2013 Ontario Budget

89 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

AW, you just used the same anology and argument that people have used for 2 tier healthcare - if we have a duel system, where the rich can pay for better services and medical attention, it will free up the "public system" and thus there will be less wait times. You just said let the rich pay for the special lane and it will reduce grid lock.

mark_alfred

Wynne responds to NDP demands.  Wynne will introduce legislation this fall to create the position of a Financial Accountability Officer.  However, Wynne does not plan to give the ombudsman oversight of hospitals and she is going to go forward with her plan to allow wealthy people the option to abuse the car-pool lanes.  It will be interesting to see how the NDP feels about this.  Wynne apparently wants to meet with Andrea next week.

mark_alfred

Argument against the gov't's planned high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes.  link

autoworker autoworker's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

AW, you just used the same anology and argument that people have used for 2 tier healthcare - if we have a duel system, where the rich can pay for better services and medical attention, it will free up the "public system" and thus there will be less wait times. You just said let the rich pay for the special lane and it will reduce grid lock.

Highways aren't hospitals. You're equivocating.

Fidel

Keep in mind that laissez faire ideology hasn't worked any where tried since 14th century Italy. Keynes called for "euthanasia of the rentier" in economies for good reason. Tollbooth economy is just feudalism with lipstick.

If Canada's political leaders were CEO's of corporations, they'd have been fired off the job long ago for running it all into the ground.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Sigh, cleave to the status quo, and charge an egalitarian fee (which is tantamount to a flat tax) on all 400 highways, and the QEW, so that everyone can pay more to idle in traffic with their a/c cranked up, keeping in mind that motorists expensing their luxury vehicles, gas, repairs, insurance, parking, and tolls, will continue to do so, while everyone else continues to spend an extra hour on their commute, while public transit languishes for lack of additional subsidy, while transit authorities are left with no recourse but to raise fares, or reduce service, for those who can't afford a vehicle. How is that progressive?

Fidel

The feds could fix the $100+ billion dollar infrastructure deficit across Canada tomorrow if they had political will to do it. ALL of their economic crises are by their own doing or inaction. Their apparent impotence to do anything progressive is self-inflicted. Their paralysis is from the neck upwards only.

Our corrupt stooges in Ottawa are hired to wreck the economy without using so much as a sledgehammer. It is their purpose in the neoliberal scheme of things. Wrecking the economy paves the way for their plan to selloff the moneymakers to rich friends of the party. Their intentions are that once it's all privatized and converted to tollbooth pay per use, all living things in general will be dependent on their alleged free market ideology which is just another form of central planning  in disguise. They want to put us on a tolbooth road to neofeudalism filled with gaping potholes, washouts and dead ends.

But first we must experience the bad services and shortages in general. Once people are fed up with their impotence to do anything progressive, then will their privatization and neofeudal order begin to look like a better choice, meaning the one choice we were prodded toward "choosing" all along. They tried on accelerated neoliberal market baloney in Pinochet's Chile and Yeltsin's Russia, Argentina, Thailand, dozens of U.S. states, Ontario and a few other places where failing miserably. So now it's a "go slow" approach. What people don't know about the failed experiments can't hurt them is the way now toward the federally-orchestrated neoliberal ideology in Canada since the 1980s-90's.

autoworker autoworker's picture

It's fair to suggest that the transportation file has been mismanaged (take the sale of the 407, for example), but there are many other bad, and cynical decisions to examine (gas plant cancellations being the most recent boondoggle-- I would add nuclear power generation). But, since this thread is about the Ontario budget, I thought I might broach the idea of tax shifting. I realize that tolls are unpopular, and the prospect of seeing a Lexus breezing through a "hot" lane might cause indigestion, but it's an appropriate place to talk about cost, revenue, and expenditure in the public interest. How Ontario decides how to raise, and where it plans to spend it's residents' money, speaks volumes about its future direction. There's no time like the present to debate that. An election needs to be called this year, unless the Wynne and Horwath can agree on a coalition. Ontario needs a stable government going into equalization negotiations next year. Ontario must make the fiscal imbalance its priority, and that necessitates a concerted political front to hold firm on Ontario's demands. Future program expenditures depend on receiving net equalization increases, and a larger share of health transfers, to avoid the inevitable austerity pressures, should interest rates rise, and debt servicing increases as a share of the budget.

Aristotleded24

autoworker wrote:
What does transportation infrastructure have to do with access to health services? There is no analogy here that I can see, unless taxpayers were to provide each resident with a vehicle, and then pay for its repairs when it breaks down. The idea is to make the existing infrastructure less congested by generating revenue towards affordable, and efficient public transit that's accessible to everyone.

You're missing the point. The idea of HOV lanes is to dedicate some space for people to travel more smoothly by carpooling or what have you. If people who travel by themselves can just pay an extra fee to drive in a lane set aside for carpooling, how does that help the people who have chosen to do the right thing?

Absolutely, discussion of tolls on roads and expansion of public transit is worthwhile, but this isn't about converting the roads to tolls, nor can I see where Wynne proposed to use the funding from the HOV tolls to put into transit.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
What does transportation infrastructure have to do with access to health services? There is no analogy here that I can see, unless taxpayers were to provide each resident with a vehicle, and then pay for its repairs when it breaks down. The idea is to make the existing infrastructure less congested by generating revenue towards affordable, and efficient public transit that's accessible to everyone.

You're missing the point. The idea of HOV lanes is to dedicate some space for people to travel more smoothly by carpooling or what have you. If people who travel by themselves can just pay an extra fee to drive in a lane set aside for carpooling, how does that help the people who have chosen to do the right thing?

Absolutely, discussion of tolls on roads and expansion of public transit is worthwhile, but this isn't about converting the roads to tolls, nor can I see where Wynne proposed to use the funding from the HOV tolls to put
into transit.

I agree that HOV lanes should be prioritized for their intended purpose. But if the lanes aren't being fully utilized during peak volumes, then it's a waste of not only infrastructure, but all the excess carbon and frustration that's generated with the commute. Personally, I'd rather see more car pooling, and expansion of GO service in the GTA, for instance. I don't know if Wynne has earmarked toll revenues for transit, but she should. Perhaps Horwath might become less populist, and more amenable to tolls, if that were to be the case. From my planet, I do believe that the LPO, and the ONDP need to formalize their relationship, at least until after the next federal election.

toaster

Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
What does transportation infrastructure have to do with access to health services? There is no analogy here that I can see, unless taxpayers were to provide each resident with a vehicle, and then pay for its repairs when it breaks down. The idea is to make the existing infrastructure less congested by generating revenue towards affordable, and efficient public transit that's accessible to everyone.

You're missing the point. The idea of HOV lanes is to dedicate some space for people to travel more smoothly by carpooling or what have you. If people who travel by themselves can just pay an extra fee to drive in a lane set aside for carpooling, how does that help the people who have chosen to do the right thing?

Absolutely, discussion of tolls on roads and expansion of public transit is worthwhile, but this isn't about converting the roads to tolls, nor can I see where Wynne proposed to use the funding from the HOV tolls to put into transit.

Doing the right thing would be taking transit.  As was previously said, Rapid transit options are available where these HOV lanes are located.  The analogy to health care is ridiculous.  You've got a lot of nerve comparing people (voluntarily I might add, as rapid transit is available) sitting in a car an extra 30 minutes to people being denied health care access.  These voluntary taxes would not lead to privatization in anyway.

Aristotleded24

toaster wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

autoworker wrote:
What does transportation infrastructure have to do with access to health services? There is no analogy here that I can see, unless taxpayers were to provide each resident with a vehicle, and then pay for its repairs when it breaks down. The idea is to make the existing infrastructure less congested by generating revenue towards affordable, and efficient public transit that's accessible to everyone.

You're missing the point. The idea of HOV lanes is to dedicate some space for people to travel more smoothly by carpooling or what have you. If people who travel by themselves can just pay an extra fee to drive in a lane set aside for carpooling, how does that help the people who have chosen to do the right thing?

Absolutely, discussion of tolls on roads and expansion of public transit is worthwhile, but this isn't about converting the roads to tolls, nor can I see where Wynne proposed to use the funding from the HOV tolls to put into transit.

Doing the right thing would be taking transit.  As was previously said, Rapid transit options are available where these HOV lanes are located.  The analogy to health care is ridiculous.  You've got a lot of nerve comparing people (voluntarily I might add, as rapid transit is available) sitting in a car an extra 30 minutes to people being denied health care access.  These voluntary taxes would not lead to privatization in anyway.

I wasn't the one who made the comparison to health care. As for the issue of HOV lanes, I would challenge that contention. Which rapid transit lines are we thinking of? Mississauga won't have its BRT up and running for a while, ditto for VIVA Rapidways in the York Region. And much of the transit infrastructure in the GTA is oriented towards moving people in and out of downtown Toronto, so if you have to travel from say Mississauga to Stoufville, doing so by transit is not very convenient. Taking transit may be the "rigth thing," but for all the costs in lost productivity and congestion, there are many instances where driving will get you there faster than taking transit, and people do value their time. Of course transit needs more funding and better routes to get people to and from where they want to do, but it's not clear that the fees Wynne proposed would go towards that.

janfromthebruce

I didn't say anything about denial. It was anology. I have heard forever the same anology that autoworker used. Let the rich pay for the special "whatever" and it will free up the public "whatever". No, it won't.

Personally, we have highways in which we have dedicated lanes for cars with more than one person.

mark_alfred

I agree with Jan.  I don't see how anyone can argue that it's progressive to create Lexus lanes out of car-pooling lanes.  If you're not car-pooling, then stay out of the car-pooling lane.

autoworker autoworker's picture

I think it would be progressive not to spend a good chunk of one's life stuck in traffic.

Aristotleded24

autoworker wrote:
I think it would be progressive not to spend a good chunk of one's life stuck in traffic.

So you would rather people spend an even larger chunk of their lives on public transit systems which are slow and don't go where people want them to?

NDPP

Horwath: NDP Will Vote For Liberal Budget

http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/05/21/horwath-liberal-budget....

"No spring election. NDP to support Premier Wynne's budget."

After BC results no surprise here...

janfromthebruce

I think that the Ontario NDP would look stupid if after Wynne met all the add-ins from the New Dems than said they would not support it.

 

socialdemocrati...

NO THE NDP MSST OPOSE ANY AND aLL LIBERALS ALWAYS OR ELSE THEY ARE SELLOUTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSS

Brachina

Does anyone have the full list of all of Andreas demands that Wynn has met?

Public Auto insurence.
Jobs Training for young people.
An Ontario PBO.
More oversight over healthcare.
Wait times of 5 days for home care

And what else, I know there's more.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Does anyone have the full list of all of Andreas demands that Wynn has met? Public Auto insurence.

Thanks for that. I needed the laugh!

Michelle

mark_alfred wrote:

The NDP is typically against user fees and flat taxes.  Sources of revenue should be progressive taxes.  Also, I don't think that owning or leasing a car equates with being wealthy.  83.8% of households have owned, leased or operated a vehicle in 2011 (CANSIM table  203-0027).  To state that this portion of the population has no financial worries is silly. 

I agree with Horwath on her position on the HOV lanes (they're supposed to be there for high occupancy vehicles, not for people who are driving single and pay for the privilege).  And I generally agree that flat taxes are not ideal. 

But using this statistic to bolster your argument is silly.  The person you are responding to was not talking about people who have "leased or operated" vehicles.  He was talking about people who either own vehicles or have long term leases.  Leasing a vehicle could mean a weekend rental.  That statistic would have included radiorahim and I in that 84% because we occasionally rented a car to go away on weekends, even though we didn't actually own or long-term lease a car for years (and I haven't owned one for most of my adult life - but I did occasionally rent cars, and I have had my driver's license since I was 16 and have often driven other people's cars).

Let's get serious here.  People who live in larger centres who can afford to own a car (and that certainly isn't 83% of households or anywhere close to it) can also afford to pay for auto insurance.  If they can't, there's the occasional weekend car rental or public transit.  (And public transit, by the way, should have NO user fees in order to encourage those people who DO own cars to use their cars less, and to give those who can't afford cars or who choose not to own one for whatever reason a financial break - maybe the NDP should consider adopting that policy, although I'm sure it's too radically left-wing for them.)  I know, I'm living in Toronto now where there is decent public transit (getting worse all the time due to lack of proper planning or funding), but I lived in Kingston without a car for many years, and their public transit system is not the greatest, to say the least, because I couldn't afford a car.  Most Ontarians do live in larger urban centres with some kind of public transit available.  And those who don't live in large urban centres get cheaper insurance than those of us who do anyhow.

We just got a car a couple of weeks ago, after years of not having one.  A friend was unloading his car for a price we couldn't resist, and we worked out that the price we were paying to rent cars from Autoshare for weekend trips and errands in the city was about equal to owning one, even factoring in the insurance, repairs, and gas.  So we bought it.  Did the insurance hurt?  Yep, it surely did, especially since I don't have much insurance experience, but I'm not complaining.  We took that cost into account when deciding whether owning a car was worth it, and for many years it wasn't, so I didn't own one.  It makes me extra-specially careful on the road (don't need tickets or accidents making my insurance rate go up).  It stopped me from buying a car for many years up until now. It makes me think twice about whether I need to drive it to do this or that, as opposed to walking, taking transit or taking my e-bike (which I still use regularly for errands or when I go downtown), because I estimated a low mileage per year when applying for insurance.  Now, I would be much happier with PUBLIC auto insurance - I'd love to think that any profit coming from my insurance premiums will be going toward the public good.  But again, probably a little too radical for today's ONDP, and besides, who'd believe them anyhow?

One thing I'm discovering, as a new car owner, is that it's actually cheaper to drive to work than to take public transit once you already own a car.  Isn't that nuts?  I mean, if you were buying a car JUST to drive to work, then yes, public transit is cheaper than owning a car.  But we found that in addition to taking public transit in Toronto to commute (although we mostly do that by e-bike - cheaper AND faster than transit, even factoring in the cost of the bike), we found we also rented Autoshare cars to do stuff we couldn't do on public transit or e-bike easily, like go away for weekends to places that VIA doesn't go, or to transport bulky stuff.  And once you own a car, the marginal cost of driving to work every day, if you live near where you work, is way, way less than taking transit.  I discovered that the cost of gas to get me to and from work every day works out to about $15 per week, even at the high gas prices now.  TTC would cost me at least $30, and that's assuming that I don't make any stops along the way to or from work.  With a car, you can stop and run errands on the way home - can't do that on the TTC without paying an additional fare. 

Not to mention that when you take the car, you always get a seat, and you get there in a fraction of the time it takes on the TTC if you're going somewhere outside of the downtown core (and I work in an industrial park way up in North York near the 401).  The only thing that would induce me to take transit to work now is if it cost less than taking my e-bike or car, since it takes over an hour for me to get to work by transit, with two bus changes per trip, and it's often a miserable experience due to overcrowding.  But it doesn't cost less than either of them.  It's pretty dumb, really.  Want to get people out of their cars, and make life less miserable for people who can't afford cars or choose not to own one?  Free and properly-funded public transit would go a long way towards that.  Transit City would have been well underway now had it not been for the Ford clown show (and the province's dithering).  I'd happily pay more property tax (and everyone pays property taxes whether they're doing it indirectly through their rent or directly if they own a house) in order to make this a reality.  And I would probably take public transit to work more often if it was free, despite the inconvenience and overcrowding, because I actually like the exercise of walking to and from bus stops, etc.

I'm going to be mighty pissed off when I start seeing a bunch of single-occupant vehicles in HOV lanes.  That's just wrong and completely defeats the purpose of HAVING HOV lanes.  Horwath is absolutely right on that one.  Is it worth triggering an election over?  No, probably not.  I think she's doing the right thing at this point - she's gotten pretty much all she can get, and this budget is way better than the risk of a Hudak government.  I agree with Jan above - the right-to-work shit and other regressive policies that are coming if Hudak gets in is way scarier than anything in this budget, at least for me.  And if anyone thinks the ONDP is going to win an election called now, they're living in a dreamworld.  It's not worth the gamble at this point.  Too much to lose if the Cons win.

janfromthebruce

Michelle wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

The NDP is typically against user fees and flat taxes.  Sources of revenue should be progressive taxes.  Also, I don't think that owning or leasing a car equates with being wealthy.  83.8% of households have owned, leased or operated a vehicle in 2011 (CANSIM table  203-0027).  To state that this portion of the population has no financial worries is silly. 

I agree with Horwath on her position on the HOV lanes (they're supposed to be there for high occupancy vehicles, not for people who are driving single and pay for the privilege).  And I generally agree that flat taxes are not ideal. 

But using this statistic to bolster your argument is silly.  The person you are responding to was not talking about people who have "leased or operated" vehicles.  He was talking about people who either own vehicles or have long term leases.  Leasing a vehicle could mean a weekend rental.  That statistic would have included radiorahim and I in that 84% because we occasionally rented a car to go away on weekends, even though we didn't actually own or long-term lease a car for years (and I haven't owned one for most of my adult life - but I did occasionally rent cars, and I have had my driver's license since I was 16 and have often driven other people's cars).

Let's get serious here.  People who live in larger centres who can afford to own a car (and that certainly isn't 83% of households or anywhere close to it) can also afford to pay for auto insurance.  If they can't, there's the occasional weekend car rental or public transit.  (And public transit, by the way, should have NO user fees in order to encourage those people who DO own cars to use their cars less, and to give those who can't afford cars or who choose not to own one for whatever reason a financial break - maybe the NDP should consider adopting that policy, although I'm sure it's too radically left-wing for them.)  I know, I'm living in Toronto now where there is decent public transit (getting worse all the time due to lack of proper planning or funding), but I lived in Kingston without a car for many years, and their public transit system is not the greatest, to say the least, because I couldn't afford a car.  Most Ontarians do live in larger urban centres with some kind of public transit available.  And those who don't live in large urban centres get cheaper insurance than those of us who do anyhow.

We just got a car a couple of weeks ago, after years of not having one.  A friend was unloading his car for a price we couldn't resist, and we worked out that the price we were paying to rent cars from Autoshare for weekend trips and errands in the city was about equal to owning one, even factoring in the insurance, repairs, and gas.  So we bought it.  Did the insurance hurt?  Yep, it surely did, especially since I don't have much insurance experience, but I'm not complaining.  We took that cost into account when deciding whether owning a car was worth it, and for many years it wasn't, so I didn't own one.  It makes me extra-specially careful on the road (don't need tickets or accidents making my insurance rate go up).  It stopped me from buying a car for many years up until now. It makes me think twice about whether I need to drive it to do this or that, as opposed to walking, taking transit or taking my e-bike (which I still use regularly for errands or when I go downtown), because I estimated a low mileage per year when applying for insurance.  Now, I would be much happier with PUBLIC auto insurance - I'd love to think that any profit coming from my insurance premiums will be going toward the public good.  But again, probably a little too radical for today's ONDP, and besides, who'd believe them anyhow?

One thing I'm discovering, as a new car owner, is that it's actually cheaper to drive to work than to take public transit once you already own a car.  Isn't that nuts?  I mean, if you were buying a car JUST to drive to work, then yes, public transit is cheaper than owning a car.  But we found that in addition to taking public transit in Toronto to commute (although we mostly do that by e-bike - cheaper AND faster than transit, even factoring in the cost of the bike), we found we also rented Autoshare cars to do stuff we couldn't do on public transit or e-bike easily, like go away for weekends to places that VIA doesn't go, or to transport bulky stuff.  And once you own a car, the marginal cost of driving to work every day, if you live near where you work, is way, way less than taking transit.  I discovered that the cost of gas to get me to and from work every day works out to about $15 per week, even at the high gas prices now.  TTC would cost me at least $30, and that's assuming that I don't make any stops along the way to or from work.  With a car, you can stop and run errands on the way home - can't do that on the TTC without paying an additional fare. 

Not to mention that when you take the car, you always get a seat, and you get there in a fraction of the time it takes on the TTC if you're going somewhere outside of the downtown core (and I work in an industrial park way up in North York near the 401).  The only thing that would induce me to take transit to work now is if it cost less than taking my e-bike or car, since it takes over an hour for me to get to work by transit, with two bus changes per trip, and it's often a miserable experience due to overcrowding.  But it doesn't cost less than either of them.  It's pretty dumb, really.  Want to get people out of their cars, and make life less miserable for people who can't afford cars or choose not to own one?  Free and properly-funded public transit would go a long way towards that.  Transit City would have been well underway now had it not been for the Ford clown show (and the province's dithering).  I'd happily pay more property tax (and everyone pays property taxes whether they're doing it indirectly through their rent or directly if they own a house) in order to make this a reality.  And I would probably take public transit to work more often if it was free, despite the inconvenience and overcrowding, because I actually like the exercise of walking to and from bus stops, etc.

I'm going to be mighty pissed off when I start seeing a bunch of single-occupant vehicles in HOV lanes.  That's just wrong and completely defeats the purpose of HAVING HOV lanes.  Horwath is absolutely right on that one.  Is it worth triggering an election over?  No, probably not.  I think she's doing the right thing at this point - she's gotten pretty much all she can get, and this budget is way better than the risk of a Hudak government.  I agree with Jan above - the right-to-work shit and other regressive policies that are coming if Hudak gets in is way scarier than anything in this budget, at least for me.  And if anyone thinks the ONDP is going to win an election called now, they're living in a dreamworld.  It's not worth the gamble at this point.  Too much to lose if the Cons win.

yes

kropotkin1951

The NDP asked for a limited amount of minor policies and those were mostly met.  They can't start adding items to the list just because they didn't ask for enough to begin with. In labour relations that is called bargaining in bad faith and they would suffer in the polls for trying it.

Yup including public auto insurance in the list of things they asked for was funny but unfortunately it is hard to tell whether the poster was serious or not.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Yup including public auto insurance in the list of things they asked for was funny but unfortunately it is hard to tell whether the poster was serious or not.

If you were referring to me, what I meant was that it's a joke to call this public auto insurance, as I come from a province that has that. It's a classic case of trying to be all things to all people and pleasing nobody. It reminded the NDP base that the NDP chickened out and broke its promise to implement public auto insurance the last time it was elected, and I can't imagine this is going to win over any swing votes. Can you imagine the water-cooler conversation? "Yeah, I never thought about the NDP, but that 15% cut in insurance is great! I'm taking an orange sign in the next campaign!"

mark_alfred

Hi Michelle.  You're likely right that the statistic may have covered a broader segment of the population than was appropriate.  Still, the flat out assessment that vehicle ownership = wealth, and therefore it equals good policy to convert car-sharing lanes to so-called HOT lanes seemed wrong on a variety of levels (all previously discussed).

I myself was a user of Autoshare back in the pre-Zip Car/Car2Go era.  It was okay, but I found that simply using my bike or transit or a cab once in a while was better.

I recall feeling disappointed when the Rae NDP did not implement public auto insurance.  The Rae NDP did some good things, but that oversight was a disappointment.  Still, often big initiatives like that are second term projects. 

From what I've read (and do correct me if I'm wrong) auto insurance rates in Ontario are disproportionately higher than are rates elsewhere in Canada (regardless of lower collision rates).  Regulations to ensure fairness of big business entities like banks and insurance companies seems a good thing to advocate for.  The argument "but car drivers are evil, so let them be swindled" doesn't wash with me. 

Anyway, despite nuances I feel we're in agreement on many things.  The NDP did well with the negotiations with the Liberals.  Hopefully next election the NDP will win.

kropotkin1951

mark_alfred wrote:

I recall feeling disappointed when the Rae NDP did not implement public auto insurance.  The Rae NDP did some good things, but that oversight was a disappointment.  Still, often big initiatives like that are second term projects. 

I don't think that is the case. Both BC and Sask got auto insurance in the first term of their CCF/NDP governments.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

I recall feeling disappointed when the Rae NDP did not implement public auto insurance.  The Rae NDP did some good things, but that oversight was a disappointment.  Still, often big initiatives like that are second term projects. 

I don't think that is the case. Both BC and Sask got auto insurance in the first term of their CCF/NDP governments.

As did Manitoba.

Michelle

I agree with you that corporations like insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to swindle us.  I'm fine with that being part of the ONDP's platform.  Heck, I'm okay with the regulation of bank fees and debit card fees and that kind of stuff too.  What I have a problem with is the ONDP's priorities.  When they prioritize lowering car insurance rates over, say, raising welfare rates, or other policies that should be core, that's the problem.  I couldn't believe it a couple of months ago when I saw that insurance rates were going to be the dealbreaker.  Like, seriously?  Jebus.

But as you say, I think we agree on more than we might disagree, and I think Horwath did the right thing here - and you know me, nothing is left enough for me. ;)  But this is the best that could be done in this case (and certainly by this political party), and it's good enough for now.  Honestly, my expectations are so low these days that this was better than I thought it would be.

Regarding your remarks about Autoshare - we didn't use Autoshare for commuting or running errands.  We also walked or e-biked or took transit for that.  We had Autoshare in case we had to do errands that involved items we couldn't do on the TTC, or if we had to leave the city and go to a place where it was a pain in the ass to link up transit systems (like, anywhere in the 905), or if we were going on weekend trips to visit family since my family live in places that VIA and the bus system don't go to regularly.

socialdemocrati...

Yep. You get into power, and you deliver on what you promise. Why's that hard to understand? It's telling that Rae didn't keep his promise, and Ontario is the province with a one-term NDP government.

janfromthebruce

yes, and the 1990-1995 Rae NDP govt happen right in the worse recession since the depression. Just so we have a context. And Mulroney was in power and signed NAFTA, that agreement which stated that if something private was made public the private companies who wanted to sell or provide that service could sue for lost income.

Sadly that had a lot to do with the Rae govt reneging on public auto insurance because insurance companies along with ones from the States would sue the pants off of the Ontario govt which was in the depth of recession, like every single other govt and also federally.

I'm just saying that context is everything and when the previous govts of BC, Sask, and Manitoba didn't have to deal with the NAFTA agreement. Which is also why we never want to go to private health insurance or even user pay and stuff because once we lose it, we pay big time.

Of course, if we could just say "tough" and let them sue and not pay. But that would also be a very long and expensive fight. Which is why international and biding agreements done by cons or libs ends up not being good for ordinary people - which is the intended purpose of them.

kropotkin1951

And sadly there is no party whose platform says we will get out of those deals if they form government.  They are here forever. That is the political consensus.

janfromthebruce

Sure krop - no platform to get out of deal. Let's look at the cost of reneging on the gas plant deals that McGuinty did - the cost to ensure election of 3 liberal MPPs was in the billions as the dust settles, not including his proroguing parliament, resigning as leader and as of today, resigning his seat. Pretty sad to leave in that way for a Premier in power for 10 years.

 

janfromthebruce

In other ON news about the Ontario Lib budget passing with NDP support

AM640 On-Air Personality on ONDP Leader: “I think whore is the operative syllable there” (UPDATED)

Schizas: Just to get back to our previous quick quotes on Andrea Horwath. I think whore is the operative syllable there

Oakley: Well, well let’s not take it that far

Schizas: What do you mean? She was bought.

Oakley: (in agreement) Alright, bought and paid for. Alright, it’s pejorative

Schizas: Alright, Sorry, I’ll take the hit.

Oakley: That’s alright.

Schizas: I’ll take the hit.

As Justin Stayshyn (h/t transcript) rightly notes, “Lou Schizas works for AM640 so this isn’t just some random guy calling Andrea a whore.”

The exchange took place [this AM] on the The John Oakley Show during a panel with Buzz Hargrove and Catherine Swift, who apparently did not call Schizas out on his comment after Oakley’s soft chiding.

Ms. Swift is a Past President of the Empire Club of Canada, a Director of the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, and SOS Childrens Villages Canada, and is currently President of International Small Business Congress. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/4106-catherine-swift.html

But Hargrove said nothing, squat. So much for all that progressive social union stuff and CAW education. Hargrove sure disappoints. Remember silencing is condoning and that is disgusting.

 

janfromthebruce

Radio show guest refers to Andrea Horwath using slur

“I was taken back,” said Hargrove, who added he regularly goes head-to-head with Schizas on air, but didn’t say anything because Oakley addressed his comments.

Swift, Hargrove and former premier Ernest “Ernie” Eves are regular contributors on Oakley’s weekly “The Econoclash Panel.”

Hargrove told the Star the comment came after Oakley asked a question about former premier Dalton McGuinty’s legacy, and the NDP’s support of the Liberal government.

Yes, Hargrove was so taken aback that he said zip, squat. Funny about that as Buzz never use to be at a loss for words and standing up and speaking up for injustice and oppression. Sad day indeed - shame.

snip

NDP MPP Taras Natyshak sent an open letter to the radio station Wednesday, saying Schizas “crossed the line” in using the word to refer to his party’s leader.

“We can disagree on political points. We can have heated debates and we at the NDP don’t shy away from a fight. But let’s not forget respect,” it reads.

Classy and shows progressive labour

Natyshak studied political science and labour studies at the University of Windsor, and prior to his election, served as Director of Training for the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA).

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council deals with complaints about its member stations, and AM640 is a member of the council. Its executive director, John MacNab, said it is too early to know if any complaints about Schizas’s comments have come in, but he did say the council would act even if only one complaint was made. (from the 1st linked article)

janfromthebruce

janfromthebruce wrote:

In other ON news about the Ontario Lib budget passing with NDP support

AM640 On-Air Personality on ONDP Leader: “I think whore is the operative syllable there” (UPDATED)

Schizas: Just to get back to our previous quick quotes on Andrea Horwath. I think whore is the operative syllable there

Oakley: Well, well let’s not take it that far

Schizas: What do you mean? She was bought.

Oakley: (in agreement) Alright, bought and paid for. Alright, it’s pejorative

Schizas: Alright, Sorry, I’ll take the hit.

Oakley: That’s alright.

Schizas: I’ll take the hit.

As Justin Stayshyn (h/t transcript) rightly notes, “Lou Schizas works for AM640 so this isn’t just some random guy calling Andrea a whore.”

The exchange took place [this AM] on the The John Oakley Show during a panel with Buzz Hargrove and Catherine Swift, who apparently did not call Schizas out on his comment after Oakley’s soft chiding.

Ms. Swift is a Past President of the Empire Club of Canada, a Director of the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, and SOS Childrens Villages Canada, and is currently President of International Small Business Congress. http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/4106-catherine-swift.html

But Hargrove said nothing, squat. So much for all that progressive social union stuff and CAW education. Hargrove sure disappoints. Remember silencing is condoning and that is disgusting.

 

Ian Capstick ‏@iancapstick 12 Jun

So, Buzz Hargrove and Catherine Swift were on the panel and failed to speak out after a woman was called a whore on live radio!? #shame

kropotkin1951

That is absolutely appalling but then Buzz lost my respect a long time ago. This is just more proof he is a self centered arrogant jerk.

janfromthebruce

Well it may well suggest that Hargrove is selective in which females get defended and which ones do not. That is the shame part. I do wonder how he would have responded if it was the liberal premier "Wynne" being called a "whore".

Pages