Andrea Horwath: Ontario Official Opposition Leader is on a Roll

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101

NorthReport wrote:

Do you think the Liberals increase in people’s hydro bills will cover the difference in the minimum wage?

People on minimum wage don't spend much on hydro.  Your con mask is slipping.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Do you think the Liberals increase in people’s hydro bills will cover the difference in the minimum wage?

Do you think the PC's will solve Ontario's hydro problems?

NorthReport

The only one who had a solution for the people of Ontario was Andrea Horwath. The people of Ontario were fucked over by the Liberals and now they will be fucked over by the PCs. 

JKR

I agree with that summation. So why didn't more Ontarians vote for the ONDP?

NorthReport

Liberal and PC attack ads against the NDP in the last week or so of the campaign, the usual mainstream and the social media attacks against the NDP, combined with a lacklustre last week of campaigning by the NDP. 

JKR

What should the ONDP have done differently to avoid the lacklustre finale?

NorthReport

Look at Forum's poll on May 9th.

I don't think that the actual election campaign did much to change anyone's mind. 

SocialJustice101

Didn't Forum have NDP at 47% at some point.   What happened to that?  

josh

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

If there isn’t then why did you want Liberals to support the NDP to stop the Conservatives,  

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

If there isn’t then why did you want Liberals to support the NDP to stop the Conservatives,  

And why does NorthReport promote polls showing a Con lead, but says Lib lead polls are trash?   Clearly, there are very different for him.

robbie_dee

JKR wrote:
What should the ONDP have done differently to avoid the lacklustre finale?

I think the allegation that the NDP had a weak bench of candidates played a role. I understand the NDP may have already had a lot of people in place when Patrick Brown got spilled - and certainly before Ford won the PC leadership race and it became clear there was a big opening that was suddenly available. But when all that happened, just having names on the ballot was no longer good enough. That being said, many of the attacks were basically smears against genuine progressive activists who could have done a good job for their ridings - and will do a good job where they actually got elected anyways. I certainly don't think we should reject people from those sort of backgrounds. But the NDP probably should have tried to line up a few more candidates from backgrounds in "traditional" fields like business, law or finance, too, in order to rebut the predictable attacks.

I also think that the platform - while it did a great job protecting the left flank - may not have been the best offering for voters in the 905 belt that proved critical for Ford this time around. In retrospect it probably would have been better to run the 2018 election on something like the 2014 platform and vice-versa back then. Hard to do this without a time machine though.

gadar

JKR wrote:
One difference is that the OLP raised the minimum wage to $14 and were going to raise it to $15 but the PC's are now going to maintain the minimum wage at $14 for probably as long as they are in power. The PC's may even reduce the minimum wage for particular groups.

The official opposition will never let them do it. It would have been a different story if the OLP was in the opposition. And even if they do decrease it, the NDP will just take that into account when they increase the minimum wage after they come into power after the next election.

Sean in Ottawa

gadar wrote:

JKR wrote:
One difference is that the OLP raised the minimum wage to $14 and were going to raise it to $15 but the PC's are now going to maintain the minimum wage at $14 for probably as long as they are in power. The PC's may even reduce the minimum wage for particular groups.

The official opposition will never let them do it. It would have been a different story if the OLP was in the opposition. And even if they do decrease it, the NDP will just take that into account when they increase the minimum wage after they come into power after the next election.

REally! Please explain what the heck you think the opposition can do to stop them in a majority legislature?

NorthReport

Horwath has worked hard to get where she is today, and I expect she will be working even harder over the next few years as she pepares the NDP to form govewrnment in 4 years time.

Expect an ‘uncompromising and tenacious’ Horwath as opposition leader

https://globalnews.ca/news/4268552/tom-parkin-andrea-horwath-opposition-...

gadar

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

gadar wrote:

JKR wrote:
One difference is that the OLP raised the minimum wage to $14 and were going to raise it to $15 but the PC's are now going to maintain the minimum wage at $14 for probably as long as they are in power. The PC's may even reduce the minimum wage for particular groups.

The official opposition will never let them do it. It would have been a different story if the OLP was in the opposition. And even if they do decrease it, the NDP will just take that into account when they increase the minimum wage after they come into power after the next election.

REally! Please explain what the heck you think the opposition can do to stop them in a majority legislature?

See post 65 for the answer to your question

JKR

gadar wrote:

JKR wrote:
One difference is that the OLP raised the minimum wage to $14 and were going to raise it to $15 but the PC's are now going to maintain the minimum wage at $14 for probably as long as they are in power. The PC's may even reduce the minimum wage for particular groups.

The official opposition will never let them do it. It would have been a different story if the OLP was in the opposition. And even if they do decrease it, the NDP will just take that into account when they increase the minimum wage after they come into power after the next election.

I bet the LPC would have reduced minimum wages if they had won the election! Same old Lieberal run-on-the-left, govern-on-the-right shenanigans! Unlike the Lieberals, at least the PC's are honest!

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Horwath has worked hard to get where she is today, and I expect she will be working even harder over the next few years as she pepares the NDP to form govewrnment in 4 years time.

It's great the Ontario Legislature has that rule mandating that the official opposition gets their turn at governing. That's what makes them "official."

gadar

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Horwath has worked hard to get where she is today, and I expect she will be working even harder over the next few years as she pepares the NDP to form govewrnment in 4 years time.

It's great the Ontario Legislature has that rule mandating that the official opposition gets their turn at governing. That's what makes them "official."

Not yet, but when NDP comes to power after the next election, they should look into making that a rule. That will keep the Liberals out since the PC will be the official opposition to the NDP govt next time. And that will be the best day for Ontarians and when Jagmeet becomes the PM he should look into putting a similar rule in place federally as well.

NorthReport
NorthReport
gadar
gadar
gadar
Martin N.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

More Liberal whining about the existence of the NDP.

Isn't Martin N. an admitted conservative?

More of a conservative socialist hence a red tory or a Mike Harcourt dipper. 

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

More Liberal whining about the existence of the NDP.

It never ceases to amaze me how the dippers can never see the forest for the trees. It's always someone else's fault when they crash and burn.

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

A conservative is defined as a liberal who was mugged the night before.

MegB

I'd just like to point out that, once again, a qualified and experienced woman was beaten by an unqualified and inexperienced man. A POS at that. I'm not implying in any way that that's the only reason she lost, but it's a significant one that bears discussion.

Another point that bears discussion, why does the NDP always bring a knife to a gunfight? On election day the Tories used every dirty trick in the Conservative playbook, including phoning up NDP supporters and giving them erroneous information about where their polling stations were. I'm not suggesting that the NDP should have employed the same dirty tricks but they should have expected it and had more effective strategies in place to combat those tactics. When you're fighting against someone who has zero moral compass you have to be prepared to get your hands dirty.

NorthReport

Good points MegB. As well organized Labour leaders need to get onboard with political progressives as too often labour leaders seem to be in bed with the unhelpful politicians

voice of the damned

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

A conservative is defined as a liberal who was mugged the night before.

Actually, that's the definition of a neo-conservative, usually attributed to one of the founders of the tendency, Irving Kristol. And the full phrasing is "...mugged by reality", though I've always thought "mugged" by itself works better, as it suggests directly personal reasons for changing one's politics.

Arguably, the phrase does have racist connotations, though speaking as someone who has been mugged twice, I can understand how it could lead a person to reconsider certain social views, even without making the issue about race.

Martin N.

A very astute observation. In a previous federal election, the NDP came out with a very modest inheritance tax proposal. It was the right policy for the right time but the usual 'knife to a gunfight' response by opponents made the NDP drop the idea.

Timidity in the face of venal opposition, not having the courage to build a platform based upon fair and appropriate policy and a fatal attachment to ideology rather than public service renders the NDP to always a bridesmaid, never a bride status.

Salesmanship is required. To win, you need to offer policies that the average voter is concerned about, not lecture them about moral issues that can be worked on after you win.

Sean in Ottawa

MegB wrote:

I'd just like to point out that, once again, a qualified and experienced woman was beaten by an unqualified and inexperienced man. A POS at that. I'm not implying in any way that that's the only reason she lost, but it's a significant one that bears discussion.

Another point that bears discussion, why does the NDP always bring a knife to a gunfight? On election day the Tories used every dirty trick in the Conservative playbook, including phoning up NDP supporters and giving them erroneous information about where their polling stations were. I'm not suggesting that the NDP should have employed the same dirty tricks but they should have expected it and had more effective strategies in place to combat those tactics. When you're fighting against someone who has zero moral compass you have to be prepared to get your hands dirty.

The NDP did well until the last week. But certainly I was mystified that they did not buy a lot of ads asking what Ford was hiding in the last week with his uncosted plan that claimed huge savings without saying what would be cut. It is almost as if they gave up -- either assuming a win or a loss.

I think this is regretful since they in effect, by not calling this out more, have acknowledged that costed platforms do not have to come from right wing parties any more. You can be sure this will be a double standard and any NDP campaign will still have to go there or be called irresponsible.

Sometimes you do have to show indignation.

I know I have even been ornery here with a couple people who I felt were trolling badly. This is part of a realization that you have to stop accepting the unacceptable -- otherwise you are part of bringing it in. I feel the same about the NDP's meek acceptance of the Conservative campaign tactic of putting out deceptive ads for a platform that was not costed amid a math calculation that requires major cuts to balance.

The NDP ended up partly complicit in the blank cheque that Ontario handed Ford. Now this damage has to be managed or it will be the template for other elections. It could take decades before any accountability in campaigns gets demanded by voters.

As I said before -- this may be the worse result of the election. Those who do not even live in Ontario may find this is imported to their province in the future.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:

A very astute observation. In a previous federal election, the NDP came out with a very modest inheritance tax proposal. It was the right policy for the right time but the usual 'knife to a gunfight' response by opponents made the NDP drop the idea.

Timidity in the face of venal opposition, not having the courage to build a platform based upon fair and appropriate policy and a fatal attachment to ideology rather than public service renders the NDP to always a bridesmaid, never a bride status.

Salesmanship is required. To win, you need to offer policies that the average voter is concerned about, not lecture them about moral issues that can be worked on after you win.

There are a couple good points amid the contradiction here between being overly attached to ideology and not defending proposals that have a connection to ideology.

The NDP should consider which policies that it would like to do are actually practical in the moment. It already does this and so you see the difference between platform and convention policy. Once it decides a position is to go into the platform and campaign, it ought not to hold back on defending it.

The party ought to anticipate and expect the pushback and be able to answer strongly -- or have never brought the plank forward in the first place.

That said, it is certainyl a work in progress. The NDP has been accused fairly, by myself and others quite bitterly, of putting a load of nothing in the platform. A decision to put real, significant, life-changing policies that affect large number of people is essential. Horwath's party did this in the last election. The campaign was excellent for the most part. The question really is what happened in the last couple weeks and why did the party not respond to the attacks or deliver any of its own? Why did it let Ford away without a blitz at the end about his uncosted proposals and hidden agenda of cuts?

The NDP in the last campaign was close to what it needed to be and the results showed that. While more must be done, it clearly did a better job than in the previous campaign where it stood for little and campaigned lamely for not much of a difference.

robbie_dee

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The campaign was excellent for the most part. The question really is what happened in the last couple weeks and why did the party not respond to the attacks or deliver any of its own? Why did it let Ford away without a blitz at the end about his uncosted proposals and hidden agenda of cuts?

Just speculating here but how much cash did the NDP have on hand at the end? My understanding is that the party's fundraising was pretty lackluster for years before things suddenly got hot right before this election. In previous elections the unions might have been able to come through with some last minute dough if it would make a difference but new party financing rules probably limited that, too.

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The campaign was excellent for the most part. The question really is what happened in the last couple weeks and why did the party not respond to the attacks or deliver any of its own? Why did it let Ford away without a blitz at the end about his uncosted proposals and hidden agenda of cuts?

Just speculating here but how much cash did the NDP have on hand at the end? My understanding is that the party's fundraising was pretty lackluster for years before things suddenly got hot right before this election. In previous elections the unions might have been able to come through with some last minute dough if it would make a difference but new party financing rules probably limited that, too.

I speculated about this -- but that would be a mistake as well. The party has to hold back enough for a response at the end to what they know will come.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

A conservative is defined as a liberal who was mugged the night before.

Actually, that's the definition of a neo-conservative, usually attributed to one of the founders of the tendency, Irving Kristol. And the full phrasing is "...mugged by reality", though I've always thought "mugged" by itself works better, as it suggests directly personal reasons for changing one's politics.

Arguably, the phrase does have racist connotations, though speaking as someone who has been mugged twice, I can understand how it could lead a person to reconsider certain social views, even without making the issue about race.

Well, as Phil Ochs said in his introduction to "Love Me I'm A Liberal"

Phil Ochs wrote:

In America today there are many shades of opinion; and the shadiest of these is the liberal: 10 degrees to the left of centre in good times; 10 degrees to the right when it affects him peronally.

Sean in Ottawa

Left Turn wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Is there a difference? Seriously!

A conservative is defined as a liberal who was mugged the night before.

Actually, that's the definition of a neo-conservative, usually attributed to one of the founders of the tendency, Irving Kristol. And the full phrasing is "...mugged by reality", though I've always thought "mugged" by itself works better, as it suggests directly personal reasons for changing one's politics.

Arguably, the phrase does have racist connotations, though speaking as someone who has been mugged twice, I can understand how it could lead a person to reconsider certain social views, even without making the issue about race.

Well, as Phil Ochs said in his introduction to "Love Me I'm A Liberal"

Phil Ochs wrote:

In America today there are many shades of opinion; and the shadiest of these is the liberal: 10 degrees to the left of centre in good times; 10 degrees to the right when it affects him peronally.

US definition, the classical definition and the Canadian partisan definition are all different. Does not seem fair to Ochs to quote him in this context....

voice of the damned

^ Liberalism, in the sense of Lockeanism, is pretty much the hegemonic ideology of the USA, at least historically speaking.

And the Lockean philosophy was also the historical position of the Liberal Party Of Canada.

However, post-New Deal and post-Whatever The Dividing Point In Canada Was, the word has now taken on a meaning something like "moderate social democrat". So, when a North American says "I hate all 'dem goddam liberals", he might mean not that he hates individualism, but that he hates a more expansive government that tries to address social issues via a welfare-state, mass education etc.

Though some positions rooted in the old Lockean version, eg. anti-censorship, religious freedom, are also considered to be part of the newer dispensation as well.  

I think the neo-cons were mostly liberals in the newer sense of the word, ie. pro-interventionist, with some of them famously even being socialists and trotskyites.

Ad for Ochs, I think he's probably just thinking about people who are to the immediate right of socialists, without getting into too much analysis about what type of liberal they are.

 

voice of the damned

Re-reading the lyrics to Love Me I'm A Liberal, Phil Ochs actually is pretty explicit about what such a person does and does not believe, contra what I wrote earlier.

https://tinyurl.com/y8x94yaj

Though I wonder how many liberals(in the sense of right-wing fake progressives) were cheering for the murder of Malcolm X, since it is generally believed that he was killed by members of the Nation Of Islam, a group most liberals(again, as characterized by Ochs) would despise. 

 

 

NorthReport

Like the 407 scandal!

She says the Progressive Conservative leader also needs to address controversies that emerged during the election campaign, including questions surrounding certain party nominations.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4274125/ontario-ndp-andrea-horwath-doug-ford/

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

I think the neo-cons were mostly liberals in the newer sense of the word, ie. pro-interventionist, with some of them famously even being socialists and trotskyites.

Sorry, I am missing this entirely. Can you explain this in greater detail since I would think the opposite -- that the Neo-cons were more like liberals in the older sense of the word but not the newer.

That said it is hard to create perfect comparisons given how things have changed in context: some Conservatives are very interventionist on social issues and the opposite on economic issues although even there some are interventionist in that they are trying to reverse the interventions of the 20th century to the benefit of the wealthy.

Perhaps it is possible to conclude that the lines are now drawn very differently and rather than about intervention or not, the division is more simply advocacy for either capital and wealthy people or for the needs of the lower 3/5 income groups.

Complicating all of these -- and possibly the real reason for the political changes -- is the change in voting power. When traditionally only male capital and money could vote, politics were more overt to that interest. Now that the power resides in the same place, but the voting does not politics have a very different process. No longer do politicians nakedly promote the interest of male capital, but they have to put this in terms more acceptable to a wider voting public.

There seems to be three ways this is done:

1) lying directly about positions (in the style of the Ford Campaign pretending to be for the people)

2) pretending that the interest of the majority is in the welfare of the wealthy (rising tide, trickle down arguments)

3) appealing directly to the interests of the majority while taking care not to disrupt and anger the wealthy too much (This is done by both the Liberals and the NDP -- at times, there is a sense that some are doing this to get elected in order to do as much as they can and at times it appears that there is no intention other than getting elected).

I tend to think that the NDP are somewhat more sincere than the Liberals in a real desire to make improvements for the population and that they will indeed do more. However, I am not under the illusion that this is universal in these parties.

The judgment by the NDP in what is the most they can get away with (and still get elected) is at times not ambitious (think Mulcair). At times the Liberals may think that the minimum positions required to get elected are more ambitious than what the NDP think is the most they could get away with proposing. I think that while the motivations of the NDP tend to be more progressive, this judgment about political necessity may drive the Liberals at moments to the left of the NDP when it comes to policies.

That said there are individuals whose politics may bring them for practical reasons to a party where they are more on the fringe. There are Liberals who really seem to be at the left of some New Democrats.

Also when parties are not all present or significant people whill make decisions about participation that blur these lines even more.

This is a point I have made recently more often ehre and that is that the NDP and the Liberals and even the Greens need each other to be what they are. This need is manifested in a couple ways:

1) the advocacy of the others create a threat to deliver more than they might otherwise in terms of a definition of what makes them different. Without fear of the NDP the Liberals can drift closer to the Conservatives (who may drift further to the right even).

2) Without the existence of the other party, members who would go there join the closest thing and push it closer to what they would want. So without the Liberals, centrists join the NDP and move it more to the centre and away from NDP positions.

Of course the realitve strength of each party is important -- the NDP tends to do best (have the greatest influence to the left) when the Liberals exist taking enough of the centrists that they do not dominate the NDP but leaving enough space for the NDP to get near enough to a third so that they can either view directly for power or obtain enough strength to push other parties to enact policies.

An NDP that is too big will move away from any social democratic policy space. One that is too small may be even more left but lack the strength to influence or take power.

It is clear that if you value this, then PR is a way to give a smaller party power relative to size that allows this influence whereas if you are trying to avoid recognizing this left voice then a STV or FPTP can keep it small enough that it is only relevant to help the Liberals beat off the Conservatives. For this reason Liberals tend to like STV or FPTP and New Democrats PR. It comes down to how much influence do you want that 20% of left of Centre Canadians to have.

voice of the damned

Sorry, I am missing this entirely. Can you explain this in greater detail since I would think the opposite -- that the Neo-cons were more like liberals in the older sense of the word but not the newer.

No. Read the history of Commentary Magazine. It was socialist, not classically liberal, before it became neo-con.

NorthReport

Andrea’s new title on her sign should be big and bold

https://mobile.twitter.com/spaikin/status/1007252541678080000

NorthReport
gadar

"Horwath ran a good campaign, was seen as the most likeable of the major party leaders" Toronto Sun get it, Liberal supporters don't want to face reality.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-horwath-seems-happy-s...

gadar
gadar

oops wrong thread. Sorry

 

NorthReport

“I’d be curious to know though whether Mr. Ford has even bothered to reach out to the two sides when it comes to the York University strike.

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/horwath-vows-to-put-the-opposition...

Pages