Liberals to sell Hydro One?

142 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rokossovsky
Liberals to sell Hydro One?

Hydro asset sales could generate $10 billion

Quote:
“So you’ve got what, $10 billion of stuff there you could sell, looking at Hydro One plus the nuclear. And they still own Niagara Falls.”

People of Ontario get to keep Niagara Falls! How generous.

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

Are we to look forward to another soak-the-consumer 407-type debacle? 

mark_alfred

The Liberal Party of Ontario is bad news.  We need the Ontario NDP to be elected here.

Rokossovsky

The way that reads to me is that its "too complex" to sell off all of it, so they will have to make do with selling off all the easily managed and maintained parts, and therefore profitable parts, while leaving the taxpayer holding the bag for the old and decrepit and therefore unprofitable parts.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberal Party of Ontario is bad news.  We need the Ontario NDP to be elected here.

Yes, and you need them FAST. Because if anything is sold off before they're elected, it can never become public again. Not sure why, but apparently that's a strict rule with other provincial NDPs that lobbied against privatization when in opposition but did nothing to reverse it once in power.

Cf. Manitoba Telephone System, Potash Corporation, etc.

 

NorthReport

Yea, let's use Unionist's approach and keep electing right-wing governments forever. 

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Yea, let's use Unionist's approach and keep electing right-wing governments forever. 

It was a Liberal government in Québec that bought up and nationalized hydro, and it has remained a single public utility ever since.

Let me know when Ms. Horwath makes the same pledge.

Let me explain what that pledge should look like. "If I'm elected, hydro production and distribution will be a single public utility."

Let me explain what it should not look like: "At present, we are not in support of further privatizing the existing system of production and distribution."

If you don't understand the difference between those two pledges, let me know - I pledge to take a few minutes and reply.

mark_alfred

So you're supporting the Liberal position for Hydro, eh Unionist?

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Yea, let's use Unionist's approach and keep electing right-wing governments forever. 

It was a Liberal government in Québec that bought up and nationalized hydro, and it has remained a single public utility ever since.

Ahh, an ancient history lesson. Yes, made a public utility in 1963. If I recall correctly it was also the Liberal federal government that broke the Canadian Seaman's Union, but someone here is a "unionists" and would know that. They also founded a National Housing Program, and then dismantled that too.

Whichever way the wind blows is a kind of a "principle" I guess.

NorthReport

Go back to sleep Unionist.

It was Rene Levesque under what was at the time the progressive government in Quebec as you well know that nationalized Quebec Hydro.

But carry on with your as usual revisionist history.

 

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Yea, let's use Unionist's approach and keep electing right-wing governments forever. 

It was a Liberal government in Québec that bought up and nationalized hydro, and it has remained a single public utility ever since.

Let me know when Ms. Horwath makes the same pledge.

Let me explain what that pledge should look like. "If I'm elected, hydro production and distribution will be a single public utility."

Let me explain what it should not look like: "At present, we are not in support of further privatizing the existing system of production and distribution."

If you don't understand the difference between those two pledges, let me know - I pledge to take a few minutes and reply.

Wilf Day

Rokossovsky wrote:

Hydro asset sales could generate $10 billion

Quote:
“So you’ve got what, $10 billion of stuff there you could sell, looking at Hydro One plus the nuclear. And they still own Niagara Falls.”

People of Ontario get to keep Niagara Falls! How generous.

What scares me is, there was a time when people would have risen up in defence of Ontario Hydro. But now everyone is mad at their hydro bills. Of course, privatizing would likely be even worse. But that's not much of a rallying cry.

 

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

So you're supporting the Liberal position for Hydro, eh Unionist?

I'm asking why hydro can't become a single public utility in Ontario (as it is in various other provinces and has been for generations), and you run interference for the ONDP which doesn't even have the simple courage of conviction to make that pledge. And you accuse me of supporting the Liberal position! You know damned well that whatever Wynne sells off will never be brought back into the public domain by the Horwath gang of cowards - just as Doer railed against the privatization of MTS while in opposition and did nothing during the many years of NDP rule after (soon to come to an inglorious end) - and likewise with Potash Corp. That's the sad reality you should really be dealing with - that Ontario voters have no progressive choice today, and maybe instead of flattering and prevaricating and making excuses, progressive folks should be encouraging the ONDP to get a leader and a backbone to inspire, you know, like, the so-called "middle class" and those below on the social ladder.

NorthReport wrote:

Go back to sleep Unionist.

It was Rene Levesque under what was at the time the progressive government in Quebec as you well know that nationalized Quebec Hydro.

But carry on with your as usual revisionist history.

I don't know why you carry on with your personal attacks against me, in thread after thread. The Liberal government of Jean Lesage was light years more progressive than anything the ONDP has ever had on offer, in or out of government. To a person of principle, that proves that party labels don't matter. To you, it means it's time to start jumping up and down and insulting people who are are trying to have a conversation. This is the toxic atmosphere which partisan extremism creates, and it saddens me.

Rokossovsky wrote:
If I recall correctly it was also the Liberal federal government that broke the Canadian Seaman's Union, but someone here is a "unionists" and would know that. They also founded a National Housing Program, and then dismantled that too.

That's not the first time you've ridiculed my "unionist" handle. Lay off, please. It does you no honour. Nor do I need a lecture from you about how bad the federal Liberals were when the broke the CSU, as if that has something to do with the Jean Lesage government and the Quiet Revolution. But of course, for partisan extremists, they see the name "Liberal", and they start jumping up, down, and sidewise. Just as when (rarely) someone switches from Liberal to NDP, they rant and rave about how the person must have been a closet social democrat all along. They certainly never see such a person importing Liberal toxins into the NDP.

mark_alfred

I think you're just trying to support the concept of "strategic voting", Unionist.  The Liberal plans for Hydro stink.  Nothing strategic there.

Brachina

 Actually she has made that promise, she wants to gather all the rogue utilitues that used to be part of hydro and make them a part of Hydro One. I do not believe this extends to private energy providers like people who set up winds farms, just the utility companies I think.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

I think you're just trying to support the concept of "strategic voting", Unionist.

No, I'm trying to get NDP cheerleaders to influence their party leader to take the right stand - you know, the stand that they think she's taking, but it's impossible to say without hiring a hieroglyphic decoder.

Quote:
The Liberal plans for Hydro stink.  Nothing strategic there.

Correct. So will the NDP stand for a single public utility? Brachina (above) says "I think" Horwath stands for that. Has she said so? (No, apparently, despite your valiant efforts to pull together disparate statements and stitch a principled statement.) Will she, now that she has decided to go for an election rather than the budget?

That's when you have to start worrying about the record of other provincial governments (Manitoba, Saskatchewan) in the face of privatizations that have become "permanent". Will Horwath take a clear stand and say: "Any privatizations, past or present, will be reversed?"

Should she? What do you think?

 

mark_alfred

Unionist, you're alone in your wondering whether the Ontario NDP is against privatization.  No one else finds their stance confusing.  For instance, from the TVO site:

Quote:
Also, don't underestimate the NDP's antipathy to the recent Liberal plan to strike a blue ribbon panel analyzing potential asset sales. While the Liberals have been clear that panel wasn't a smokescreen to selling off the LCBO, Ontario Power Generation, or Hydro One, the NDP don't buy it. They're simply opposed to any privatization of public assets, including even the sale of the LCBO headquarters on Toronto's waterfront, convinced that's merely the thin edge of the wedge.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Unionist, you're alone in your wondering whether the Ontario NDP is against privatization. 

Good, I'm alone, but I never wondered that, not once. I asked (many times, in many ways, but I'll assume you didn't get it yet):

1. Will she commit to a single public utility (you know, as in several other provinces)?

2. Will she reverse any new sell-offs the Liberals (or Cons) may do in the interim?

If you can't answer those two questions (and I know very well that you can't), then please say whether you think they deserve an answer or not. I think they're important. I don't like mealy-mouthed insinuations by party leaders where simple folk (like workers - not "middle class" types) are trying to figure out how to vote.

Sorry for the repetition, but you never actually seem to be able to deal with what I've actually said and asked. So, you invent easier questions and provide some easy answers.

 

Rokossovsky

Utterly alone. Maybe try finding questions that you do not "know very well that can't" be answered as a way of expanding the conversation beyond a single individual.

Brachina

 I don't say I think, because I know she does. She's against privatizing Hydro One. Seriously why is it you can accept NDP positions unless its engraved in the leaders blood?

mark_alfred

Unionist, the NDP's position on Hydro is clear to me.  It's here, and I've linked to a similar page from the NDP before.  From the site:

Quote:
Cut down on waste and duplication by merging Ontario’s hydro agencies and put a hard cap on executive pay.

[..]

Stop private power giveaways and have Ontario’s Auditor conduct an immediate value-for-money review of all private power contracts

Granted, it's not phrased as you feel it should be, but it's clear enough for me, and is worthy of support.

By contrast, the Liberal record on this file is not worthy of support.  From the site above:

Quote:

  • Ontario under Conservative and Liberal governments has created four separate hydro bureaucracies – each with their own CEOs and several layers of administration – to do the same job other provinces are able to do for about half the cost with one unified agency.
  • The executives at these new bureaucracies – OPA, IESO, OPG, Hydro One – have also created a culture of entitlement. OPG CEO Tom Mitchell’s annual compensation tops $1.6 million. That is more than double what the CEO of Hydro Quebec earns . It is seven times what Manitoba Hydro pays its executives.
  • The old Ontario Hydro had a budget of $2.2 billion for annual operations, maintenance and administration. The four new bureaucracies have total operating budgets of $4.5 billion, more than double the cost to taxpayers . Even adjusted for inflation, that’s an increase of 55 per cent in costs for Ontario families to have these additional bureaucracies. Hydro Quebec oversees a whopping $68 billion in assets, yet only has operating costs of $2.3 billion. A leaner operation in Ontario would result in significant savings.
  • It is time to rationalize Ontario’s alphabet soup of hydro agencies and pass the savings on to families and businesses.

    mark_alfred

    I like Andrea's great quote on the Liberal's recent interest in selling off and further privatizing Hydro. link

    Andrea Horwath wrote:
    Instead of fixing the mess in our electricity system, the Liberals want to drive hydro rates higher, with a firesale of our assets in a rerun of the failed privatization of Ontario Hydro by the Conservates.  You don't heat the house by burning the furniture.

    Unionist

    [Sorry - still trying to find the official hydro position - will get back]

    NorthReport

    U

    I was referring to the recent Quebec election, where the corrupt right-wing Liberals ,right in the middle of a major construction scandal, got elected with a fucking majority government. 

    Thanks U, I can see how brilliant youre political strategies are.

    NorthReport wrote:

    Yea, let's use Unionist's approach and keep electing right-wing governments forever. 

    mark_alfred

    Unionist wrote:

    [Sorry - still trying to find the official hydro position - will get back]

    I've looked, but I couldn't find the Liberal's official hydro position.  Let us know when you find it.  Perhaps Andrea was exaggerating when she said Libs are looking to make "a firesale of our assets in a rerun of the failed privatization of Ontario Hydro by the Conservates."

    The TorStar link from the opening post said "Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa avoided using the word 'sell' when he announced Friday that the province is looking at options for Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One."  So maybe Andrea is not being completely fair to the Libs when she speaks against Liberals looking to sell our assets.

    Lord Palmerston

    NorthReport wrote:
    U

    I was referring to the recent Quebec election, where the corrupt right-wing Liberals ,right in the middle of a major construction scandal, got elected with a fucking majority government. 

    Thanks U, I can see how brilliant youre political strategies are.

    The same corrupt right-wing Liberals that Tom Mulcair publicly declared he was voting for and "called out" Justin Trudeau for not being able to do so.

    But I guess that's understandable, as a "federalist" he had no choice.  Fortunately he was able to vote for Frank Scott's nephew!

    NorthReport

    LP,

    Thank you for making my point.  

    Obviously Mulcair had to vote for a federalist party as he is running to be Canada's PM. In a lot ways, it's a no win situation for him.

    I, but I'm not running to be Canada's PM, had I voted, would have supported U & legatta's QS. But unfortunately with 3 MLAs there are not in the game. Read the Quebec press - QS is rarely if at all mentioned in political articles. That's not they way I wanted it, but that's  the way it is. 

    It's somewhat similiar to the NDP in BC.

    If even one of those LNG plants go ahead the Liberals will be in power for the next 20 years. and  by-the-way, they are Liberals in name only.

     

    mark_alfred

    Some stuff from the now-dead Lib budget (bolding my own):

    Liberal Budget 2014 wrote:
    Unlocking Value from Government Assets
    The government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including real estate holdings as well as Crown corporations such as Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

    [..]

    As announced in the 2013 Ontario Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review, the government has been exploring opportunities to unlock economic value from Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s (LCBO) headquarters and Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) head office. The government will now move forward on divesting those assets.

    I acknowledge it's not clear that the Liberals are planning a firesale of power generation, but I feel these beginning steps as outlined above are worrying and that the Liberals should not be supported.  They do commit to keeping the nuclear power plants public, but not hydro and other power generation:

    Quote:
    Ontario also remains committed to ensuring the province’s nuclear facilities remain publicly owned, while finding greater operational efficiencies and synergies between both organizations.

    mark_alfred

    Good ad from the Amalgamated Transit Union on the Liberals' plans to privatize various services:  link

    josh

    Premier Kathleen Wynne is expected to announce a plan on Thursday to sell off 60 per cent of Hydro One, according to a report in the Toronto Star.

    The province will retain a 40 per cent stake and other shareholders will be limited to a maximum 10 per cent ownership.

    The Liberals are selling a chunk of the $16-billion utility as part of a plan to generate transit infrastructure money through the sale of Crown assets.

    http://www.680news.com/2015/04/16/liberals-sell-off-large-chunk-hydro-one-report/

    mark_alfred

    That's disturbing.  But not surprising.  The seeds for this were in "the most progressive budget in decades".  I'm curious to hear from the gang of 34 on this.

    Brachina

     The gang of 34 are MIA on this, but if they do speak up I'm sure they'll find a bullshit reason to blame Horwath.

    Unionist

    Unionist, almost one year ago, wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Unionist, you're alone in your wondering whether the Ontario NDP is against privatization. 

    Good, I'm alone, but I never wondered that, not once. I asked (many times, in many ways, but I'll assume you didn't get it yet):

    1. Will she commit to a single public utility (you know, as in several other provinces)?

    2. Will she reverse any new sell-offs the Liberals (or Cons) may do in the interim?

    If you can't answer those two questions (and I know very well that you can't), then please say whether you think they deserve an answer or not. I think they're important. I don't like mealy-mouthed insinuations by party leaders where simple folk (like workers - not "middle class" types) are trying to figure out how to vote.

    Sorry for the repetition, but you never actually seem to be able to deal with what I've actually said and asked. So, you invent easier questions and provide some easy answers.

     

    So, besides the melodrama in the legislature, can we get simple answers to simple questions one year later?

    Rokossovsky

    Unionist wrote:
    Unionist, almost one year ago, wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    Unionist, you're alone in your wondering whether the Ontario NDP is against privatization. 

    Good, I'm alone, but I never wondered that, not once. I asked (many times, in many ways, but I'll assume you didn't get it yet):

    1. Will she commit to a single public utility (you know, as in several other provinces)?

    2. Will she reverse any new sell-offs the Liberals (or Cons) may do in the interim?

    If you can't answer those two questions (and I know very well that you can't), then please say whether you think they deserve an answer or not. I think they're important. I don't like mealy-mouthed insinuations by party leaders where simple folk (like workers - not "middle class" types) are trying to figure out how to vote.

    Sorry for the repetition, but you never actually seem to be able to deal with what I've actually said and asked. So, you invent easier questions and provide some easy answers.

     

     

    So, besides the melodrama in the legislature, can we get simple answers to simple questions one year later?

    That is a great question for a troll, since you will never get the answer you want.

    The answer is "no" because your questions never deserved an answer. They were always part of goading red herring intended to distract from the fact that the NDP clearly opposed further privatization of Hydro One. What they reveal is more your ignorance of the issues involved specific to the breaking up of the Ontario Hydro into multiple agencies, and individual utilities by Mike Harris.

    For one thing, a great number of the utilities that were spawned by the Harris era decimation remain publicly owned just not by the province. Many of the larger ones remain publicly owned corporations run by the municipalities, from which cash starved cities depend. This can not simply be fixed by publishing a manifesto -- festooned with a hammer and sickle and bearing a red star -- calling for the unilateral and immediate restoration of a single provincially owned utility.

    Clearly, any such plan would have grave consequences on the financial solvency of the municipalities that could not simply be resolved without creating havoc everywhere.

    Instead, the NDP called for the reconstitution of Ontario Hydro out of the four remaining provincially controlled entities that now deliver power throughout the province, to make them more efficient, and to reverse the process of entropic break up that allows the corporate sector to cherry pick the profitable parts.

    Precisely why the NDP proposed consolidation of some utilities, and reconstitution of the basic Ontario Hydro entity.

    From that basis, there might be some potential for reintegration of the municipal utilities, but it would be insane to unilaterally offer such as a platform plank, given that "perestroika" would necessarily be a work in progress, if even desirable, since the province would have to compensate the cities for lost revenue, and such would have to be negotiated case by case.

    Your demands are quite plainly stupid. It would be entirely inappropriate for a candidate for the premier's office to suggest such a unilateral restructuring because anything like that would need detailed consultation and negotiation with multiple civic governments prior to even floating the idea.

    But you floated these intangible and irrelevant political puffballs here, in order to distract from the fact that Liberals and NDP were quite distinct in their position on what Andrea Horwath called "discredited schemes" for "private power boondoggles", when you maintained that they were essentially "the same". Perhaps you thought this idea was marginally "ultra-leftist" or something in comparison to the stodgy soccer mom from Hamiliton who you ceaselessly derided, when in fact it was simply a Liberal talking point, designed to encourage defeatist (so called) "strategic voting" -- aka "surrender politics".

    And now you are raising them again because you simply will not admit that you, and your allegedly "progressive" fellow travelers in irrelevant nonsense such as Judy Rebick, were dead wrong on the stakes in the last Ontario election and had no idea what you were talking about, and that Jerry Dias is a stooge for private capital, Sid Ryan a hapless dupe, and Warren Thomas a clear sighted and forthright defender of the interests of his membership who was entirely right in what he said about every single aspect of the Liberal campaign and economic objective.

    This was not the "most progressive budget in recent memory", it was the "most reactionary budget in a hundred years".

    Brachina

     +1,000,000 Roko, a lot of progressives were lied to and smislead by people they trusted this wasn't the progressive budget promised and Walkom, the 34, and a bunch of other columnists and others preaching this crap should resign and apologize.

    Unionist

    Brachina wrote:

     +1,000,000 Roko, a lot of progressives were lied to and smislead by people they trusted this wasn't the progressive budget promised and Walkom, the 34, and a bunch of other columnists and others preaching this crap should resign and apologize.

    So, Brachina, should Andrea promise to re-nationalize Hydro One after the NDP is elected?

    Or is this all just bullshit, like it was in Saskatchewan after Potash Corp was privatized, and Manitoba after Manitoba Telephone System was privatized? Once they're gone, the NDP throws up its hands and says, "nothing we can do - can't interfere with private enterprise!!!!!!"

    Do you have an opinion on this?

     

    Rokossovsky

    Indeed, it appears that the allegedly "objective" non-partisan commission they empanelled, has come under significant political pressure from the government, to change their original proposal, and was itself "restructured" as a "representative of the crown" and given marching order to change its original propoal, and allow for a large ISO to be put on the block, even though the panel originally rejected this move because it would be a field day for the finance sector.

    The names of the two reports tell the story:

    November 20th, 2014: RETAIN & GAIN: Making Ontario’s Assets Work Better for Taxpayers and Consumers

    Quote:
    While selling all or part of the transmission business would be attractive to the capital market, we believe this is an asset that,retained in public ownership, can play a positive policy role in such matters as ongoing energy-sharing discussions with Quebec.Accordingly, we believe Hydro One transmission should remain in public ownership as a core assetat this time.



    April 16th, 2015: Striking the Right Balance: Improving Performance and Unlocking Value in the Electricity Sector in Ontario

    Quote:
    However, in the course of Phase 2 of our review, the Council has worked closely with the government (including various ministries), regulatory authorities, and industry stakeholders to better understand the Province’s position in these discussions. The government is satisfied that retaining 100% ownership of Hydro One’s transmission assets is not a pre-requisite in order to achieve equally good energy policy outcomes. And as we further examined the public policy rationale for retaining Hydro One’s transmission assets in public ownership, we did not find the case compelling.

    So, to be clear this is a major departure from the campaign pledge, where a limited sell off would be used to finance infrastructures spending on transit, to a major sell off of the main business of Hydro One through stock option, losing controlling share in order to pay down the debt.

    Nothing will be "retained", as proposed in the original report. Ontario will not even have controlling share in Ontario Hydro.

    Rokossovsky

    I missed the part in philosophy class, where the Socratic method was defined as asking the same dumb off-topic question, over and over again.

    The purpose of the ONDP's 2014 election campaign platform was not to outline what they would do "sometime down the road" after they lost the 2014 election, and the Liberals had privatized Hydro One, the purpose of the ONDP 2014 election campaign platform was to outline what they would do if they won the 2014 election.

    Liberal campaign promise:

    Pledged to sell key publicly owned assets in order to fund infrastructure including the LCBO and parts of Hydro One, saying that no capital from sales would go toward deficit reduction.

    The ONDP campaign promise:

    Pledged to retain total control of Hydro One, and not sell off LCBO.

    What the Liberals are actually doing is even bigger than what they pledged:

    Not only are they going through with their campaign pledge to "hive off" key parts of Hydro One Distribution, they are also giving majority control of the entire Hydro One framework corporation, in order to raise capital for deficit reduction. 

    addictedtomyipod

    Brachina wrote:

     The gang of 34 are MIA on this, but if they do speak up I'm sure they'll find a bullshit reason to blame Horwath.

    Yup, that hyper partisan Andrea Horwath that almost got Hudak elected is fighting against privatization. Who knew? Apparently not Elizabeth May.

    Unionist

    We know the ONDP opposes privatization. That is to its credit. It campaigned against it, and is speaking out now. That is laudable. The Liberals are vying for a spot in the Conservative pantheon through their betrayal of Ontarians' collective rights and interests.

    But...

    The ONDP can do nothing in Queen's Park to stop the sale of Hydro One. Voting "no", getting kicked out, etc., just won't do it.

    So...

    The ONDP should publicly warn all interested buyers that they will be in deep shit once the ONDP wins power. It should go on record, right now. That accomplishes many things:

    1. Puts the ONDP's money where its mouth is.

    2. Inspires confidence that they mean what they say (not like their Saskatchewan and Manitoba counterparts).

    3. Hopefully, scares off potential buyers - or even, lowers the sale price - thus making it politically more feasible to pay lower compensation when the ill-gotten gains are re-nationalized after an ONDP win.

    If anyone has a better suggestion as to how to actually do something about Wynne's betrayal (I mean, something other than whining, crying, wringing hands, smirking, saying "I told you so, Sid Ryan and the 34 traitors and Jerry Dias and the Toronto latte-sippers") - by all means, speak up.

    Haven't heard any concrete proposals yet.

     

     

    Rokossovsky

    My suggestiong is that Sid Ryan appologize for misleading Ontario public and the union movement of Ontario. It matters not that he may have acted in good faith, but at best it is clear that he gave really bad advice with serious results, both for the Ontario public and the constituent members of the OFL.

    The quality of ones leadership is not determined by its sincerity, but by its accumen.

    In the short run, what is important here is to not what happened in Ontario, but that the union movement needs to absorb the lesson learned and jetison its campaign in the next federal election on the basis of "strategic voting", and campaign on the issue without endorsement, if not putting itself squarely behind the NDP, as the sole political party with an agenda that is remotely progressive, and with a chance to win.

    The CLC should follow CUPE National's lead and put the political right in the Liberal Party on notice that it is not getting a free ride, simply because it is "not Harper", and that it must seriously modify its positions on key legislation like C-51, or that it will back the NDP.

    Quote:
    In a letter to the non-partisan group Leadnow, Paul Moist, the national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), said he has supported the group’s “good work” in the past but he is disappointed in their plan to try to elect “so-called progressive candidates who can defeat the conservatives.”

    CUPE Slams Leadnow For Encouraging Canadians To 'Vote Together'

    The rightward drift of the NDP over the last 20 years is undeniable, but what are we saying about the union movement, if it can honestly be said that "Labour is campaigning to the right of the 'centerist' NDP?"

    josh

    What misleading? No one claimed the Liberals were great. The problem was there was the real threat that the leader of a party determined to destroy the union movement in Ontario would be elected.

    Brachina

     Sid Ryan should resign. That last thing the North American Union Movement needs is more poor leadership.

    Aristotleded24

    josh wrote:
    No one claimed the Liberals were great. The problem was there was the real threat that the leader of a party determined to destroy the union movement in Ontario would be elected.

    *Yawn* Just another one of the endless claims by the Toronto-based media that this election is so important because if the PCs get elected, the world will come to an end and the sun will stop shining and the moon will burn out and the stars will fall out of the sky and scorch the Earth on impact, ending civilization as we know it. This nonsense gets tiresome after a while.

    Rokossovsky

    Your "position" might be understandable, if you could show that the OFL was anything more than a mouthpiece for the Liberal government they are so proud to have elected.

    Sid Ryan is another Labour leader who has hitched his fortunes to the coattails of the Liberal Party and been sucked into to thinking that progress for working people can be achieved by having a "seat at the table" and playing nice, as opposed to fighting for labour rights.

    Rokossovsky

    josh wrote:
    What misleading? No one claimed the Liberals were great. The problem was there was the real threat that the leader of a party determined to destroy the union movement in Ontario would be elected.

    He said that the budget was the "most progressive in recent memory". Sorry, that was completely misleading, and this talking point was leveraged to effect repeatedly on the left and in the mainstream media to justify the attack on the NDP, which in fact clearly had a more progressive platform. That wasn't just an attack on Hudak but an endorsement of the Wynne Liberals.

    Moreover, the Wynne Liberals are no less intent on destroying the union movement in Ontario than Tim Hudak. What precisely do you think mass privatization of public assets is about?

    Do you actually think that shopping out LCBO to the private sector is not going to cost unionized labour their jobs? Likewise, once the controlling share in Hydro One is sold off, we will surely see the evaporation of union jobs and their replacement by contract skilled labour.

    I encourage you to go to the OFL web site, and observe how it is cravenly continuing to endorse the Wynne Liberals. Nothing at all there objecting to:

    • Privatization of the LCBO
    •  Privatization of Hydro One
    • School Closures
    • Laid off teaching staff
    • Cuts to the special education budget
       
    • Laid off nurses
    • Evisceration of the power of local school board's.

    All he talks about is the wonderful "never never land" pension plan the Liberals keep talking about and will never implement.

    Fuck Sid Ryan and the OFL

     

    mark_alfred

    The suggestion from Liberal trolls that the NDP should have supported the Liberal budget with proclamations that they'll fix the mess of privatization later is remarkably similar to those who support Trudeau's stance of supporting Bill C-51 with proclamations of fixing the mess later.  Stupid and unprincipled.  Gang of 34, hang your heads in shame. 

    Unionist

    mark_alfred wrote:

    The suggestion from Liberal trolls that the NDP should have supported the Liberal budget with proclamations that they'll fix the mess of privatization later is remarkably similar to those who support Trudeau's stance of supporting Bill C-51 with proclamations of fixing the mess later.

    I'm the one - the only one - who has been saying from day one that the ONDP should have pledged - and should still pledge today - to reverse any privatization of Hydro One. It must titillate you no end to call me a "Liberal troll", so enjoy those delicious shivers. It's a wonderful alternative to actually doing something - other than Ms. Horwath's kindergarten displays at Queen's Park.

    In the meantime, if you truly support that party, help them grow some guts and urge them to pledge to do better than the Manitoba and Saskatchewan NDP did when they regained power and did sweet fuck-all about the public treasures that had been privatized in their absence. Or, if you find a little time to do something other than recriminate and name-call, perhaps you could actually engage me in a conversation as to why the NDP should or should not make such a public pledge today.

    Meanwhile, I'm joining the 34. If they can single-handedly determine the course of a provincial election, they are far more powerful than Bay Street and the three parties and you put together.

     

    Brachina

     We have a crisis in Ontario when it comes to hydro, from being guaged (we pay the highest rates of any province), bills are often wrong, ect...

     

     To make a bad situation worse they privatize things to the point where even the fucking PCs are saying you took it too far. What a sloppy fucking mess.

    Rokossovsky

    Unionist wrote:

    mark_alfred wrote:

    The suggestion from Liberal trolls that the NDP should have supported the Liberal budget with proclamations that they'll fix the mess of privatization later is remarkably similar to those who support Trudeau's stance of supporting Bill C-51 with proclamations of fixing the mess later.

    I'm the one - the only one - who has been saying from day one that the ONDP should have pledged - and should still pledge today - to reverse any privatization of Hydro One. It must titillate you no end to call me a "Liberal troll", so enjoy those delicious shivers. It's a wonderful alternative to actually doing something - other than Ms. Horwath's kindergarten displays at Queen's Park.

    Maybe you are the only one because it is a completely flawed and idiotic premise?

    According to you, the ONDP was supposed to run on the platform of reversing the Liberal's sale of Hydro One, after losing the election that allowed the Liberals to implement the privatization in the first place. I thought the point of the ONDP platform was to outline what the ONDP would do if it won the election, in the real world where the privatization would not have occurred, not what is would do if it had lost it the election.

    In the Trollosphere, the point of this doublethink is to create and unresolvable time travelers conundrum to justify rote condemnation on some point of principle or other.

    1) If the Liberals won the election, then the NDP would not be able to reverse the decision because they would not have the power to do so, having lost the election.

    2) If the NDP won the election, then the Liberals would not be able to implement the decision, and so there would be no policy to reverse.

    The ONDP must both win and lose the election at the same time in order to fulfill the trolls "principled" mandate.

    Rokossovsky

    Obviously, if the PCs and the ONDP agree that is because Horwath is right-wing. Privatization of Hydro One must be "progressive" because the Liberals are the definition of "progressive".

    Or so one would think reading the OFL web site, given the fact that the roll out of the austerity agenda on the public services in Ontario isn't even mentioned on it. It's a sad day for labour that it claims the ONDP is too "right wing" too support, and then campaigns even further right.

    MegB

    Calling someone a troll for disagreeing with you is unacceptible. Please don't.

    Pages