41st Parliament of Ontario

124 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2014-06-20 16:15

terrytowel

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

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

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

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

Yeah you are right. Just look at Harper's cabinet.

Fri, 2014-06-20 16:56

#53

Stockholm

Rokossovsky wrote:

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

Anything would have been better than the NON-strategy she followed whereby she essentially said "I want an election because I want an election" - and then plunged us into an election campaign where the NDP really didn't have much to say. I think if Horwath had done anything other than the "non-strategy" she ended up pursuing - the NDP would at the very least have ended up with 27-28% of the vote and about 10 more seats. Instead this great opportunity was pissed away. As long as the NDP was extracting concessions in each budget - support for the party went up and byelections were being won. The moment they strayed from that successful policy - everything went south.

Horwath never managed to explain why she was opposing the budget and on the doorstep in Toronto (and likely elsewhere) it was an issue over and over and over again. There was lots to criticize in the budget with all its hidden austerity measures set to kick in in years 2 and 3 - but Andrea never talked about any of that - she was just left looking cynical and opportunistic and she blew up her brand. Its not as if no one saw this coming. The Liberals leaked every element of their budget weeks in advance. The NDP had weeks and weeks to come up with a narrative for who they were forcing an election now - and they just didn't bother and it showed.

I get where the PCs went wrong. They made a bunch of assumptions that promsiing to fire 100,000 people would "fire up" their base. They were dead wrong, but at least i get what they thought they were doing. I have no idea what Horwath's people thought they were doing. I can't even figure out what assumptions they were making - none of it made any sense to me at the time.

Fri, 2014-06-20 16:57

#54

terrytowel

Andrea and the NDP had an entire year to prepare.

Fri, 2014-06-20 17:15

#55

Pogo

Any party worth their salt should have a gameplan for an election being called at any moment when they are in a minority parliament.

Fri, 2014-06-20 21:18

#56

Rokossovsky

Stockholm wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

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

Anything would have been better than the NON-strategy she followed whereby she essentially said "I want an election because I want an election" - and then plunged us into an election campaign where the NDP really didn't have much to say. I think if Horwath had done anything other than the "non-strategy" she ended up pursuing - the NDP would at the very least have ended up with 27-28% of the vote and about 10 more seats. Instead this great opportunity was pissed away. As long as the NDP was extracting concessions in each budget - support for the party went up and byelections were being won. The moment they strayed from that successful policy - everything went south.

Horwath never managed to explain why she was opposing the budget and on the doorstep in Toronto (and likely elsewhere) it was an issue over and over and over again.

Because the Liberals are corrupt, and failed to meet their commitments.

The game plan was quite simple. They were using the "integrity in government" pitch that won Stephen Harper a minority in Government in 2006, not the "let's get taken for a ride by the Liberals on the fake negotiation", and look like we are playing "politics for the sake of politics because we are flogging a tiny amendment to the fine print of the health care act that 90% of Canadians didn't understand, then or now," schtick that has dogged Layton and the whole NDP since 2005.

You are switching the channels here. We were talking about the strategic execution of the minority confidence motion.

My point is that these minority situations are a damned if you do, and a damned if you don't situations, especially when you have a government that is dead set on running its budget as its election campaign platform, which is true of the Martin Liberals in 2005, and of the Wynne Liberals in 2014.

The Horwath campaign was much more clearly defined that Layton's by a country mile. The one that Harper used to outflank Layton's NDP, and crush the Liberals.

The Liberals are corrupt. Guess what? They are!

Speculation as to what the ONDP might have achieved, here are mired in intangibles and hindsight is 20/20. The ONDP should have at least retained the balance of power, except for the fact that the Conservatives totally collapsed. At the end of the day, no one can convince me that both Schein and Marchese were not vulnerable -- both would have been defeated in 2011, had the Liberals pulled the numbers they did in this election: the defections were not catastrophic.

Prue is probably the only real victim of the campaign, and the infighting, and the hell-bent-for-leather attack of nearly all of the corporate media.

Prue attests that they polled this option prior to the elections, and they got positive response, only to find that the public got cold feet once the writ was dropped, Marchese made a very good case for defeating the budget the day after the writ was dropped.

Certainly ONDP could have used a flagship platform plank to counter the one that the Liberals ripped from the ONDP, and they didn't do enough to define an "issue" based campaign, and the "respect for taxpayers" message was out-of-sync with what the Toronto progressive group expects to see, as Marchese observed, but this was picked up by the media and amplified to the unprecedented extent where Rick Salutin felt comfortable proclaiming that Horwath was the spawn of Margaret Thatcher if not Mitt Romney after a sex change operation.

I am sure Horwath was surprised by the the virulence of the attack since Horwath's fiscally responsible, support small business "job creators" pitch was ripped note for note from Olivia Chow's ongoing campaign. Chows "right populist" styles have been received ecstatically by much of the Toronto left, or at least tacitly as the cost of doing business. If anyone at the Toronto Star is concerned about Chow "selling out" by meeting with businessmen, being a fiscal conservative by promising to be "thrifty", or giving tax breaks to small business they have been eceptionally quite about it.

Sat, 2014-06-21 14:11

#57

Rokossovsky

josh wrote:

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

. . . .

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

. . . .

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

. . . .

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

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

News Correction for June 20

Quote:
A headline accompanying a June 19 article about the New Democratic Party of Ontario losing Toronto ridings mistakenly stated that defeated veterans said “the party went too far right”. In fact, as was stated correctly in the article, defeated MPP Rosario Marchese said the party was seen by some voters to be moving to the right. None of the defeated veterans said the party had moved to the right.

Sat, 2014-06-21 19:09

#58

Debater

I agree with Stockholm's analysis on this one.

Horwath fell into a similar problem as Ignatieff in the last federal election. If you bring down the government, you need to have a clear explanation as to why you have done so, or voters will punish you or not understand your message. Ignatieff wanted to campaign against Harper over 'contempt of Parliament' and to get people to 'rise up', but most swing voters didn't care or didn't know what he was talking about. Ontario voters were angry that they were all of a sudden thrown into an election just before Summer when it was less than 3 years since the last one. They wanted to know what her central reason was for bringing down the government and she wasn't able to articulate it in the same way Ignatieff failed to do so.

Sat, 2014-06-21 20:00

#59

Rokossovsky

Really? You are the first person to bring up Layton "killing the national daycare program" in 2005, over and over again. Your repeated return to this talking point is the perfect example of the problematic "optics" of the Layton strategy in 2005.

I guess you like it when NDP leaders make themselves look ineffective, and leave themselves to the charge that they are engaged in petty politicking. Not that Layton was any of those things, but the strategy that worked in 2004 to burnish Jack's reputation as someone who was "making parliament work for people", was a failure in 2005, simply because Martin didn't want to play ball, and help Layton further increase his reputation.

Sat, 2014-06-21 22:00

#60

Brachina

Anyone else notice that it wasn't till Sid Ryan stopped running for Oshawa that the NDP won it?

And I agree with Smokey, the NDP should throw out Sid Ryan, endorse the Liberal Party and Attacking the NDP is unacceptable, we throw out Buzz Hardgrove for doing that Sid Ryan and anyother Labour leader who said the same thing.

Btw Smokey Thomas is like the coolest fucking name ever.

Sat, 2014-06-21 22:20

#61

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Anyone else notice that it wasn't till Sid Ryan stopped running for Oshawa that the NDP won it?

You mean when NDP candidate Mike Shields lost to the PCs in 2011?

Sat, 2014-06-21 22:23

#62

Unionist

Brachina wrote:

And I agree with Smokey, the NDP should throw out Sid Ryan, endorse the Liberal Party and Attacking the NDP is unacceptable, we throw out Buzz Hardgrove for doing that Sid Ryan and anyother Labour leader who said the same thing.

I agree. Throw them all out. The traitorous bastards. Out they go.

Sat, 2014-06-21 22:31

#63

adma

Brachina wrote:
Anyone else notice that it wasn't till Sid Ryan stopped running for Oshawa that the NDP won it?

No; the NDP had lost one provincial election and two federal elections before Jen French won it. And besides, the ONDP was *third* in 1999 (the last pre-Ryan prov election--and federally, they were either third or fourth in 93-97-00). Given the state of the party in those years, it's hard to see anyone *other* than a Sid Ryan restoring the party to a state of Oshawa-competitiveness--but otherwise, the broader odds weren't stacked favourably, and it was more in spite of Sid Ryan than because of him. He may have fallen short; but he "set the momentum going", so to speak.

Sat, 2014-06-21 22:44

#64

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

Brachina wrote:

And I agree with Smokey, the NDP should throw out Sid Ryan, endorse the Liberal Party and Attacking the NDP is unacceptable, we throw out Buzz Hardgrove for doing that Sid Ryan and anyother Labour leader who said the same thing.

I agree. Throw them all out. The traitorous bastards. Out they go.

Maybe he could just apologize for his over-the-top exuberance about the Liberal government and its budget? His leadership of the OFL should certainly come up for review. His outburst about the "most progressive budget in years" at the beginning of the election was hardly reflective of the consensus in the Ontario labour movement.

Sun, 2014-06-22 03:11

#65

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

Really? You are the first person to bring up Layton "killing the national daycare program" in 2005, over and over again. Your repeated return to this talking point is the perfect example of the problematic "optics" of the Layton strategy in 2005.

I guess you like it when NDP leaders make themselves look ineffective, and leave themselves to the charge that they are engaged in petty politicking. Not that Layton was any of those things, but the strategy that worked in 2004 to burnish Jack's reputation as someone who was "making parliament work for people", was a failure in 2005, simply because Martin didn't want to play ball, and help Layton further increase his reputation.

I was talking about Ignatieff 2011 & Horwath 2014. I didn't say anything about Layton & Martin 2004/2005. That is a different issue. I was agreeing with Stockholm that Horwath (like Ignatieff) ran into problems because she didn't have a clear justification for bringing the government down that she could explain to voters in the election. When your reason for voting against the government is vague and can't be explained to the voters, you lose ground or get blamed for calling the election.

Sun, 2014-06-22 11:38

#66

addictedtomyipod

After over a decade of promises to bring in national childcare, the Liberals had reluctantly worked on the file. In 2005 Ken Dryden had managed to sign up all 10 provinces into a bi-lateral agreement. The three territories had no such agreement yet, so there was work still to be done. No one knows how long it would have taken to negotiate these remaining agreements. The Liberals were taken out due to their own corruption. When Harper came into office he cancelled all 10 agreements. So it was Harper who killed the chance at national childcare.

The Liberals need to get this right, it is nauseating to hear them repeat over and over again that it was all down to Layton.

FFS

Sun, 2014-06-22 12:48

#67

terrytowel

In Susan Delacourt column yesterday she writes

"that Canadian parents would rather have $100 in their own pockets each month than pay for programs that would care for other people’s children too."

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2014/06/20/justin_trudeau_peter_mack...

Sun, 2014-06-22 15:09

#68

infracaninophile $infracaninophile's picture$

terrytowel wrote:

In Susan Delacourt column yesterday she writes"that Canadian parents would rather have $100 in their own pockets each month than pay for programs that would care for other people’s children too."

You make it sound as if Delacourt is stating that as a fact. If one reads the article, one finds she is reporting that in 2006 the Conservatives "calculated correctly" that this was true. That doesn't necessarily mean that it would be true now (or that it was true for the population at large even then).

Families with children are a minority, but that does not mean that policies aimed at bettering the lot of the next generation are of interest only to parents. Education remains a very hot topic (at least in Ontario, and it appears to be true in BC as well), and it is ranked as a top priority by many without children or ties to the school system.

I think harnessing public concern for the welfare of the next generation (who, after all, will eventually be responsible for our economic prosperity) is very doable. In talking to local people who usually vote Conservative, I sometimes ask if they would object to tax hikes that they were sure would be applied to things that would benefit society as a whole, and I've included child care, education and hospital issues. The response is usually no, what they object to is "government waste." Peter Mackay and his mega-bucks flight from his fishing camp to a caucus meeting, was mentioned by a few, while the OLP issues came up more often.

We have a marketing problem getting a positive message out about these issues. Since I have no advertising/marketing expertise, I have no idea what the slution is, but I think there could be some effective approaches.

Sun, 2014-06-22 16:00

#69

terrytowel

infracaninophile wrote:

We have a marketing problem getting a positive message out about these issues. Since I have no advertising/marketing expertise, I have no idea what the slution is, but I think there could be some effective approaches.

Read Susan Delacourt book 'Shopping for Votes". It outlines how the Conservatives have marketed their message brilliantly. To win votes and the election. Most of these marketing ideas have come from Stephen Harper. There is also sections on the NDP and how they marketed their message to the electorate.

Sun, 2014-06-22 16:39

#70

welder

robbie_dee wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

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

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

If there is a by-election,only a PC candidate would win....I live in Niagara West Glanbrook...It is very rural.In fact,it's the only riding on the Niagara Peninsula that went PC last week...

Sun, 2014-06-22 20:08

#71

terrytowel

Tom Mulcair was asked about the letter (again) today on The West Block. This is what he said

"there were a couple of people of the 34 who had something to do with the NDP. Twenty-eight of the thirty-four had nothing to do with the NDP, so it was fair game in the middle of an election for a bunch of mostly Liberals to start attacking the NDP. It was a shame that a couple of NDPers were in there as well. I don’t think the criticism was valid. I know the values of the party, well espoused and represented by Andrea Horwath. I think she did a great job and you know what, she rode us to our best election result in 24 years in Ontario so she must have been doing something right."

http://globalnews.ca/news/1409254/transcript-episode-42-june-22/

Sun, 2014-06-22 21:17

#72

adma

welder wrote:
If there is a by-election,only a PC candidate would win....I live in Niagara West Glanbrook...It is very rural.In fact,it's the only riding on the Niagara Peninsula that went PC last week...

Actually, I wouldn't be that firm on such a prediction--yes, the dominant impression is of bible-belty rural Lincoln and West Lincoln; but there's also growing Hamilton 'burbs that aren't so fixed on the Tories, as well as Pelham, even Grimsby--none of it particularly "rural", and all of it either supportive of or swingable t/w opposition parties.

Now, imagine what the recent result might have been were Hudak not the PC candidate and had this not befallen the Liberal candidate. http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/4516155-niagara-west-glanbrook-liberal-candidate-apologizes-for-facebook-posting/

Mon, 2014-06-23 00:13

#73

Orangutan

Brachina wrote:

Anyone else notice that it wasn't till Sid Ryan stopped running for Oshawa that the NDP won it?

And I agree with Smokey, the NDP should throw out Sid Ryan, endorse the Liberal Party and Attacking the NDP is unacceptable, we throw out Buzz Hardgrove for doing that Sid Ryan and anyother Labour leader who said the same thing.

I totally agree with you. The general public don't like Sid Ryan. His continued attacks on the Bob Rae NDP government were a major contributing reason to the unpopularity of the government. He is a loud mouth that lacks any kind of reasoning ability. Good riddens if he leaves!

Mon, 2014-06-23 12:29

#74

welder

adma wrote:

welder wrote:
If there is a by-election,only a PC candidate would win....I live in Niagara West Glanbrook...It is very rural.In fact,it's the only riding on the Niagara Peninsula that went PC last week...

Actually, I wouldn't be that firm on such a prediction--yes, the dominant impression is of bible-belty rural Lincoln and West Lincoln; but there's also growing Hamilton 'burbs that aren't so fixed on the Tories, as well as Pelham, even Grimsby--none of it particularly "rural", and all of it either supportive of or swingable t/w opposition parties.

Now, imagine what the recent result might have been were Hudak not the PC candidate and had this not befallen the Liberal candidate. http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/4516155-niagara-west-glanbrook-liberal-candidate-apologizes-for-facebook-posting/

I live in Beamsville....Myparents live in Grimsby...Pelham is definately rural...

A telephone pole painted in PC blue and red would win here against both the Lib's and the Dips combined.The closestHudak ever came to being defeated was in03 when the borders were a bit differentand Vance Badawey (current mayor of PortColborne) almost beat him...

The riding is decidedly rural and decidedly Tory...

Mon, 2014-06-23 21:10

#75

adma

welder wrote:
I live in Beamsville....Myparents live in Grimsby...Pelham is definately rural...

A telephone pole painted in PC blue and red would win here against both the Lib's and the Dips combined.The closestHudak ever came to being defeated was in03 when the borders were a bit differentand Vance Badawey (current mayor of PortColborne) almost beat him...

The riding is decidedly rural and decidedly Tory...

But don't forget that most of Pelham's population is in Fonthill: more of a Welland satellite than "rural", and with a bit of a Liberal tendency at the best of times (and re the NDP, it *was* part of Kormos' turf in 1999/2003).

Yes, I understand that being in Beamsville can skew the picture--though even there, I'd wonder if any "wine country" retiree/expatriate influx might *potentially* trend away from Tory and t/w Liberal.

And above all, there's the Glanbrook/Stoney Creek factor to consider. *That's* the heart of non-Tory support (and even rural Glanbrook has an odd history of NDP doing above par; lingering Ian Deans memories?).

Oh, and 2003's Hudak-Badawey race wasn't *that* close; just under a 10-point differential, which was still pretty good for a sitting Tory in the Eves wipeout. However, let us consider the very first election under the *present* boundaries, which happens to be 2004's federal race: Conservative Dean Allison won by barely over a point--and there, once again, you can blame Stoney Creek, Fonthill/Pelham, and a dash of Grimsby for good measure.

So, with Hudak out of the picture, don't be surprised if it winds up something like that--or even a three-way-race, if the Horwath team feels it's still on a potential roll w/its "heartland strategy"...

(Oh, and re "the Lib's and the Dips combined": actually, combined, they outpolled Hudak by around 4700 votes this past election.)

Tue, 2014-06-24 02:01

#76

Aristotleded24

adma wrote:
Brachina wrote:
Anyone else notice that it wasn't till Sid Ryan stopped running for Oshawa that the NDP won it?

No; the NDP had lost one provincial election and two federal elections before Jen French won it. And besides, the ONDP was *third* in 1999 (the last pre-Ryan prov election--and federally, they were either third or fourth in 93-97-00). Given the state of the party in those years, it's hard to see anyone *other* than a Sid Ryan restoring the party to a state of Oshawa-competitiveness--but otherwise, the broader odds weren't stacked favourably, and it was more in spite of Sid Ryan than because of him. He may have fallen short; but he "set the momentum going", so to speak.

It's a bit more complex than that. In 2004, Ryan was the NDP candidate in Oshawa for the federal election. It was at one point a 3-way race with Ryan in the lead, until many people who wanted to vote NDP voted for the third-place Liberals to (unsuccessfully) stop the Conservatives. So it seems ironic that Ryan would go on to promote strategic voting having lost an electio because of that very thing.

Tue, 2014-06-24 02:57

#77

Rokossovsky

To be fair, the whole "strategic voting" thing in Ontario elections is basically the default position of the labour movement because they simply can not decide whether to vote for the Liberals or the ONDP, but they can agree on attacking the PCs. Sid in his position as OFL president has to support this position because there is no other consensus.

ATU113, which is a member of the OFL took down the attack ad on the Liberals shortly after the first week of the campaign, and I don't doubt that was because they, as an OFL member, had to conform to the consensus.

They were much more pro-Liberal in 2011, less so this time.

Where Sid screwed up was in his ill conceived off-the-cuff endorsement f the Liberal budget, because this resonated throughout the campaign and tainted the "neutrality" of the strategic vote.

I think the results prove basically that the "strategic vote" approach was a grave miscalculation, given the way things turned out, and felt all along that the labour movement should do the really "strategic" thing, which would have been to back the ONDP this time out, and barring that, reserve commitment and campaign on the issues, which is what OPSEU did.

The decision to support "strategic voting" is not really Sid Ryan's to make.

Tue, 2014-06-24 04:01

#78

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/06/23/kathleen_wynne_to_unve... Wynne to unveil major post-election cabinet shuffle[/url]

Tue, 2014-06-24 04:32

#79

onlinediscountanvils

Anyone know much about Helena Jaczek, the new Minister of Community and Social Services? rabble's search function only comes up with a single hit when she was rumoured to be interested in the role of Speaker. I see that she's a doctor, and was chief medical officer of health for York.

Tue, 2014-06-24 05:59

#80

onlinediscountanvils

Deb Matthews, Minister of Austerity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/matthews-hoskins-get-big-ne...

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is splitting her finance department in half, appointing a powerful minister whose sole job is to wrestle down the massive deficit and deal with record-high debt.

In her first major act since winning a majority government earlier this month, Ms. Wynne is looking to signal that she is serious about dealing with the province’s ballooning fiscal woes. She will vastly expand the post of Treasury Board president to include oversight of Crown agencies and responsibility for tough negotiations with government unions, Liberal sources said.

The Premier will put her closest political ally, Deputy Premier Deb Matthews, in the post – part of a sweeping cabinet shuffle to be unveiled Tuesday.

Ms. Wynne won election on a left-tilting platform, including the creation of a new provincial pension plan and the promise of $29-billion in spending on transit and other infrastructure. But the Liberals’ fiscal planning also calls for the $12.5-billion deficit to be eliminated in three years, with ambitious targets to restrain program spending and labour costs.

The province’s credit was downgraded two years ago and some feared it could take another hit this year with the big-spending budget, which will be reintroduced next month. The expanded Treasury Board role appears designed to head off the possibility.

Previously, the Treasury Board presidency was a minor job, usually performed by the finance minister, which consisted of approving day-to-day spending and ensuring it was in line with the budget. Finance Minister Charles Sousa will remain in charge of broad economic policy and budgeting, while handing off many of his other duties to Ms. Matthews.

Tue, 2014-06-24 07:50

#81

adma

Aristotleded24 wrote:
It's a bit more complex than that. In 2004, Ryan was the NDP candidate in Oshawa for the federal election. It was at one point a 3-way race with Ryan in the lead, until many people who wanted to vote NDP voted for the third-place Liberals to (unsuccessfully) stop the Conservatives.

As I said, "the broader odds weren't stacked favourably, and it was more in spite of Sid Ryan than because of him."

Tue, 2014-06-24 08:14

#82

terrytowel

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Deb Matthews, Minister of Austerity.

Wynne took a page from Andrea Horwath when she said she would appoint a "savings and accountability" minister.

Matthews will be in charge of finding savings in government.

But I guess the difference is that Matthews will also be the Union buster. As she is in charge of overseeing the negotiations of union contracts, with no new money on the table.

Tue, 2014-06-24 13:32

#83

Rokossovsky

terrytowel wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Deb Matthews, Minister of Austerity.

Wynne took a page from Andrea Horwath when she said she would appoint a "savings and accountability" minister.

Matthews will be in charge of finding savings in government.

But I guess the difference is that Matthews will also be the Union buster. As she is in charge of overseeing the negotiations of union contracts, with no new money on the table.

Tue, 2014-06-24 16:46

#84

Debater

Steve Paikin says Andrea Horwath hasn't been seen in public since Election Night.

Apparently no New Democrats showed up to Kathleen Wynne's swearing-in today, but there were 2 PC MPP's.

https://twitter.com/spaikin/status/481496180023508992

Tue, 2014-06-24 16:59

#85

terrytowel

Debater wrote:

Steve Paikin says Andrea Horwath hasn't been seen in public since Election Night.

Apparently no New Democrats showed up to Kathleen Wynne's swearing-in today, but there were 2 PC MPP's.

https://twitter.com/spaikin/status/481496180023508992

The thing is usually the other parties have some to be critical of the new cabinet. But if no one from the opposition to meet with the media, then the free ride for the Liberals continue.

Wonder what's up with Andrea.

Tue, 2014-06-24 17:50

#86

Rokossovsky

Sleeping?

Tue, 2014-06-24 17:56

#87

Pogo

terrytowel wrote:

The thing is usually the other parties have some to be critical of the new cabinet. But if no one from the opposition to meet with the media, then the free ride for the Liberals continue.

Wonder what's up with Andrea.

Did the PO's rain on the parade and get lots of press? It does seem somewhat bad form. I would imagine she is taking time off and what better time to do this.

Tue, 2014-06-24 19:15

#88

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

So Wynne has given the same speech as Couillard.

Welcome to the party,Ontario.

Wed, 2014-06-25 13:30

#89

terrytowel

Defeated candidates from the PC party appear on TVO The Agenda to talk about what went wrong for the PC Party in this past election.

http://theagenda.tvo.org/episode/204863/party-politics

Thu, 2014-06-26 08:23

#90

Debater

Kathleen Wynne's new cabinet:

http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurTeam/WhoWeAre/Cabinet.aspx

Thu, 2014-06-26 21:28

#91

Rokossovsky

100,000 few public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:
“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

Fri, 2014-06-27 00:57

#92

Debater

I'm kind of getting tired of hearing what right-winger Don Drummond thinks we should do.

Fri, 2014-06-27 02:36

#93

Rokossovsky

... thinks you are doing.

Fri, 2014-06-27 07:12

#94

nicky

http://cartoview.blogspot.ca/2014/06/seven-maps-for-ontario-election.html

Some interesting map of the Ontario results, especially this one that shows the pattern of NDP gains and losses:

Sat, 2014-06-28 01:24

#95

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

... thinks you are doing.

No, actually Kathleen Wynne has been much more reluctant than Dalton McGuinty to embrace the austerity measures that were recommended a couple of years ago.

One of the reasons that Dwight Duncan left the Wynne government last year is because he is more of a blue Liberal/fiscal Conservative type and was not chosen to continue as Finance Minister. Duncan disagreed with Wynne's more left-leaning approach and decided to resign his seat and go into the private sector.

He discussed some of this with Steve Paikin on TVO a couple weeks ago.

Sat, 2014-06-28 01:40

#96

Rokossovsky

Sorry. His analysis is based on the present budget. Not the past budget.

Sat, 2014-06-28 01:43

#97

Rokossovsky

Here is what he said, and it is my pleasure to post it again: 100,000 few public sector jobs possible under Wynne: Don Drummond

Quote:

After Drummond said he “wouldn’t be surprised” to see 100,000 fewer Ontario workers under the Liberals by 2017, Paikin sought clarification.

“Can I make sure I heard you right? You’re saying… or are you saying — that if the Liberals are to achieve the spending targets that they have put in their own budget, which call for pretty dramatic program spending cuts in the years ahead, they may also shed 100,000 jobs in the process?” Paikin asked.

It was quite a bit more nuanced than that, Drummond explained.

“Just take Service Ontario right now. Service Ontario is almost half delivered by the private sector — almost half delivered by the public sector. Would I be shocked by 2017 if that had shifted to two thirds or three quarters? Not at all,” he said.

“That’s a transfer from the public sector to the private sector. And that got missed by a lot of people, I think.”

Fri, 2014-07-11 05:23

#98

PrairieDemocrat15

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

... thinks you are doing.

No, actually Kathleen Wynne has been much more reluctant than Dalton McGuinty to embrace the austerity measures that were recommended a couple of years ago.

One of the reasons that Dwight Duncan left the Wynne government last year is because he is more of a blue Liberal/fiscal Conservative type and was not chosen to continue as Finance Minister. Duncan disagreed with Wynne's more left-leaning approach and decided to resign his seat and go into the private sector.

He discussed some of this with Steve Paikin on TVO a couple weeks ago.

Didn't Dalton strike a (business dominated) panel a few years ago to look at privatizing at least part of Ontario's major crowns? And wouldn't you know, Wynne has also paid a bunch of bankers to decide what to do with Ontario's infrastructure.

Fri, 2014-07-11 05:40

#99

PrairieDemocrat15

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/reevely-ontario-borrows-privatiza...

“Sweating the balance sheets,” as the Liberals call it, is supposed to help fund the re-elected government’s infrastructure plans. Privatization, as the opposition calls it, is a dirty enough word that when a special panel Finance Minister Charles Sousa named to advise him reports at the end of the year, the response will probably be ugly.

“Mr. Speaker,” he added, “this is not something new. The United Kingdom and Australia have adopted some of these measures to their great benefit.”

The Liberals know selling Ontario's crowns is very unpopular and as a fire-sale is seeming ever more likely and opposition grows, they government is changing its messaging. First it was an "assest sale," then it was "assest recycling," now its "sweating the balance sheets." I'm sure they will come up with a few more euphemisms before the panel reports.

The citizen is right to point out that Australia;s dreadful "assest recycling" scheme is still very much theoretical. However, after the Royal Mail fiasco (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28250963), I don't think the British can afford any more of these "benefits."

Thu, 2014-07-24 14:15

#100

onlinediscountanvils

The Liberals passed their budget 56-37.

Fri, 2014-08-01 10:06

#101

Sean in Ottawa

Carol Goar explains how it really works.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/07/31/ontario_gives_with_...

41st Parliament of Ontario

Pages