Andrea Horwath

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Andrea Horwath

+

NorthReport

Andrea Horwath profiting from looming Hydro One sale:

After losing her bearings in the last election, Andrea Horwath has belatedly found her voice on the Hydro One privatization.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/06/03/andrea-horwath-profiti...

Unionist

Really interesting article - thanks for that, NR!

mark_alfred

Peggy Nash will be joining the Ontario NDP team at Queen’s Park in the role of Senior Policy Advisor, Stakeholder Relations.

http://www.ontariondp.ca/andrea_horwath_welcomes_peggy_nash_to_ontario_n...

MegB

She'll be a great asset to the ONDP.

toaster

Hopefully Peggy can steer the ONDP to campaign on merging the Catholic and Public school boards.  There is not another socialist democratic political party in the world that would support choosing one religion over all overs for public funding.  

Unionist

toaster wrote:

Hopefully Peggy can steer the ONDP to campaign on merging the Catholic and Public school boards.  There is not another socialist democratic political party in the world that would support choosing one religion over all overs for public funding.  

mark_alfred

Re:  post #5.  It would be the left equivalent of John Tory's move that killed the election for him.  There's a historical basis for it, and otherwise no one really cares.  And doing so would be tantamount to cutting schools (irrespective of what the basis is for the schools being there.)  Schools are a fundamental part of communities.  Far better things to focus on, in my opinion.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:
 Schools are a fundamental part of communities.

So is racism. Communities have a lot of shit in them that needs to be flushed.

Quote:
Far better things to focus on, in my opinion.

You mean, to stop supporting the Catholic Church with public funds, you have to "focus" on it to the exclusion of everything else?

 

mark_alfred

Hey, I'm not here for a squabble.  You know what I mean.  Fine if you feel the presence of these schools is an important enough issue to warrant their closure.  I don't care.  I'm an atheist, and it don't bother me.  What can I say, closing schools ain't my thing.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

No need to close any of them -- that's some bad optics right there -- but we could stop expecting non-Catholics to help fund them.

I get that even that would be political suicide, of course, but a boy can dream.

mark_alfred

Make them all public and keep them all open?  From where I went to high school, there were three high schools in a very close proximity to one another -- one public school and two Catholic schools (one for the Catholic gals and another for the Catholic guys).  If they were all public suddenly I just couldn't see the case for keeping all three open.  But then again, I don't really know, since I'm no expert in education or planning or whatever.  I just figure that when there's mergers, there's closures.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I guess my thinking was make them private, and keep them open.  There's lots of private schools, either for the faithful or the wealthy.  But only the RC schools get official recognition and support.  And it's not that I love ANY private schools, but if they have to exist, they may as well also be privately funded.

Unionist

Ridiculous. No closures are needed. This was debated here years ago, when Howard Hampton creeped out on this issue. The ONDP will never go anywhere unless it grows some principles. Don't expect that any time soon.

Mind you, following your "logic", Ontario should have Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist public schools, fully funded - right? Lots more schools. No closures. Openings!

How can you even think about supporting Catholic schools? Where are we anyway?

mark_alfred

Re:  post #12.  No.  You'll notice I referenced Tory's decision to pursue this as folly.  Nope.  I don't really care.  Not an issue for me.  Again, generally if there's mergers, there's closures.  But whatever, not an issue for me.  ETA:  Re:  post #13  and prviatizing a public institution is on a parallel with a closure of a public institution IMO.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Re:  post #13  and prviatizing a public institution is on a parallel with a closure of a public institution IMO.

Then we're down to the nub of it.

Why should Catholic schools be publicly funded when:

a) zillions of other, non-religious schools are publicly funded and are a perfectly valid, free alternative for Catholics and anyone else?

b) no other religious schools are publicly funded, despite their equally legitimate intent?

This is really not unlike "no property tax for all Scottish Canadians".  Why should ONLY Scots get a free pass on property tax?  If there's no good answer to that then there's similarly no good answer to why ONLY Catholics should have their special Catholic schools funded by non-Catholics.  Saying that it's a good thing for them doesn't really answer why it's only for them.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

My assumption is it's history.  Back when it was basically Protestants and Catholics who populated Canada, with Catholics largely in Quebec and Protestants largely in Ontario, that to preserve the rights of the few Protestants in Quebec, a deal was made where they'd get their own schools there and Catholics would get there own schools here.  It may even be in the BNA (I'm feeling lazy now so I ain't gonna check). 

It's in the Constitution Act, [url=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html#docCont]here[/url].

That protected separate schools in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Québec. Later, Newfoundland joined confederation with the same constitutional protection.

In 1997, both Québec and Newfoundland & Labrador separately asked to amend the constitution to remove those protections. No big deal to accomplish, because the amendment only affected the province in question. The religious public school boards were immediately abolished in both provinces. Can't speak for NL, but trust me, they are not missed in Québec.

Nothing stops Ontario from doing likewise. Except political parties afraid of their own shadow who lack the only kind of faith that matters in a democracy - faith in the people.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
My assumption is it's history.

I certainly can't just dismiss that.  In fact, I generally begin with the assumption that an agreement is an agreement.  That's how we interpret, say, FN treaties and such.

But in this case, times really have changed.  Catholics in Ontario (and Protestants in Quebec) don't really face discrimination or hardship, and so the original purpose of this agreement has been long lost, and now it's just a free perk for Ontario Catholics.

As an analogy:  I know that we weren't really thinking about employment equity back at the turn of the century, but if we did then we might well have made an effort to address the discrimination against Irish or Italian immigrants.  Think of a job ad ending with "... persons of Irish or Italian heritage are encouraged to apply.".  But fast-forward 100 years -- would it still seem reasonable to grant special consideration to Irish or Italian Canadians, as though they still cannot get a decent job?

Quote:
Except political parties afraid of their own shadow who lack the only kind of faith that matters in a democracy - faith in the people.

I pretty much agree with you on most of this, but just out of curiousity, faith in the people to do (or not do) what?  My guess is that they need more faith that the electorate won't freak out and unemploy them.  And I'm not convinced that the electorate here in Ontario might not do just that.  You guys were clever:  fight religion until it's on its knees, THEN deep-six the religious schools.  I don't think there's any such push-back against religion here.  Or at any rate, I can't say confidently that I think it would be stronger then the fury of a Catholic scorned.

 

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I pretty much agree with you on most of this, but just out of curiousity, faith in the people to do (or not do) what?  My guess is that they need more faith that the electorate won't freak out and unemploy them.  And I'm not convinced that the electorate here in Ontario might not do just that.  You guys were clever:  fight religion until it's on its knees, THEN deep-six the religious schools.  I don't think there's any such push-back against religion here.  Or at any rate, I can't say confidently that I think it would be stronger then the fury of a Catholic scorned.

If Ontarians are ready to fight to the death to keep their Papal public school enclaves, then more power to them. I don't believe it for a nanosecond. But I don't care that much. Maybe, though, they should have enough democratic spirit to comprehend that other religions, and atheists, should have the same rights? Or would that get Jesus all riled up and they'd have to have some pogroms?

If QC and NL can tell the religious nutbars to fuck off, I'm pretty sure Ontario can find it within itself to do likewise. If not - I'm repeating myself - who cares?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In BC there was never a constitutionally mandated Catholic school system. However in 1977 the Socred's started funding private schools. The Liberals have not only continued the process but have enhanced the grants to the schools and passed a law making them exempt from municipal taxes. In this province we not only subsidize religious fanatics of various religions, not just Catholics, we also give money to the prep schools where the very rich send their children.  The BC NDP refuses to make this an issue.

mark_alfred

Mr. Magoo wrote:
You guys were clever:  fight religion until it's on its knees, THEN deep-six the religious schools.  I don't think there's any such push-back against religion here.  Or at any rate, I can't say confidently that I think it would be stronger then the fury of a Catholic scorned.

I recall when McGuinty tried to have the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, which began each session in the Ontario Legislature, done away with.  There was a huge outcry, at which point it was changed to reciting a variety of different prayers from different religions to better reflect 'diversity' (as opposed to what it should have been, which is religion and politics don't mix and so no more prayers period).  Anyway, massive petitions and letter writing campaigns transpired to save the Lord's Prayer, at which point I think the government simply dropped its plans. 

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In BC there was never a constitutionally mandated Catholic school system. However in 1977 the Socred's started funding private schools. The Liberals have not only continued the process but have enhanced the grants to the schools and passed a law making them exempt from municipal taxes. In this province we not only subsidize religious fanatics of various religions, not just Catholics, we also give money to the prep schools where the very rich send their children.  The BC NDP refuses to make this an issue.

this pisses me off. they financed to the tune of 358 million last year. can you imagine our public schools if they had the money private schools got?

toaster

mark_alfred wrote:

Re:  post #5.  It would be the left equivalent of John Tory's move that killed the election for him.  There's a historical basis for it, and otherwise no one really cares.  And doing so would be tantamount to cutting schools (irrespective of what the basis is for the schools being there.)  Schools are a fundamental part of communities.  Far better things to focus on, in my opinion.

It's pretty clear that most young people do not agree with funding one religion above and over any others.  It is not equitable.  Many like to think of Ontario as a progressive place.  

Ontario,  A Government that still has agencies that can legally not hire someone because of their LGBTQ2S status, will pay for Catholics to be segregated into their own, often better funded (See ETFO's stance against the Catholic system) schools, which ultimately leads to those in the Public system receiving less than their fair share.  It's a joke that in 2016, this exists in what is supposed to be a progressive, equitable, province.

It baffles me how anybody, even a Catholic, could legitimately argue, in 2016, that it is 'fair' to have one religion funded over the others.  If Andrea cannot run on a campaign based on principles as opposed to being popular, then I really don't see my place supporting her or the party.

Ciabatta2

I don't get all the supposed bafflement on the lack of the Ontario parties taking up the mantle for closing Catholic schools.  It is obvious that movement on this file will have to come from the Liberals once they are in opposition.

The big push in the PCs is to maintain, expand and grow funding for religious schools, not eliminate the existing ones so proposing eliminating the Catholic system is a lose-lose for them.  Plus, they'd get asked what they're privatizing next.

The NDP is a more natural partner, but you'll never see the them lead on this because a proposed elimination of a publicly funded school system by a left-leaning party will be interpreted as the privatization of the school system and the NDP would subsequently get creamed by the Liberals.  Plus, they'll get asked why they are adopting policies that will actively encourage kids to exit a public system for private education (which will happen.)

You'll have to wait for the Liberals to come around to this to see this implemented, as they are better suited with one foot in left and one in the right, and they won't see the light til they've had a few years in opposition and are dying for a wedge issue against the PCs.

Where the NDP could have an angle is modernizing the system to eliminate discrimination - but that would only show how they're not willing to go the full monty because of the political calculus.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Ciabatta2 wrote:

I don't get all the supposed bafflement on the lack of the Ontario parties taking up the mantle for closing Catholic schools.  It is obvious that movement on this file will have to come from the Liberals once they are in opposition.

The big push in the PCs is to maintain, expand and grow funding for religious schools, not eliminate the existing ones so proposing eliminating the Catholic system is a lose-lose for them.  Plus, they'd get asked what they're privatizing next.

The NDP is a more natural partner, but you'll never see the them lead on this because a proposed elimination of a publicly funded school system by a left-leaning party will be interpreted as the privatization of the school system and the NDP would subsequently get creamed by the Liberals.  Plus, they'll get asked why they are adopting policies that will actively encourage kids to exit a public system for private education (which will happen.)

You'll have to wait for the Liberals to come around to this to see this implemented, as they are better suited with one foot in left and one in the right, and they won't see the light til they've had a few years in opposition and are dying for a wedge issue against the PCs.

Where the NDP could have an angle is modernizing the system to eliminate discrimination - but that would only show how they're not willing to go the full monty because of the political calculus.

This is a pretty cynical assessment, but I find nothing significant to disagree with.

toaster

The ONDP are a progressive party, who support moving toward a more equitable Ontario.  I don't see how anyone could not "get all the supposed bafflement on the lack of the Ontario parties taking up the mantle for closing Catholic schools".  It's not fair.  Even if a single dollar wasn't saved, this needs to be done.  it's a shock that in 2016 we still fund one religion.  Horwath needs to address this issue to stay relevant amount young people.  Heck, Catholic and Public school boards are even working together to get funding for High Schools and Elementary schools, which are operating in the same building. Why should we have to do this?  

Unionist

I think I share Ciabatta2's cynical assessment. I'm trying to recall a single instance where an NDP government took on the religious establishment, whether in education or other social spheres. Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan, maybe, in the implementation of medicare? Probably not even there. It's almost always been Liberals (certainly in QC with the Quiet Revolution, but elsewhere as well), in either bold or wishy-washy fashion. Like beginning the de-criminalization of abortion, or legalizing same-sex marriage... And getting rid of religious public schools in QC and NL was accomplished under PQ and the Liberals respectively.

Seriously, if there's a significant example from history I'm missing here, let me know.

jjuares

I always felt that for Alberta anyways Catholic schools will be closed only by a right wing anti- tax populist. The savings for closing these schools would be huge. In many areas of Edmonton you have two schools side by side, public and separate (Catholic) and there isn't enough kids to fill even one school. There will be savings in maintenance, administration, infrastructure and many other areas.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I thought from this thread and others on babble that Quebec had stopped funding private schools but apparently it hasn't. According to some reports it actually has more private school students funded by the province then in almost every other jurisdiction except maybe BC.

So let me get this straight funding Catholic schools is evil but funding "private" schools is a good thing?

Quote:

Private and independent schools in Quebec receive about 40 per cent of the per pupil grant given to public schools. Private schools can also receive government funds to subsidize the cost of accommodations and for student transportation. The Quebec government currently contributes more than $300 million annually to support the education of students in private and independent schools.

http://www.ourkids.net/quebec-private-schools.php

 

Geoff

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I thought from this thread and others on babble that Quebec had stopped funding private schools but apparently it hasn't. According to some reports it actually has more private school students funded by the province then in almost every other jurisdiction except maybe BC.

So let me get this straight funding Catholic schools is evil but funding "private" schools is a good thing?

Quote:

Private and independent schools in Quebec receive about 40 per cent of the per pupil grant given to public schools. Private schools can also receive government funds to subsidize the cost of accommodations and for student transportation. The Quebec government currently contributes more than $300 million annually to support the education of students in private and independent schools.

http://www.ourkids.net/quebec-private-schools.php

 

I believe in one publicly-funded school system that accommodates both the religious, whatever their preference, as well as the 'non-religious'. I don't believe in funding private schools - period, full-stop.

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I thought from this thread and others on babble that Quebec had stopped funding private schools but apparently it hasn't. 

You must have made some logical leap - I don't think you'll be able to quote anyone ever saying that. It never happened. Québec and NL eliminated public religious schools. That's it. It was a huge victory.

Québec continues to massively fund private schools - religious or not. This must end, but that's another struggle. Québec Solidaire is leading that battle.

So, as a first step, it would be very nice if Ontario stopped calling Catholic schools "public schools" - don't you think?

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

So, as a first step, it would be very nice if Ontario stopped calling Catholic schools "public schools" - don't you think?

When I went to school in Ontario (around 50 years ago) we called the two systems the Catholic schools and the Protestant schools. I think that funding prep schools for rich kids is at least as bad as funding schools for the children of religious people. In BC we never had a constitutional dual school system and until the 1970's this province didn't fund anything except the public schools. Now we fund Catholic and Sikh schools plus a shitload of rich kids schools. 

mark_alfred

My assumption is it's history.  Back when it was basically Protestants and Catholics who populated Canada, with Catholics largely in Quebec and Protestants largely in Ontario, that to preserve the rights of the few Protestants in Quebec, a deal was made where they'd get their own schools there and Catholics would get there own schools here.  It may even be in the BNA (I'm feeling lazy now so I ain't gonna check). 

I went to public elementary schools, which still had a whiff of that Protestant fervour when I was there.  During my childhood they used to start the day with the Lord's Prayer, and each year there was a day where they'd hand out litte red new testament bibles to all the kids.  I'm guessing they've dropped this stuff by now. 

Unionist

kropotkin1951 wrote:

When I went to school in Ontario (around 50 years ago) we called the two systems the Catholic schools and the Protestant schools.

Which was literally the case in Montréal until 1998. Muslim and Jewish and atheist and other parents had to decide which brand of Christian public school to send their kids to - or else, cough up money for private school.

Quote:
I think that funding prep schools for rich kids is at least as bad as funding schools for the children of religious people.

I agree it's bad. But there's a significant difference between public religious school (fully funded, no tuition) and private schools. And prep schools for rich kids are a very small percentage of the school population. Private religious schools are a much larger portion, and those families are not mostly "rich". So eliminating all funding of private schools wouldn't just be a blow against the 1%, even though it's ultimately the right thing to do.

Quote:
In BC we never had a constitutional dual school system and until the 1970's this province didn't fund anything except the public schools. Now we fund Catholic and Sikh schools plus a shitload of rich kids schools. 

I wasn't aware of that. I always thought Manitoba was the only province which had created a single public school system in the 1890s and never funded private schools until "modern" times. In Manitoba, of course, the "public" system was really an alias for English Protestant. It was used to seal the defeat of the Métis, forcibly assimilate Franco-Manitobans, etc.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

I wasn't aware of that. I always thought Manitoba was the only province which had created a single public school system in the 1890s and never funded private schools until "modern" times. In Manitoba, of course, the "public" system was really an alias for English Protestant. It was used to seal the defeat of the Métis, forcibly assimilate Franco-Manitobans, etc.

This wiki article is pretty good at explaining the Constitution in relation to schools. 

Quote:

Retention of separate school boards with public funding was a major issue of contention in the negotiations that led to Canadian confederation, chiefly as a result of ethnic and religious tension between the (largely French-speaking) Roman Catholic population in Canada and the Protestant majority. The issue was a subject of debate at the 1864 Quebec Conference and was finally resolved at the London Conference of 1866 with a proposal to preserve the separate school systems in Quebec and Ontario. The way in which this agreement was written into the British North America Act, 1867 was to the effect that the condition of education in each colony (or territory) at the time it entered Confederation would be continued thereafter.

Consequently, the provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island have never had an education system that included "separate schools".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_school

 

 

swallow

Unionist wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

When I went to school in Ontario (around 50 years ago) we called the two systems the Catholic schools and the Protestant schools.

Which was literally the case in Montréal until 1998. Muslim and Jewish and atheist and other parents had to decide which brand of Christian public school to send their kids to - or else, cough up money for private school.

Did people get to choose in Montreal? Frmo what I hear here, non-Catholics were all assigned to be "Protestant" and had to go to school in English, regardless of their/their famiies' wishes. Muslim? Couldn't go to school in French even if you speak it, because you weren't Catholic. 

Ciabatta2

toaster wrote:

The ONDP are a progressive party, who support moving toward a more equitable Ontario.  I don't see how anyone could not "get all the supposed bafflement on the lack of the Ontario parties taking up the mantle for closing Catholic schools".  It's not fair.  Even if a single dollar wasn't saved, this needs to be done.  it's a shock that in 2016 we still fund one religion.  Horwath needs to address this issue to stay relevant amount young people.  Heck, Catholic and Public school boards are even working together to get funding for High Schools and Elementary schools, which are operating in the same building. Why should we have to do this?  

I don't disagree in policy but politcally this is a very niche issue with very sharp political edges.  It is telling that the only party that has put it forward on Ontario is one with no legislative representation and no accountability to any non-member voters.

While it doesn't make it right, I'd argue that it's not a huge shock that we still fund the Catholic school system given that full funding was only extended 30 years ago.  I'd also argue the ONDP is not necessarily a progressive party because progressive responses to policy problems often clash with the outlook of some of its core factions, including religious, social justice, public sector and anti-corporate members.  I'd agree that elimination of the Catholic system is a progressive move but also can see how it may have non-equitable outcomes that would rankle those elements of the NDP, particularly if the result is an election where a PC party would counter with a promise of public funding for the inevitable plethora of voters fleeing the Catholic system for private religious education.

If that's the argument against action on this issue from the NDP, and I'm not sure that it is (because they may not be really thinking about this issue), but if it is then that's an argument I could appreciate even though I do not personally find it a compelling reason for inaction.

I'd also argue that Horwath has a lot bigger relevancy problems than this one.  The next provincial election in Ontario is going to be very tough for her and championing this will not give her leverage. This issue may be close to our hearts, but it's a pretty open and shut lose-lose case for any of the three major parties.  To expect a political party to potentially drive itself off an electoral cliff on a point of principle that the political dynamic isn't ready for (particularly re: the Libs/NDP causing the elimination of a province-wide, publicly funded/run service) is well-intentioned and laudable, but not founded in honest analysis at this time.

ctrl190
SeekingAPolitic...

ctrl190 wrote:

NDP drops to 17% in new Forum poll.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/07/14/ontario-progressive-c...

 

Wynne has 22 per cent approval, a staggering 66 per cent disapproval, and 12 per cent uncertain.

 

That makes me shake my head in wonder.  66% disapprove but yet the 35% will still vote liberal.  I want see the internals of the poll, the strengh of the liberal brand rather the personality of Wynne is just amazing.   

 

 

mark_alfred

It makes me shake my head in wonder too.  The willingness of the public to forgive or overlook concerns within the Liberals is astounding (whereas the harsh scrutiny that the NDP is always put under in comparison to the forgiveness or blind acceptance extended to Liberals is also astounding -- something I occasionally see here at Babble too).

NorthReport

Because the NDP represents the past, and the Liberals represent the future.

mark_alfred

I hear that a lot.  "It ain't the '60s anymore!"  "It ain't the after-war let's rebuild by government supporting and enhancing social services anymore!"  "Unions were needed in the past, but not so much anymore!"  Etc.  Bah.  I'm a social luddite still sticking to the NDP, I guess.

SeekingAPolitic...

NorthReport wrote:

Because the NDP represents the past, and the Liberals represent the future.

Slow down northreport while i think the NDP politilicaly useless at this point.  There craven attempt to outdo the liberal party on its own political turf is just an excerise in fulitly.  That said its has a history of supporting leftist causes.  My great concern for the NDP that it loses its mythology of being a party of the left and gives up that political space to the greens then I think the NDP is finished.  The day people decide that the greens are a l;eftist party then the NDP is finished.  A pratical example is that before the 2015 election the party brass starting talking down the the NDP as the consence of the parliament and talking about being the government.  Soon after May starting talking about the greens being the consence of the parliament.  Throwing away that meme is just stupid politically and destroying their brand as a leftist party is madness.  Some would argue that the NDP leftist party but I have to say that was true long away.  I think that liberals are centrist, the NDP wants to replace natural place of the Liberals, so to me that follows they want to that replace the liberals on the political spectrum.  I would love see the NDP figth to move the centre of the political spectrum to the left rather than replacing the liberals.

As for the liberals are the future I have totally disagree but I leave that for a future post.

 

 

swallow

Quote:
Forum houses its complete results in the data library of the University of Toronto political science department.

Still a lie.

SeekingAPolitic...

NorthReport wrote:

Because the NDP represents the past, and the Liberals represent the future.

That statement is contrafactual in regards to what is happening in the western world of politics.  People have a national bais, they think what is happening in there local envirnoment is largely what is happening in the western world.  But Canada is a outlier rather being the norm. 

Look at US and Europe, right wing parties and left wing parties are thriving.  The EU is politically fraying at the seems, anti Europe right/left wing parties are gaining in the polls.  In the US trump, sanders, are reflection how people believe that system is not working for them.  The political success is something T/S do not just appear out of no where. People are suffering and traditional politics is not addressing their concerns, the only reason that poltical stress has not appeared before it had no political vessel to be filled with the economic and social frustration. 

The centre does not hold in Europe, the US, and moderate politics will not hold in Canada.  Popualism is the future and centrist parties by design ingore popualism.  If want to see the future of Canada look to europe and look to the US.  Liberals and moderate poltitics are the past not the future. 

 

toaster

 

None of the choices right now are exciting anyone, and with this same old, uninspired ideas, you cannot start a movement.  You want passionate volunteers?  You want young people?  Start a revolution.  Talk about free post-secondary tuition in Ontario for all.  Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others (Catholic schools).  Talk [more] about a 15$ minimum wage for everybody.  Talk about a universal provincial pharmacare program.  Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding. Talk about basic income for all. It's baffling to me that the ONDP has not adopted these positions in 2016.  Most people seem to be against the Hydro sell-off but that is not resonating with voters, obviously at 17%.  Watching the Bernie Vs Clinton race has given me hope.  I, like many of those I see who are standing up for what they believe in (Bernie or Bust), will not stand for the lesser or two (or 3) evils.  Let's organize now so we are ready when the time comes.  I really hope I'll be able to support Horwath come election time.

Geoff

toaster wrote:

 

None of the choices right now are exciting anyone, and with this same old, uninspired ideas, you cannot start a movement.  You want passionate volunteers?  You want young people?  Start a revolution.  Talk about free post-secondary tuition in Ontario for all.  Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others (Catholic schools).  Talk [more] about a 15$ minimum wage for everybody.  Talk about a universal provincial pharmacare program.  Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding. Talk about basic income for all. It's baffling to me that the ONDP has not adopted these positions in 2016.  Most people seem to be against the Hydro sell-off but that is not resonating with voters, obviously at 17%.  Watching the Bernie Vs Clinton race has given me hope.  I, like many of those I see who are standing up for what they believe in (Bernie or Bust), will not stand for the lesser or two (or 3) evils.  Let's organize now so we are ready when the time comes.  I really hope I'll be able to support Horwath come election time.

Unfortunately, the ONDP is focused on getting back the votes that went to the Liberals in the last campaign. That means going after the centrist vote in 2018. The election is less than two years away, and there is no sign of a revolution yet.

If the party is lucky, the Tories and Liberals will end up with roughly the same number of seats, allowing whatever New Democrats are elected to hold the balance of power. Things would have to change very quickly, very soon if the ONDP were to make a significant shift in direction.

Unionist

Geoff wrote:

Unfortunately, the ONDP is focused on getting back the votes that went to the Liberals in the last campaign. That means going after the centrist vote in 2018. The election is less than two years away, and there is no sign of a revolution yet.

If the party is lucky, the Tories and Liberals will end up with roughly the same number of seats, allowing whatever New Democrats are elected to hold the balance of power. Things would have to change very quickly, very soon if the ONDP were to make a significant shift in direction.

I dunno, Geoff. How can Andrea lose, with branding like this?

Geoff

Unionist wrote:

Geoff wrote:

Unfortunately, the ONDP is focused on getting back the votes that went to the Liberals in the last campaign. That means going after the centrist vote in 2018. The election is less than two years away, and there is no sign of a revolution yet.

If the party is lucky, the Tories and Liberals will end up with roughly the same number of seats, allowing whatever New Democrats are elected to hold the balance of power. Things would have to change very quickly, very soon if the ONDP were to make a significant shift in direction.

I dunno, Geoff. How can Andrea lose, with branding like this?

Okay, that's just cruel.

Aristotleded24

Geoff wrote:

toaster wrote:

 

None of the choices right now are exciting anyone, and with this same old, uninspired ideas, you cannot start a movement.  You want passionate volunteers?  You want young people?  Start a revolution.  Talk about free post-secondary tuition in Ontario for all.  Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others (Catholic schools).  Talk [more] about a 15$ minimum wage for everybody.  Talk about a universal provincial pharmacare program.  Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding. Talk about basic income for all. It's baffling to me that the ONDP has not adopted these positions in 2016.  Most people seem to be against the Hydro sell-off but that is not resonating with voters, obviously at 17%.  Watching the Bernie Vs Clinton race has given me hope.  I, like many of those I see who are standing up for what they believe in (Bernie or Bust), will not stand for the lesser or two (or 3) evils.  Let's organize now so we are ready when the time comes.  I really hope I'll be able to support Horwath come election time.

Unfortunately, the ONDP is focused on getting back the votes that went to the Liberals in the last campaign. That means going after the centrist vote in 2018. The election is less than two years away, and there is no sign of a revolution yet.

What's ridiculous is that the "experts" in the NDP treat politics as if it was a one-dimensional line that people move across to varying degrees, when anybody who's taken an even basic communication course not only realizes that there are as many reasons for voting a certain way as there are voters, but that honest communication involves demonstrating that you understand the perspective of the people with whom you are trying to communicate. And these "experts" think just repeating certain slogans will win people over? Two ears, one mouth. Twice as much listening as you do talking. Why is that concept so hard for communication "experts?"

Ciabatta2

I agree that universal basic income would be a logical, reasonable and enticing platform for them.

Pages