41st Parliament of Ontario

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
onlinediscountanvils
41st Parliament of Ontario

Most of the active Ontario threads are centred around the election and its aftermath, so I figured a fresh thread might be in order.

Rokossovsky

What started out as "the most progressive budget in years" has now left its larvae stage and has not turned into a beautiful butterfly called the "a budget and a campaign platform that looked like it came from the NDP in 1975."

Murray Dobbin wrote:
But when Kathleen Wynne put together a budget and a campaign platform that looked like it came from the NDP in 1975 and then actually won a majority on it? Well that's not just heresy, it's apostasy. The Liberals, after all, are still supposed to be a Bay Street party, doing capital's bidding -- as defined so often by these same pundits.

If it can be said that ONDP has lost its principles and campaigned from the right, we can observe that this might be because the brain-trust of the left intelligentsia has lost its marbles.

Nothing but an appeal to the optical illusion of being "progressive" is being passed off as a tangible moral victory that can be made bankable at some future date.

terrytowel

Wynne just gave a press conference saying now that she has a majority, she breath with a sigh of relief and govern from the ‘activist centre’.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/17/kathleen_wynne_tells_l...

Rokossovsky

Oh! I thought she was on the left of the ONDP. Now she is in the center already. Didn't take long.

terrytowel

Rokossovsky wrote:

Oh! I thought she was on the left of the ONDP. Now she is in the center already. Didn't take long.

Maybe next week she will release a budget the veers to the right! (that was a joke btw)

Rokossovsky

Very likely. But not to much. She has to keep the "progressive"... sorry I mean "centerist" veneer going through the federal election campaign.

Aristotleded24

I think in a strange way this campaign refutes the idea of "strategic voting." The idea of strategic voting generally boils down to Liberals + NDP = more votes than the right-wing, so if we can do that then everything would be fine. Notice that in this scenario right-wing voters are treated as some sort of fixed obstacle you have to move around. But with the swing in votes from the PCs to the Liberals, it shows that the minds of right-wing voters can be appealed to to switch parties. And I've always maintained that the best way to defeat the right-wing parties is to convince more people to vote for your party than the other ones.

PrairieDemocrat15

Activist centre is an oxymoron, given that activist governments are left-wing.

terrytowel

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Activist centre is an oxymoron, given that activist governments are left-wing.

Wynne has already blazed a trail as the first woman Premier elected, and the first lesbian too boot. Maybe she will continue by governing from the activist centre. She is already 2 for 2, why not 3 for 3?

mark_alfred

Sobering listening for anyone (IE, Dobbin) who deluded themselves that this was a progressive budget from a progessive government:  link

Wynne wrote:
I respect the collective bargaining process and I'm adamant that we will have fair collective bargaining, but there is no new money and everyone knows what the fiscal situation is. We've made tough choices, we will continue to do that.

Expect a repeat of how they "negotiated" with teachers in the not too distant past as Wynne "continue[s] to do that."

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

mark_alfred wrote:
Expect a repeat of how they "negotiated" with teachers in the not too distant past as Wynne "continue[s] to do that."

Yeah, too bad the ONDP didn't capitalize on teacher anger that led to squads of elementary teachers flocking to K-W to help elect Catherine Fife. 

There was no "negotiation" instead contracts were imposed. I was surprised when OSSTF friends still said they were supporting the Liberals. The NDP should have made this an issue, but that's water under the ridge now. Expect more contract-stripping "negotiation" to follow.

Rokossovsky

infracaninophile wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Expect a repeat of how they "negotiated" with teachers in the not too distant past as Wynne "continue[s] to do that."

Yeah, too bad the ONDP didn't capitalize on teacher anger that led to squads of elementary teachers flocking to K-W to help elect Catherine Fife. 

There was no "negotiation" instead contracts were imposed. I was surprised when OSSTF friends still said they were supporting the Liberals. The NDP should have made this an issue, but that's water under the ridge now. Expect more contract-stripping "negotiation" to follow.

That was the decision of the union executive, handed down by ETFO. What happened in Kitchener is the local rejected the "strategic voting" mandate and fully supported the ONDP.

The union movement was slightly better over all in this election but was basically rudderless, going into their fall back strategic voting stance because they could not develop a consensus. Plus, any real opposition to the Liberals, or even policy based campaigning was nipped in the bud by the OFLs pre-emptive strike in endorsing the Liberals.

A really imaginative strategy might have involved a full endorsement of the ONDP, and one that would have lessened Wynne's argument that she was "progressive" with clear endorsement's from labour, and given much needed momentum to the ONDP campaign early. This might have prevented the Liberal majority.

The result of this miscalculation is that they have aided in creating the worst possible outcome, a Liberal majority, with Sid Ryan's intemperament endorsement becoming a golden talking point for the Liberal "strategic voting" campaign. Possible, because it is now clear that a Hudak minority was not going to happen. If they survive the next 4 years as a cohesive force, they need to revist the value of supporting Liberals, since the Liberals don't really need their money, and don't respect it.

What Wynne has to say about the help she has recieved in getting her majority:

Regg Cohn wrote:

She owes no debts to either big business or big labour. And she stands by her promise to wipe out Ontario’s deficit within three years — there’s “no flexibility” — while bankrolling a massive $15-billion GTHA transit plan.

Anyone counting on post-election IOUs has miscalculated. That’s why she is sending a message of restraint to Bay Street and the major unions, while appealing to local mayors to line up behind a coherent and co-ordinated transit plan.

Sid could have said a lot of things in his response to the budget, but endorsing is as the "most progressive budget in years", was completely out of line, for the leader of a federation.

One also wonders what precise "restraint" message is she sending to "Bay Street"? Increased corporate taxes? Surely not. Lol.

They also have to examine the strategic voting strategy overall, and think about doing "issue" based campaigning as opposed to party endorsements in order to make their issues campaign issues, in an effort to get commitments from the parties on specifics, such as opposition to privatization, etc. Public awareness needs to be raised, not dulled by partisan "strategic voting" campaigns.

terrytowel

Andrea should have taken a page from Dolly Parton of all people.

Dolly was accused of leaving country music back in the 1970s when she moved to LA to be a pop star.

Dolly said "I'm not leaving country music, I'm taking it with me!"

That is what Andrea should have strategised, and she should have made clear to the base by saying:

"I'm not leaving the values of the NDP behind. I'm taking it with me"

I think that was her mistake, and she should have made that more clear in the campaign.

 

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

That was the decision of the union executive, handed down by ETFO. What happened in Kitchener is the local rejected the "strategic voting" mandate and fully supported the ONDP. 

 

It was a bit simpler than that. All the unions (especially ETFO) very explicitly endorsed and campaigned for all 21 NDP MPPs running for re-election. In Kitchener-Waterloo Catherine Fife was the incumbent so she was automatically endorsed and was the beneficiary of all the feet on the ground from unions. 

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

That was the decision of the union executive, handed down by ETFO. What happened in Kitchener is the local rejected the "strategic voting" mandate and fully supported the ONDP. 

 

It was a bit simpler than that. All the unions (especially ETFO) very explicitly endorsed and campaigned for all 21 NDP MPPs running for re-election. In Kitchener-Waterloo Catherine Fife was the incumbent so she was automatically endorsed and was the beneficiary of all the feet on the ground from unions. 

Actually it is a little more complex than that because a number of locals came up with endorsement lists that supported NDP over Liberals, even in ridings where the Liberal was incumbent. So for example EET backed Feirrera, not the Liberal, in Etobicoke North they backed Nigel Barriffe.

That did not happend in 2011. In 2011 for example, the ETFO, and the ETT backed Martins over Schein.  I am pretty sure that in Chattam-Kent-Essex the teacher's local backed Dan Gelinas even though the Liberal came second in 2011.

Not so simple.

In fact the probable reason you have squads of teachers showing up in Kitchener to support Fife, is because the membership, under "orders" (so to speak) to support their local Liberal candidate simply refused to do so. Instead they went to support ONDP candidates elsewhere. This seemed to happen other places too, there was substantial support for Nigel Barriffe in Etobicoke North, from out of riding teachers, and also French in Oshawa.

terrytowel

Tim Hudak will step down as PC leader effective July 2, QMI Agency has learned.

Hudak sent a letter to his caucus Wednesday saying that for the good of the party and the good of his family, he will step down sooner rather than later.

The legislature returns July 2 and a party executive meeting is planned for July 5, when it's expected they will set out plans for a convention.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140...

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact the probable reason you have squads of teachers showing up in Kitchener to support Fife, is because the membership, under "orders" (so to speak) to support their local Liberal candidate simply refused to do so. Instead they went to support ONDP candidates elsewhere. This seemed to happen other places too, there was substantial support for Nigel Barriffe in Etobicoke North, from out of riding teachers, and also French in Oshawa.

Much of the leadership of ETFO are NDP supporters and ETFO never endorsed either party at the province-wide level - they were just anti-Hudak - but my understanding was that they backed NDP candidates anywhere that they were incumbents or thought they had a really good chance.  

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Stockholm wrote:
It was a bit simpler than that. All the unions (especially ETFO) very explicitly endorsed and campaigned for all 21 NDP MPPs running for re-election. In Kitchener-Waterloo Catherine Fife was the incumbent so she was automatically endorsed and was the beneficiary of all the feet on the ground from unions.

 

We are not talking about the same election. I was referring to the by-election where Catherine Fife was first elected, and it was predicted to be a close race, with a fairly prominent PC candidate, with the OSSTF ex-president running for the Liberals, and Catherine Fife.  Many teachers were outraged by Ken Coran's tergiversation and  flocked to support the NDP (this was just as the contract-stripping was beginning). I couldn't believe how OSSTF backed Coran -- well, maybe I could. Earl Manners is a famous ex-OSSTF president who defected to the dark side.

The NDP poured money into that by-election, and succesfully attracted hundreds of teacher volunteers (grace a ETFO, no doubt). Without that support, they may well NOT have won the by-election.

I was suggesting the the backroom brains of the NDP strategy team ought to have seen the value of capitalizing on that anger in some other ridings this time around (Beaches-East York comes to mind). But Horwath's allergy to the word "teacher" (thanks to Skinny Dipper for pointing  that out, I have followed the issue ever since and he is right) apparently means she could not come out and criticize the Libs for contract stripping and bad faith bargaining. I was visiting a school during the run up to the election and asked several teachers about their opinion of Andrea and the NDP. None found her to be "pro education" or supportive of teachers as a group.

Not a poll, I know, but I would not be surprised if, should the federations poll their members on whether they were active in the campaign or even voted, the results woiuld not be encouraging for the NDP. Also, it's not a "teacher" issue. The Libs made a flagrant anti-collective-bargaining move, imposed it by sheer force with no collaboration, and we hear not a peep from Andrea (someone pointed to a speech she gave in the Legislature about Bill Whatever, and I listen to all 18 or so minutes -- not a single mention of teachers. Nor of the importance of free and fair collective bargaining).

This goes way beyond the particulars. If the NDP isn't actively and consistently supportive of unionized workers or the collective bargaining process, then something is very wrong.

I brought this up with a caller from my local riding association (they were asking me to volunteer and/or donate money). I declined, and told them I did not see the current campaign reflecting any of the things that drew me to the NDP in the first place, and mentioned the silence-gives-consent behaviour of the leader. The person said, "Oh I understand (mayb e s/he heard a lot of this). But we haven't really abandoned all our principles."

Good to know.

robbie_dee

terrytowel wrote:

Tim Hudak will step down as PC leader effective July 2, QMI Agency has learned.

Hudak sent a letter to his caucus Wednesday saying that for the good of the party and the good of his family, he will step down sooner rather than later.

The legislature returns July 2 and a party executive meeting is planned for July 5, when it's expected they will set out plans for a convention.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140...

I'd like to see him give up his seat and trigger a byelection as well, but I suppose he wants to try to find another job first. 

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact the probable reason you have squads of teachers showing up in Kitchener to support Fife, is because the membership, under "orders" (so to speak) to support their local Liberal candidate simply refused to do so. Instead they went to support ONDP candidates elsewhere. This seemed to happen other places too, there was substantial support for Nigel Barriffe in Etobicoke North, from out of riding teachers, and also French in Oshawa.

Much of the leadership of ETFO are NDP supporters and ETFO never endorsed either party at the province-wide level - they were just anti-Hudak - but my understanding was that they backed NDP candidates anywhere that they were incumbents or thought they had a really good chance.  

Sure they did in 2011. Sam Hammond went so far as to say that he worked "night and day" to get the McGuinty government get elected and he was offended by Bill 115. You are right that they endorsed all NDP encumbents in the last electio, BUT also Liberals everywhere else. Hence they backed Martins over Schein, even though it was clearly winnable for the NDP, in the light of Andrew Cash's victory there in recent federal election. 

The strategy of the ETFO and OSSTF after that part was not to develop better relations with the ONDP, but to get a favourable leadership candidate elected in the Liberal Party. That being Kathleen Wynne. The top echelons of the ETFO executive have routinely put their eggs in the Liberal Party basket, regardless of the fact that many of the executive might be sympathetic to the ONDP.

Being sympathetic is not very useful, when the rubber hits the road.

In this last election endorsements were much more mixed, with endorsements going to the ONDP often in races where it was between Liberals and the NDP.

josh

Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats lost key Toronto ridings because the party wasn’t ready for an election it triggered and was seen as tacking too far right, defeated veterans say. Ceding that prime real estate to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s majority Liberals will make it tougher for the NDP in the 2018 election, leaving the party scrambling to reconnect with “progressives,” they warn. “Andrea Horwath has a challenge on her hands. Her personal brand in Toronto took a hit,” said former New Democrat MPP Paul Ferreira, unsuccessful in a comeback bid in York South-Weston.

. . . .

It was tough going from day one on the NDP campaign trail, former MPPs Michael Prue (Beaches-East York) and Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) told the Star in separate interviews Wednesday.

. . . .

Having ‘respect for taxpayers’ was a message to many people in the Annex and Seaton Village that reminded them of Mike Harris,” Marchese said, while packing up his office at Queen’s Park after 24 years as an MPP. “They were upset with the leader and in their mind we were moving to the right. It didn’t matter what I said. They had their impressions.”

. . . .

Prue, a former mayor of East York who has been an MPP for 13 years, said he went door-knocking in two polls before the Liberals tabled their left-leaning budget on May 1, asking if the NDP should reject it. “They said do it,” he recalled. “But once we did, people said, ‘How could you bring the government down? You’re risking Hudak.’ ”

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/ndp_went_too_far_right...

terrytowel

robbie_dee wrote:

I'd like to see him (Hudak) give up his seat and trigger a byelection as well, but I suppose he wants to try to find another job first. 

Well the people of Niagara West-Glanbrook elected him as their MPP. Pretty sure he wants to serve out his term, and give back to the people who have elected him for the past 19 years. When Paul Martins Liberals were defeated, it would have been easy for Martin to resign his seat.

But he stayed for his entire term, as he felt he owed it to the people who elected him as their MP. So I would see Hudak feeling the same way.

From the Toronto Star

100,000 Public Sector Job Cuts

Conservative MPPs were furious at Hudak for his campaign promise to eliminate 100,000 jobs over four years — which essentially ensured Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals of victory in Thursday’s election.

Tory sources said the brain-trust was so excited about the pledge to reduce the size of government they actually considered naming some of those being fired if they took power.

For example, the campaign thought seriously about having Hudak provide “pink slips” for more than 200 employees at the Ontario Power Authority.

They also considered wallpapering a large hall with all the thousands of names of Ontario Power Generation staffers earning $100,000 or more annually for a media event to illustrate the bloated hydro bureaucracy.

But calmer heads on the team prevailed and such questionable stunts were scrapped though the 100,000-job cut remained.

Tory Caucus Meeting

Sources say Hudak initially stared down his critics during Monday’s three-and-a-half hour closed-door bloodletting.

“Over half of caucus . . . demanded very clearly and in clear language that Tim has to resign. That was made clear to him Monday. He does not have the confidence of caucus,” said the outspoken veteran who contacted the Star after reading a loyalist’s defence of Hudak in this newspaper.

“I think you’re enjoying telling me that a little too much,” the leader reportedly had sniped after one MPP delivered a plea for him to leave.

When another MPP confided to him that “90 per cent of the caucus thinks you should go,” Hudak apparently shot back: “I don’t care if 100 per cent of caucus wanted me to go, I wouldn’t.”

A veteran Tory insider said the situation was “nasty.”

“Is he really prepared to go down in a ball of flames?” said the long-time operative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal machinations before the leader emailed colleagues with his decision to step down.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/tim_hudak_to_quit_july...

terrytowel

Ironic that the NDP held the balance of power, yet they were so unprepared for this election. They had a solid year to prepare when they propped up Wynne's government. They should have, from that day forward, started planning for this election.

Andrea had all the power to pull the plug, and she should have been ready when she did. Hudak was raring to go and was ready. Andrea knew that. But I think Andrea and the NDP didn't think the Liberals were ready.

Au contraire even before Andrea gave her press conferences Liberal MPPs were at key ridings hosting breakfasts meetings with constiuencies trying to sell the budget. Which an hour later wound but being their platform. Minutes after Andrea's press conference Wynne went straight to the Govenor General and dissolved Parliment. The Liberals had two campaign busses and a plane, ready at stand-by. They even had their election kick-off party 5 hours after dissolving Parliment.

The big red machine was well-oiled, and ready to go.

I think the NDP and Andrea didn't think the Liberals would act that fast, and be that ready. I think they probably felt they had a week to get things together. In fact Wynne gave Andrea a week's deadline for an answer. But less then 12 hours later Andrea gave that press conference. She should have strung the Liberals along during that week, while getting things organized behind the scenes so they would be ready. They stumbled out of the gate and they never recovered.

Ciabatta2

It sorta seems like the NDP assumed that the budget was crafted to win their support but in reality it was the Liberal election document.

robbie_dee

terrytowel wrote:

Well the people of Niagara West-Glanbrook elected him as their MPP. Pretty sure he wants to serve out his term, and give back to the people who have elected him for the past 19 years. When Paul Martins Liberals were defeated, it would have been easy for Martin to resign his seat.

Hudak is 47 years old and has a young family. I may not like his politics but I certainly wouldn't begrudge him the opportunity to go find something else to do with his life rather than be stuck in what is now basically a dead-end job for him for the next four years. It's not a comparable situation to Paul Martin. Plus I think it would be actually be an intriguing byelection without a party leader in the seat and could give the residents an opportunity to elect an ambitious up-and-comer rather than someone playing out the string. Maybe even from a different party.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:
Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats lost key Toronto ridings because the party wasn’t ready for an election it triggered and was seen as tacking too far right, defeated veterans say. Ceding that prime real estate to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s majority Liberals will make it tougher for the NDP in the 2018 election, leaving the party scrambling to reconnect with “progressives,” they warn. “Andrea Horwath has a challenge on her hands. Her personal brand in Toronto took a hit,” said former New Democrat MPP Paul Ferreira, unsuccessful in a comeback bid in York South-Weston.

. . . .

It was tough going from day one on the NDP campaign trail, former MPPs Michael Prue (Beaches-East York) and Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina) told the Star in separate interviews Wednesday.

. . . .

Having ‘respect for taxpayers’ was a message to many people in the Annex and Seaton Village that reminded them of Mike Harris,” Marchese said, while packing up his office at Queen’s Park after 24 years as an MPP. “They were upset with the leader and in their mind we were moving to the right. It didn’t matter what I said. They had their impressions.”

. . . .

Prue, a former mayor of East York who has been an MPP for 13 years, said he went door-knocking in two polls before the Liberals tabled their left-leaning budget on May 1, asking if the NDP should reject it. “They said do it,” he recalled. “But once we did, people said, ‘How could you bring the government down? You’re risking Hudak.’ ”

 

">http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/19/ndp_went_too_far_right...

So what? Toronto isn't the only part of the province that is important.

Rokossovsky

josh wrote:

Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats lost key Toronto ridings because the party wasn’t ready for an election it triggered and was seen as tacking too far right, defeated veterans say. Ceding that prime real estate to Premier Kathleen Wynne’s majority Liberals will make it tougher for the NDP in the 2018 election, leaving the party scrambling to reconnect with “progressives,” they warn. “Andrea Horwath has a challenge on her hands. Her personal brand in Toronto took a hit,” said former New Democrat MPP Paul Ferreira, unsuccessful in a comeback bid in York South-Weston.

 

What was actually said wrote:

“New Democrats who had always taken signs from us wouldn’t do it . . . the die was cast,” Prue lamented, saying Horwath’s team didn’t expect Wynne to set the campaign in motion just hours after the NDP leader said she would not support the budget.

“I don’t think we were ready. We should have been fast off the mark with our platform. Instead we took a lot of heat at the door because we defeated a budget without any prospect of our own.”

In short they took a tough stand expecting Wynne to table the budget in the legislature, where it would meet a vote of non-confidence. Indeed, Wynne herself had stated that she would give the ONDP a week to decide on the budget.
Instead Wynne dissolved the legislature in an unprecedented move, and the media still "blamed the election" on on the ONDP.

Even today, people are running around saying that Horwath "voted" against the budget. There was no vote. The Liberals called the election.

Also, vetran not vetrans (plural) say it, in the form of Michael Prue. Star is just trying wipe its hands clean of its role in the political smear campaign against the ONDP, and none of them say the party went "to far right" that is a Toronto Star fabrication.

In point of fact, it is ridiculous to believe that the party campaign strategy or the backlash was decisive for either Schein or Marchese, since both tallied more or less what they did last time, but were swamped by a Liberal tide that would have beaten them in 2011. Marchese lost by 9000 votes. That is not the case for Beaches East-York, however.

Ciabatta2

"Also, vetran not vetrans (plural) say it, in the form of Michael Prue. Star is just trying wipe its hands clean of its role in the political smear campaign against the ONDP, and none of them say the party went "to far right" that is a Toronto Star fabrication."

I thought the headline in the actual paper was much more accurate to the story than the one they used online.  I guess being able to change them at a moment's notice lets them put in more "catchy" headlines online.

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sure they did in 2011. Sam Hammond went so far as to say that he worked "night and day" to get the McGuinty government get elected and he was offended by Bill 115. You are right that they endorsed all NDP encumbents in the last electio, BUT also Liberals everywhere else. Hence they backed Martins over Schein, even though it was clearly winnable for the NDP, in the light of Andrew Cash's victory there in recent federal election.  

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Jonah Schein was the incumbent in davenport and hence was backed by all the unions. I do not know of a single solitary province-wide union in Ontario that globally endorsed the Liberals - most either left it to their locals or they just put out an "anyone but Hudak - but please re-elect all NDP incumbents" message 

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

 Indeed, Wynne herself had stated that she would give the ONDP a week to decide on the budget. 

Instead Wynne dissolved the legislature in an unprecedented move, and the media still "blamed the election" on on the ONDP.

Even today, people are running around saying that Horwath "voted" against the budget. There was no vote. The Liberals called the election.

Yes, Wynne gave the NDP a week to decide - but instead of taking a week - Andrea Horwath called a news conference one day after the budget was announced to say that she was going to vote down the budget. Period. She didn't say "let's meet and try to find some common ground" or attempt to stall in any way. She saus she was absolutley definietly 100% certain to vote it down and made no attempt to bargain.

She had a whole week and she made her decision in one day. At that point it was all a fait accompli - why would Wynne have wanted to waste a week going through the ritual of having the opposition vote down the budget? The NDP had to have been incredibly naive to have thought Wynne would wait a week before dropping the writ. why would she have? what was in for her?

terrytowel

Stockholm wrote:

Yes, Wynne gave the NDP a week to decide - but instead of taking a week - Andrea Horwath called a news conference one day after the budget was announced to say that she was going to vote down the budget. Period. She didn't say "let's meet and try to find some common ground" or attempt to stall in any way. She saus she was absolutley definietly 100% certain to vote it down and made no attempt to bargain.

She had a whole week and she made her decision in one day. At that point it was all a fait accompli - why would Wynne have wanted to waste a week going through the ritual of having the opposition vote down the budget? The NDP had to have been incredibly naive to have thought Wynne would wait a week before dropping the writ. why would she have? what was in for her?

Exactly, Horwath should have strung Wynne along for a week. While behind the scenes get her campaign together. Instead she opened the door for Wynne to come charging through, leaving Horwath in the dust. The Liberals were ready at a moments notice to hit the ground running.

The NDP not so. Where they that naive to think the Liberals were not ready for an election? The NDP should have had all their ducks in a row, then pull the plug. They had a week. But they did the opposite.

terrytowel

Meanwhile OPSEU president Smokey Thomas has just said unions that backed the Liberals 'sold their souls'.

“The labour movement was so afraid of Tim Hudak being elected that they sold their souls to the Liberals. And we didn’t do that. That’s not how our organization functions,” Thomas said Thursday. “I know Sid Ryan is very furious at me for taking a contrary position ... but that’s okay. I got elected to represent my members, not the Liberals.”

“It’s a blood sport,” he said of the campaign. “She plays it well, she’s very convincing, but I don’t think she’s being honest with the people of Ontario when it comes to public services.”

Side Ryan responded to Thomas comments by saying, “It’s easy now for Smokey to come out and be critical of everybody else and that he’s the only true trade unionist in the province and the rest of us are all sellouts,” 

“But it’s easy for him to say that because the rest of the labour movement saved his ass, and saved him from having to deal with Hudak who would have laid off his members wholesale.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/19/unions-that-backed-the-liberals-sol...

Stockholm

Its pretty common knowledge that Smokey Thomas and Sid Ryan hate each other. I think OPSEU withdraw from the OFL when Ryan became the head of it.

Debater

robbie_dee wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Tim Hudak will step down as PC leader effective July 2, QMI Agency has learned.

Hudak sent a letter to his caucus Wednesday saying that for the good of the party and the good of his family, he will step down sooner rather than later.

The legislature returns July 2 and a party executive meeting is planned for July 5, when it's expected they will set out plans for a convention.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/06/20140...

I'd like to see him give up his seat and trigger a byelection as well, but I suppose he wants to try to find another job first. 

Why so anxious to see Hudak leave?  The only people who should want to push Hudak out as soon as possible are the PC's.  The longer he stays around reminding people of his platform, the better it probably is for the opposition parties.

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Sure they did in 2011. Sam Hammond went so far as to say that he worked "night and day" to get the McGuinty government get elected and he was offended by Bill 115. You are right that they endorsed all NDP incumbents in the last election, BUT also Liberals everywhere else. Hence they backed Martins over Schein, even though it was clearly winnable for the NDP, in the light of Andrew Cash's victory there in recent federal election.  

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Jonah Schein was the incumbent in davenport and hence was backed by all the unions. I do not know of a single solitary province-wide union in Ontario that globally endorsed the Liberals - most either left it to their locals or they just put out an "anyone but Hudak - but please re-elect all NDP incumbents" message 

Maybe your not sure because I am talking about 2011: Note the part I have bolded above. Schein was not the incumbent in 2011, the Liberals were, and even though the incumbent Liberal quit the race the ETFO backed Martins, even though there were very good indications that Schein could win given the performance of Cash in the federal election.

In 2011, the call was to back ONDP incumbents, and Liberals everywhere else.

In 2014 the ETFO and the locals were more strategic in their support for the ONDP, and backed ONDP against Liberals in specific cases, not something they did in 2011. OECTA, however, stuck with the Liberals through and through.

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

 Indeed, Wynne herself had stated that she would give the ONDP a week to decide on the budget. 

Instead Wynne dissolved the legislature in an unprecedented move, and the media still "blamed the election" on on the ONDP.

Even today, people are running around saying that Horwath "voted" against the budget. There was no vote. The Liberals called the election.

Yes, Wynne gave the NDP a week to decide - but instead of taking a week - Andrea Horwath called a news conference one day after the budget was announced to say that she was going to vote down the budget. Period. She didn't say "let's meet and try to find some common ground" or attempt to stall in any way. She saus she was absolutley definietly 100% certain to vote it down and made no attempt to bargain.

She had a whole week and she made her decision in one day. At that point it was all a fait accompli - why would Wynne have wanted to waste a week going through the ritual of having the opposition vote down the budget? The NDP had to have been incredibly naive to have thought Wynne would wait a week before dropping the writ. why would she have? what was in for her?

True. However, the point that Prue was really making was that they didn't expect the buses to start rolling the next day, not that they didn't expect an election. Prue even refers to the polling they did before the election, indicating they would have public support.

Sure, the ONDP was not the best prepared for the election, but when is the ONDP ever ready given the fact that they are never flush with money because they don't have the donor base?

The obvious reason that Horwath did not say "lets meet and try to find some common ground" is because there was not going to be any common ground. This is the lesson that we learned in 2005, when Layton tried to find some "common ground" with Martin, but Martin wanted an election, and so faked negotiation, in order to make it look like he was "willing to listen".

In 2005 there was not going to be any "making the parliament work for people". The Liberals had their campaign platform/budget, ready to go. And Layton got caught in the "in camera" meeting trap. Who really knows what was said. The Liberals can spin it however they want. Martin said "it was a good meeting", that is all.

Same here. Wynne was ready to go. Now.

Horwath laid out her demand when she issued the public letter to Wynne about corporate taxes. That was the condition for negotiation, and the Liberal ignored that offer. A 1% corporate tax increase was not in the budget, so there was nothing that Horwath could claim as the NDP concession to make them look effective.

The Liberals were not going to fold. They were ready to go. Why negotiate? There are two scenarios:

1) They meet. The Liberals don't give on anything. The ONDP rejects and looks intransigent, or accepts the budget as is, and looks ineffective.

2) They don't meet, and try and grab the initiative and set the tone for the election themselves.

There is no point letting the budget pass "as is" without looking "ineffective" and foolish, so rejection is the only option in either scenario, so its better to put the ball in Wynne's court by rejecting immediately.

Was this "the best"? Who knows, but I do know that Layton didn't really come off looking very effective in 2005/2006, or grabbing any initiative, or setting the agenda of the 2006 election as a referendum on "health care". That strategy failed.

The blame the opposition routine in minority parliaments is a very hard bind to escape, however one does it.

 

Rokossovsky

terrytowel wrote:

“But it’s easy for him to say that because the rest of the labour movement saved his ass, and saved him from having to deal with Hudak who would have laid off his members wholesale.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/19/unions-that-backed-the-liberals-sol...

Really Sid? He said it when you first endorsed the budget, as the most "progressive budget in years". He said it when it was not "easy" right at the beginning of the election. "Stop Hudak" is easy. Now you have "Stopped Hudak", and now you say that you have "saved his ass". Yet more endorsements for Wynne's governance.

Going to be very hard for the OFL to put up any kind of meaningful labour resistance with Sid Ryan singing Wynne's praises all day and blowing his horn about the government he is proud of electing.

Stockholm

I totally disagree. In 2005/2006 it was critically important that Layton was seen as having made the effort to make a deal and get gains for Canadians. He made no secret that he asked Martin to crack down on privatization of health care a when refused it gave the NDP an argument that the liberals had a simple opportunity to avois an election and were intransigent. It worked, in the 2006 election the NDP increased the size of its caucus by over 50% and the popular bite went up significantly.

If Andrea Horwath had said she would support the budget if the Liberals agreed to raise corporate taxes by 1% (or some other concession) and Wynne refused, the the NDP could have flipped the onus on causing the election back on the Liberals. Instead the NDP wasted the whole campaign trying to explain why it voted against a budget that didn't seem to contain anything objectionable.

terrytowel

Smokey Thomas gives another interview to Sun News (this time on Sun News TV) saying that a Tim Hudak government would not be the end of the world. While alluding that a Wynne government would be.

He also says that Sid Ryan is extreme, disappointing and has never been a fan of his. Says if he was in the NDP he would debate whether Sid should remain in the NDP.

Interesting comment is that Smokey says he is not an NDPers (yet he endorsed the NDP in this election).

So if he is not an NDPer, and doesn't support the Liberals, is he an independent?

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3633438170001

 

Rokossovsky

Important distinction Terrytowel, I am glad you raised it. Warren Thomas personally endorsed the ONDP, but OPSEU offered no endorsement as an organization.

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:
I totally disagree. In 2005/2006 it was critically important that Layton was seen as having made the effort to make a deal and get gains for Canadians. He made no secret that he asked Martin to crack down on privatization of health care a when refused it gave the NDP an argument that the liberals had a simple opportunity to avois an election and were intransigent. It worked, in the 2006 election the NDP increased the size of its caucus by over 50% and the popular bite went up significantly. If Andrea Horwath had said she would support the budget if the Liberals agreed to raise corporate taxes by 1% (or some other concession) and Wynne refused, the the NDP could have flipped the onus on causing the election back on the Liberals. Instead the NDP wasted the whole campaign trying to explain why it voted against a budget that didn't seem to contain anything objectionable.

Really, is that what you heard? Because what I heard repeatedly was that is Horwath turned down a "progressive" budget just like Layton did, and so was trying to deprive Ontarians of an "Ontario Pension Plan", just as like Layton deprived Canadians of a National Childcare program, 2005. Despite your protestations, the nuance of Layton's position seems to be lost on the great majority of people.

Whatever the facts your view of the 2006 election is hardly universally accepted.

Do I even need to go through the threads on this web site, where people are still "trying to explain why it (Layton and the NDP) voted against a budget that didn't seem to contain anything objectionable" in 2005?

You are even explaining it now. The NDP never stops having to explain it. Even the ONDP has to explain it when talking about a completely different budget, in a different election, nearly 10 years later.

In fact, Andrea Horwath spent very little time explaining why they called the election in this campaign, clearly outlining that the key issue for the ONDP was "trust" and Liberal corruption in governance, precisely the same game plan that Stephen Harper pursued to win his first minority government in 2006.

Horwath avoided the going nowhere "secret negotiation" trap of 2006 and campaigned on an integrity in government platform that won the Tories government in 2006.

It did not succeed. But it was at least as good or better than what Layton tried in 2005/6. At worst everyone was expecting at least a minority government.

The main distinguishing factor here was not the ONDP election strategy, but the fact that the unlike Harper, Hudak pursued a "radical" conservative campaign platform, and this allowed the Liberals to paint him as a dangerous radical, while Harper, posed himself as a "moderate" conservative corruption fighter.

And thus, the PC vote collapsed. That is why there is no Liberal minority government. It has nothing to do with the ONDP.

But it is true that Layton did bring the NDP back from the wilderness in 2006, bringing the party from 10% of vote count, to 17%, with enough seats to make them a respectable opposition party. But you are saying that if Horwath had followed the Layton/Topp strategy of 2006, then the ONDP would have miraculously raised themselves up to 40% of the vote, based on a mathematically linear model?

Here is the fact, Horwath has already achieved precisely what Layton did in 2006, before this election was called. The point here was to contend for a greater share of vote turnout and vie for governance or official opposition status. It was marginally a success in this election, though by no means perfect.

onlinediscountanvils

This is not an election thread. Please start one if you guys want to rehash the election. This thread is about the upcoming Parliament.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
I totally disagree. In 2005/2006 it was critically important that Layton was seen as having made the effort to make a deal and get gains for Canadians. He made no secret that he asked Martin to crack down on privatization of health care a when refused it gave the NDP an argument that the liberals had a simple opportunity to avois an election and were intransigent. It worked, in the 2006 election the NDP increased the size of its caucus by over 50% and the popular bite went up significantly. If Andrea Horwath had said she would support the budget if the Liberals agreed to raise corporate taxes by 1% (or some other concession) and Wynne refused, the the NDP could have flipped the onus on causing the election back on the Liberals. Instead the NDP wasted the whole campaign trying to explain why it voted against a budget that didn't seem to contain anything objectionable.

That's pretty much the way I see both situations. My concern in November 2005 is that Jack never actually said, exactly, what he had asked Paul Martin to do on health care privatization and what Martin's response was. I don't know to this day.

Another significant difference, of course, is that Jack didn't pull the plug on a budget. Quite the opposite. As a result of negotiations in spring of 2005, Jack managed to improve the budget (deferring corporate tax cuts, adding $4.6 billion in social services) to the point where the NDP could vote in favour. It was later, between budgets, that the relationship soured.

Perhaps Andrea Horwath could use some lessons in bargaining with the enemy (the only kind of bargaining that brings real results)?

Rokossovsky

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

This is not an election thread. Please start one if you guys want to rehash the election. This thread is about the upcoming Parliament.

They killed all the election threads.

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I totally disagree. In 2005/2006 it was critically important that Layton was seen as having made the effort to make a deal and get gains for Canadians. He made no secret that he asked Martin to crack down on privatization of health care a when refused it gave the NDP an argument that the liberals had a simple opportunity to avois an election and were intransigent. It worked, in the 2006 election the NDP increased the size of its caucus by over 50% and the popular bite went up significantly. If Andrea Horwath had said she would support the budget if the Liberals agreed to raise corporate taxes by 1% (or some other concession) and Wynne refused, the the NDP could have flipped the onus on causing the election back on the Liberals. Instead the NDP wasted the whole campaign trying to explain why it voted against a budget that didn't seem to contain anything objectionable.

That's pretty much the way I see both situations. My concern in November 2005 is that Jack never actually said, exactly, what he had asked Paul Martin to do on health care privatization and what Martin's response was. I don't know to this day.

His official response was that it was a "good meeting", giving the Liberals plenty of room to make themselves sound tractable. Layton was "disappointed". And you don't know to this day what really happened. Martins's strategy was so successful that even today, the issue has to be explained over and over again, even in the context of an Ontario election nearly 10 years later.

What is clear in 2005, is that Martin did not make Dosanjh do anything that explicitly prevented public money being used for private profit. If he wanted to he could have. He felt that it was more important to allow public money to be used for private profit than it was to have a National Childcare Program.

terrytowel

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

This is not an election thread. Please start one if you guys want to rehash the election. This thread is about the upcoming Parliament.

But Smokey Thomas is going on every outlet that will invite him, to rehash the election. Stressing how a Hudak government wouldn't have been the end of the world.

Rokossovsky

No worse than the Liberals. He is right about that.

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

Martins's strategy was so successful that even today, the issue has to be explained over and over again, even in the context of an Ontario election nearly 10 years later.

Martin's strategy was sooooo successful - I wonder why he lost the election and got tossed in the garbage can of history! A few partisan Liberals still squawk about 2006 - but no one else cares. Layton first of all did not vote down a budget. He agreed to support the Liberals for six months from April-October 2005 in exchange for major concessions on the budget. The six months came to an end. Martin had already committed to calling an election within a month of the release of the report of the Gomery Commission which was imminent. The NDP offered to keep supporting the government for another few months in exchange for more concessions. The Liberals refused. The NDP offered to fast track approval of child care, Kyoto etc... The Liberals refused. All through the 2005/2006 election campaign the NDP was able to make the case that it tried to work with Martin and offered them all kinds of options - but that Martin and his brain trust were intransigent and preferred to engineer their own defeat.

The proof is in the pudding - in 2006 the NDP gained a ton of votes and seats and the Liberals lost. Layton's approach to forcing an early election was successful. Horwath's was not because it looked like she was forcing an election for purely political reasons. She had created a whole brand image of herself as someone who was fighting for RESULTS for people and she threw all that brand equity out the window by totally mishandling how she went about bringing down the government.

It says something about the strength of the NDP brand in Ontario that they were able to get 24% of the vote despite a very mediocre campaign and started in such a state of "original sin". If you can get 24% with a bad campaign - imagine how many votes you could get with a really good campaign! 

PrairieDemocrat15

terrytowel wrote:

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Activist centre is an oxymoron, given that activist governments are left-wing.

Wynne has already blazed a trail as the first woman Premier elected, and the first lesbian too boot. Maybe she will continue by governing from the activist centre. She is already 2 for 2, why not 3 for 3?

I don't care about her gender or sexual orientation. Just because a politican is a women and/or gay, it doesn't mean they will automatically be activist, or progressive.

And what do you mean "continue?" What has she done that is progressive? Granted, she hasn't been in power very long at all and hasn't had time to do anything progressive or regressive, but your impression that she has already embarked on a path of activist government shows you pre-judging of her ideology based on her image and identity. You are not alone in this fallacy, mind you, as the media emphasized this angle during the campaign.

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

terrytowel wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

This is not an election thread. Please start one if you guys want to rehash the election. This thread is about the upcoming Parliament.

But Smokey Thomas is going on every outlet that will invite him, to rehash the election. Stressing how a Hudak government wouldn't have been the end of the world.

If Smirky Thomas jumped off of a cliff, would you do it too?

There's a reason why the election threads were closed. Why don't you try to start another one, and see how far you get with it?

http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/400

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Martins's strategy was so successful that even today, the issue has to be explained over and over again, even in the context of an Ontario election nearly 10 years later.

The proof is in the pudding - in 2006 the NDP gained a ton of votes and seats and the Liberals lost. Layton's approach to forcing an early election was successful. Horwath's was not because it looked like she was forcing an election for purely political reasons. She had created a whole brand image of herself as someone who was fighting for RESULTS for people and she threw all that brand equity out the window by totally mishandling how she went about bringing down the government.

So your saying that if Horwath had followed the strategy followed by Layton, that you are still trying to "explain" today, after nearly 10 years, that Horwath would have exceeded her previous vote count by 80% just like Layton, and would have brought in 40% of the total vote share and would have formed a majority government in the last election?

Is that your pitch? I mean joke... sour grapes... what?

Sounds like you are cribbing Brian Topp whose last election campaign took the BCNDP from a strong first to a really nasty second place.

Martin snookered Layton but good with his in camera meeting strategy and his vague it was a "good meeting" comment. Horwath avoided that crap. Layton utterly failed to make the 2006 election about health care privatization, even though I entirely agree with him on the issue.

The difference between the 2006 federal election, and the 2014 Ontario election is that Harper posed himself as a "moderate" Conservative running on an "integrity in government" platform, and in 2014 Tim Hudak outed himself as a radical "Tea Party" Conservative, and his vote collapsed.

Had Harper promised to cut 100,000 Public Sector Jobs, and create a million fantasy jobs likely Martin would have been re-elected as well.

Pages