Hudak wins Ontario PC race

Trudeau didn't win the federal Liberal leadership until the fourth ballot.  Didn't seem to hold him back, for whatever that's worth.

It took six ballots for John Robarts, and four ballots for Bill Davis.

I have to think this is a pretty good outcome for the NDP.

Andrea will compare very favourably to Hudak and McGuinty (assuming he sticks it out -which I'm not so sure about)

Policy wise there is little to distinguish the Liberals and Conservatives other than the HST and the Cons are in a tough spot with it.  Other issues are mostly window dressing, or unlikely to really reach out to the types of people the Cons need to peel off from Liberal support.

All in all 2011 is looking better and better for NDP fortunes.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Policy wise there is little to distinguish the Liberals and Conservatives other than the HST and the Cons are in a tough spot with it.  Other issues are mostly window dressing, or unlikely to really reach out to the types of people the Cons need to peel off from Liberal support.

All in all 2011 is looking better and better for NDP fortunes.

Hudak represents a swing to the right for the Tories and even if the differences between McGuinty and Hudak are exaggerated I think the Libs may have an easy time painting him as "scary."  I think a "dime's worth of difference" campaign for the NDP would be more effective right now at the federal level, as it's hard to tell Harper and Iggy apart these days.

It also depends on how purely one wants to interpret Mike Harris--or, moreover, the original appeal of--as "right".  After all, when it comes to such things as social issues, he tended more to the libertarian than the conservative--and I suspect it's things like that which made him attractive to voters, i.e. he wasn't exactly a Stockwell Day case.

BA I beg to disagree. This man will never get elected in Ontario. Ever. That is my prediction and I'm staying with it.

Scary though that Harper has shown just how slimy he is by having people like this man in his cabinet. Also shows how the Christian evangelicals are now behind these kind of backwards thinking whack jobs.

Ontario remembers well the Harris years. Having this racist ass as his mentor is certainly going to scare off a lot of people, although not surprisingly when he came out against the "greed" of the unions, many people all the suddenliked him.

I am convinced that the majority of people are bleeping fools.

Stargazer wrote:

BA I beg to disagree. This man will never get elected in Ontario. Ever. That is my prediction and I'm staying with it.

Scary though that Harper has shown just how slimy he is by having people like this man in his cabinet. Also shows how the Christian evangelicals are now behind these kind of backwards thinking whack jobs.

 

Ontario remembers well the Harris years. Having this racist ass as his mentor is certainly going to scare off a lot of people, although not surprisingly when he came out against the "greed" of the unions, many people all the suddenliked him.

I am convinced that the majority of people are bleeping fools.

 

Lord don't take anything I said as suggesting Hudak is electable.  What I am only suggesting that overplaying the 'scary' card will likely not work of the Liberals.  Hudak just isn't Harris in demenour.  Policy-wise that's a different story.

I wonder if the CJC will come out as heavily against a controversial Tory policy as they came out in favor of another one.

quote:
Hudak and his followers focus on the Great Unread in the same fashion with promises of lower taxes.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I am convinced that the majority of people are bleeping fools.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One and the same, thanks to the media and the tendency to focus on self.

sanizadeh wrote:

ezstein wrote:

i think that when peopl, especially new immigrants and marginalized minorities, hear he is going to try and get rid of the human rights commissions, they will be scared and rightly so. hudak 'bringing the party back to the right' sounds like code for racist to me.

The assumption that all or most immigrant groups support Section 13 and Human Right Commissions is not a verified fact. Because of their experience with oppressive governments back home, many immigrants care more about their freedom of speech than the average Canadian does. I think certain lobby groups will be the one most scared by this plan.

That said, a conservative party focused on white, anglosaxon traditions and opposed to multiculturalism would indeed score much less favourably with immigrants. If you don't want me, you can't expect to get my vote, can you?

sorry, sanizadeh, i should have been more clear. getting rid of the human rights comissions will be interpreted as trying to get rid of human rights and thats how anyone who doesn't want cons in power will (and should?) market it. thats why this policy is going to drive marginalized minorities and new immigrants away from the cons, not that thats a bad thing.

sanizadeh wrote:

a conservative party focused on white, anglosaxon traditions and opposed to multiculturalism would indeed score much less favourably with immigrants. If you don't want me, you can't expect to get my vote, can you?

Hudak is not an anglo-saxon name, more likely Slovak? But perhaps he is not proud of it. His website bio doesn't even mention his parents, nor does his Wikipedia page.

Google tells me his father Pat Hudak of Fort Erie was Principal of Lakeshore Catholic High School in Port Colborne from 1988 - 1997. "His professionalism, accountability and resolve laid the foundation which I sought to emulate later in my career as principal. Mr. Hudak worked for his students and was totally committed to serving others. I was very fortunate to have been mentored by such a true Catholic leader."

His mother Anne Marie Hudak is "a dedicated and energetic volunteer, who has served on the executive of the Fort Erie Tennis Club as President or Vice President for 19 of the past 23 years. In 1982, she initiated the involvement of the Fort Erie Tennis Club in raising funds to support the development of the club facilities and programming through Bingo Lotteries."

I wonder why he doesn't mention them? 

How Tim Hudak came to represent a chunk of Hamilton.

He started out, at age 27, as the new MPP for Niagara South, winning with 38% of the vote, defeating NDP Minister of Labour Shirley Coppen. It included his home town of Fort Erie, plus Port Colborne, Wainfleet, and the south end of Niagara Falls.

In Lincoln PC Frank Sheehan defeated NDP MPP Ron Hansen.

In 1999 Mike Harris shrank the House. Frank Sheehan was left seatless, and took a futile run at Peter Kormos. Tim Hudak got to run in Erie-Lincoln, adding Lincoln, West Lincoln and Dunnville to his riding.

In 2007 redistribution took half a seat away from Niagara Region due to stagnant population. Fort Erie went to Niagara Falls. Port Colborne and Wainfleet went to Welland. All of Hudak's original riding was gone. Dunnville went to Haldimand-Horfolk. He picked up a huge chunk of Stoney Creek riding including the former city of Stoney Creek, Grimsby, and the former township of Glanbrook, kept Lincoln and West Lincoln, and picked up Pelham from Niagara Centre. Jennifer Mossop, Liberal MPP for Stoney Creek, chose not to run again.

So now his riding bounds Hamilton South and Hamilton East, and almost touches Andrea Horwath's riding.

But he and his wife Deb Hutton and their daughter Miller live in Wellandport in West Lincoln, 47 minutes drive from the Burlington Go Station, which is how I would commute to Queen's Park, but perhaps a chauffeur drives him an hour and a half to Queen's Park every morning.  

Small towners cared about the human rights comission??

Yep

Stargazer wrote:

Wilf, is he married to the Deb Hutton, boot licker to Mike Harris??

 

 

Deb Hutton is very popular with Global News.  As Leslie Roberts even said on Ontario Election Night '08, "We love Deb Hutton around here".  I expect that now that Hudak is PC leader, we will see even more pro-PC coverage from Global.

Great! All this news lately has been bad. This makes things all the worse.

That's a bit like predicting Chapmans will be pro ice cream

Farmpunk wrote:Small towners cared about the human rights comission??

Remind: You betcha.

Nonsense. Or have you been canvassing small town PC Ontarians in your spare time, remind? Were you at any meetings when Randy Hillier brought up this very topic, only to watch as people's eyes glazed over?

the comment above was a gen'l reflection, not thread-specific.  more a reflection of my week than anything else.

on Hudak, from what i've read here, if he's a throwback to Mike Harris in terms of economic policy, nothing more need be said.

more austerity, cutbacks, leaving people on their own in a ravaged economy, further slashed social and environmental safety nets...

but those of us coming in from the fields are fortunate to have you here, George.

who would grow your food?

just be a dear and summarize it for us nicely, will you?  as you've been doing..

and here's the main thing about politicians and the 'reduce residents' taxes' line:

If these politicians aren't first and foremost going to do anything to control prices, and rein in speculators, then it won't matter what your taxes are because you'll be broke in any case.

I've just come in from staking the tomatoes in my postage stamp back yard, thanks. They and shredded zuccini are all that I freeze.  I overeat keeping up with the rest of it all summer.

Here's the relevant proposition...the last line of which you'll see suggests its importance to us all, since 1978...lower taxes as the winning hand for neo-cons ...everywhere:

California Proposition 13 (1978)
From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a 1978 ballot measure in California. For other measures with a similar title, see Proposition 13.

---

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Official ballot summary
• 2 Provisions of Prop 13
• 3 Precedents
• 4 The preceding taxpayer revolt
• 5 Outcome
• 6 Effects
  • 6.1 Funding
  • 6.2 Economics
  • 6.3 Homeowners
  • 6.4 Commercial real estate
  • 6.5 Compensation
  • 6.6 Schools
• 7 Recent events
• 8 See also
• 9 External links
• 10 References

California Proposition 13, or the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation was on the June 6, 1978 statewide primary ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Proposition 13, the brainchild of low-tax crusader Howard Jarvis, expressed taxpayer sentiment in the state after a decade of rapidly rising property tax bills. The two main objectives of Proposition 13 were to freeze the tax-assessed value of properties at the time of purchase with a two percent cap on annual assessment increases, and to require that when legislative bodies in the state (either the state legislature or local governing boards) wanted to raise taxes, a two-thirds majority vote is required. After Proposition 13 was approved, property tax rates in the state dropped an average of 57%.[1]

• Yes: 4,280,689 (64.8%)
• No: 2,326,167 (35.2%)

In the more than 30 years since its passage in 1978, Proposition 13 has been lavished with praise and showered with blame. It is seen by taxpayers advocates as an enduring symbol of the importance of the ballot initiative process while its opponents say that it is the root cause of California's multi-billion 2009 budget deficit.[1]

Official ballot summary

The official ballot summary said:

Limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of value except to pay indebtedness previously approved by voters. Establishes 1975-76 assessed valuation base for property tax purposes. Limits annual increases in value. Provides for reassessment after sale, transfer, or construction. Requires 2/3 vote of Legislature to enact any change in state taxes designed to increase revenues. Prohibits imposition by state of new ad valorem, sales, or transaction taxes on real property. Authorizes imposition of special taxes by local government (except on real property) by 2/3 vote of qualified electors. Financial impact: Commencing with fiscal year beginning July 1, 1978, would result in annual losses of local government property tax revenues (approximately $7 billion in 1978-79 fiscal year), reduction in annual state costs (approximately $600 million in 1978-79 fiscal year), and restriction on future ability of local governments to finance capital construction by sale of general obligation bonds.

Provisions of Prop 13

The most significant portion of the act is the first paragraph, which capped real estate taxes.

1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

The proposition's passage resulted in a cap on property tax rates in the state, reducing them by an average of 57%. In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States.[1]

Opponents of Prop. 13 almost immediately filed a lawsuit, Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, in the California courts arguing that Prop 13 was unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court, however, upheld Prop 13 against this challenge. Opponents filed additional legal challenges. The most notable, Nordlinger v. Hahn, argued that acquisition-value assessments are unconstitutional under the federal constitution as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nordlinger reached the Supreme Court of the United States. The nation's highest court in 1992 upheld Prop 13 against the Nordlinger challenge by a vote of 8-1.[2]

A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the sentiment that older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes.[2] The proposition has been called the "third rail" of California politics and it is not politically popular for Sacramento lawmakers to attempt to change it.

Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. However, of 30 anti-

Prop. 13 paved the way for conservatives to campaign promising lower taxes. Harris downloaded responsibility for social housing on to municipalities and property taxes...while giving a percentage cut to incomes, provincially....a great relief for big money.

Food producers and urban homeowners not housed in replicas of the Taj Mahal (particularly those trying to hang in for   their last years) should indeed have a break.

What we got, starting with Ronnie Raygun, and copied world wide (with additional help from the implementation of Chicago school tactics that threated to leave leave regions and countries high and dry without investments) was what you saw through the Bush years...increasing debt, infrastructure going to hell (bridges collapsing and raw sewage going into the water) with everyone competing to hold down taxes to get elected, as though there was no tomorrow. Everyone up to their ears in debt.

And all of it being carried out in the name of your investments in corporations...demanding that they meet projected earning figures - to the nickel - or they were left high and dry. No loyalty. Just meet investor (your) expectations, or else.

"Making distinctions between people with lots of wealth and others..."?

INCOME tax.

Reverse what they've been doing since the early 90s (in Canada), the  Cons and Libs. and the suckered workers and farmers voting for them.

But you notice that Tim Horton's head office is coming back from Connecticut to old Ontario-ari-o ? Lower corporate taxes, eh? So don't hold your breath on relief for property.

ok thanks for the info. will consider this.

, am tired, gotta crash.