every seat east of Quebec went Liberal.
I have been an admirer of the Scandinavian countries for a long time, but their ability to offer up extremely generous social programs without a ton of people stopping work to take advantage of that was based largely on them having small, homogenous communities with strong work ethics, great schools, and a sense of personal responsibility. Those are wavering now as a result of mass immigration and as a result they're having to cut back on the generosity.
You can't have mass immigration and a generous welfare state together.
Scandinavia is taking its lead on immigration from Canada.
In contrast, Canada is usually described as a policy “borrower.”
But in the area of immigration and integration policies, the relationship has turned on its head. Canada is the policy lender; Scandinavia the policy borrower.
As immigration novices, Denmark, Norway and Sweden have been searching for inspiration and new solutions abroad. And the Canadian immigration and integration policy model is attracting avid interest.
In fact, the Canadian model has played a significant role in the Scandinavian reform process since the early 2000s.
In particular, Canada’s positive view of “immigrants as a resource” has served to inspire new attitudes towards labour immigration in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
https://bravecanada.ca/canada-is-inspiring-scandinavian-countries-on-immigration/
-
In fact, the Canadian model has played a significant role in the Scandinavian reform process since the early 2000s.
Indeed? And what impact has this had on their society and politics?
Btw, Denmark recently banned the wearing of Burkas in public...
-
The bottom fell out for the NDP because Mulcair was insincere. He was not a social democrat, let alone a democratic socialist. He couldn't appeal to the NDP base, so they abandoned the party and put their support behind the only federal party that was offering a platform that contained policy elements similar to what the Scandinavian countries are doing: The Green Party. Those swing voters who were only flirting with the NDP and had no interest in social democracy found a strong and likeable leader in Trudeau. Mulcair was lacking in both charisma to compete with Trudeau and the sincerity he needed to compete with May.
A lot of what you said is true, like Mulcair lacking sincerity, but what I remember, like a lot of elections in the past ~10 years, is that people just wanted the incumbent Harper gone, so everyone who was a swing voter jumped on the ship likeliest to get them there, which were the Liberals.
I remember the election before that, where the "orange crush" came and everyone jumped off the Liberal train and hopped on the NDP train shortly before the election because it had some momentum to be the "oppose Harper" party on the left since nobody seemed to want to vote for Iggy & the Libs got decimated.
A lot of strategic voting in Canada these days. Polls swinging wildly close to before the election. Same thing happened in Alberta, the NDP gained 25 points in the polls in the last month.
-
The Thread Drift is strong with this thread. I guess people are largely over any issues with the DoFo government.
-
The Thread Drift is strong with this thread. I guess people are largely over any issues with the DoFo government.
The thread is about the election. There are other discussions about DoFo government blunders.
-
None lately.
I kind of gave an overview of my thoughts on the most pressing issues that's been brought up.
The two that are getting Progressives worked up are the Toronto City Council and the Sex Ed Curriculum. Both issues that aren't going to make DoFo lose any elections in the future.
-
DoFo hires his family lawyer to a $600,000 position to devise on something-or-other....
-
DoFo hires his family lawyer to a $600,000 position to devise on something-or-other....
Just like the thick Trump swamp, the Ford swamp is filling in.
-
Just like the thick Trump swamp, the Ford swamp is filling in.
Wynne spent billions of taxpayer money on her re-election campaigns and you fell all over yourself making up excuses every single time.
-
Wynne ...
... but Hillary
That is what you sound like.
-
... but Hillary
That is what you sound like.
Oh right. Twelve years after PC's left office you were still frantically making excuses for the Liberals by blaming Mike Harris.
-
Wynne spent billions of taxpayer money on her re-election campaigns and you fell all over yourself making up excuses every single time.
What do you think of Ford hiring the family lawyer to a $600,000 /yr position??
-
What do you think of Ford hiring the family lawyer to a $600,000 /yr position??
Never heard of it. Nobody has posted any cites so I have no information to go by. It's pretty petty stuff anyway compared to a party spending billions of taxpayer dollars to win an election. And nobody who defends the latter has any business criticizing the former.
-
Never heard of it. Nobody has posted any cites so I have no information to go by. It's pretty petty stuff anyway compared to a party spending billions of taxpayer dollars to win an election. And nobody who defends the latter has any business criticizing the former.
you demanding a cite... that’s a good one! ;D
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/06/ontario-pcs-hire-ford-family-lawyer-gavin-tighe-fire-senior-liberal-appointees_a_23519274/
-
Oh right. Twelve years after PC's left office you were still frantically making excuses for the Liberals by blaming Mike Harris.
I blame Harris for what Harris did, you are blaming Wynne for what Ford did. Anyone can see the difference.
-
you demanding a cite... that’s a good one! ;D
Care to point out the many times people asked me for cites and I couldn't provide one? Even once?
Your source points out that Ford fired a number of Liberals from patronage appointments. Care to poitn out the number of times you complained about Liberal patronage appointments, by the way? Then it hired a lawyer known and trusted by the Fords to some position or other. But it doesn't say much about whether this is new or a replacement, or what the responsibilities are. That makes it hard to figure out if the salary is remotely proper. Offhand I'd say it was far too much. But then, I also think we should cut the salaries of Hospital and University CEOs in half (or more). They make salaries like this.
-
I blame Harris for what Harris did, you are blaming Wynne for what Ford did. Anyone can see the difference.
You blame Harris for what Wynn and McGuinty did, and blame Ford for what Wynne did, and if ever a time comes when you can't find a tory to blame for what your beloved Liberals have wrought you keep your mouth shut or make up some party hack defense.
-
Care to point out the many times people asked me for cites and I couldn't provide one? Even once?
C'mon argus, we don't have time to do all that.
-
You blame Harris for what Wynn and McGuinty did, and blame Ford for what Wynne did
Care to point that out? I would like a cite, as you claim to always provide.
-
Care to point that out? I would like a cite, as you claim to always provide.
March 1 2017 No they shouldn't. We need a real government that is not afraid to rip up the Mike Harris Electricity Act of 1998 and go back to public utilities instead of vectoring profit to crony friends in private industry.
b.t.w. it sounds like the deals are renegotiated for lower cost over longer term. That is like having your $40/month 2-year contract with bell extended into a $33/month 3-year contract.
jan 24, 2017
I am blaming Harris of the Electricity Act that lead to privatization. Yes the feed in tariffs have increased prices, but they are a very minor part of the hydro rates (around 6%). Pretending they are the reason we have high hydro costs is misleading.
jan 23, 2017
I agree that privatizing hydro was a big mistake, but let us not forget that is the Mike Harris policy. Wynne failed big time in not reversing that, but continuing a failed policy is different than creating one.
sept 11, 2016
As I have said countless times, the Liberals failed miserably because they didn't spend the hundreds of billions required to fix Mike Harris's destruction of our public utility.
-
All examples of blaming Harris for what Harris did. You might even notice that I blamed Wynne for her failings also. What I didn't do was excuse Wynne failure by saying Harris did it as well.
Now, are you going to accept that Ford filled up the swamp or are you going to continue to deflect?
-
What do you think of Ford hiring the family lawyer to a $600,000 /yr position??
Sounds ridiculous. I've never heard of a lawyer making that much in Canada unless they own their own firm. Canada should have confirmation hearings like in the US for appointments to avoid these things, or have patronage regulations.
-
Canada should have confirmation hearings like in the US
I would say Canada should have a better appointment process, but I wouldn't go so far as to replicate the circus we have in the US. I think the step Trudeau made with Senator appointments is in the right direction, not exactly how I had suggested several times in the past but far better than the old status quo.
-
All examples of blaming Harris for what Harris did.
All examples of you defending Wynne and McGuinty and what they had done to Ontario's electricity system and blaming it all on a guy out of power for over a decade.
Now, are you going to accept that Ford filled up the swamp or are you going to continue to deflect?
I don't feel any need to do either. Not enough information has been presented and unlike you people on the Left I'm not reflexively anti P.C.
-
I would say Canada should have a better appointment process, but I wouldn't go so far as to replicate the circus we have in the US. I think the step Trudeau made with Senator appointments is in the right direction, not exactly how I had suggested several times in the past but far better than the old status quo.
Yeah, appointing loyal liberals instead of loyal Liberals. Big improvement.
-
Yeah, appointing loyal liberals instead of loyal Liberals. Big improvement.
As I said, it was not the appointment process that I suggested many times in the past. It is however a bizillion light years ahead of the one used by Harper.
All examples of you defending Wynne and McGuinty and what they had done to Ontario's electricity system and blaming it all on a guy out of power for over a decade.
All examples of blaming Harris for selling out Ontario public resources to the private sector. That was his baby, 100% his baby. I was not afraid of blaming Wynne and McGuinty for what they did, or failed to do.
You however are blaming Wynne for something that is 100% on Ford. You need to get new glasses.
-
As I said, it was not the appointment process that I suggested many times in the past. It is however a bizillion light years ahead of the one used by Harper.
Because now, instead of appointing people who will loyally follow the Conservative party agenda, we appoint people who will loyally follow a liberal agenda! Whoopee!
You however are blaming Wynne for something that is 100% on Ford. You need to get new glasses.
I did not blame Wynne for a single thing on this topic. You need to get more RAM
-
Ontario made the right call in voting out Liberals, interim leader says
“The truth is last June voters told us in pretty unequivocal terms, they’d had enough of us. That after 15 years, they wanted change,” Fraser said.
“They put us in the penalty box. Time will tell for how long. And, frankly, they made the right call.”
He said the party lost its message during the campaign, and in turn, lost the election. To regain it, he said he’d look to the party grassroots — and particularly the Ontario Young Liberals — for guidance.
https://www.680news.com/2018/09/29/ontario-liberals/
Well that is that.