2013 Ontario Budget

I think the B.C. polls may have Horwath spooked. After she drags her decision out, she'll likely continue supporting the stench-ridden Liberals, since there doesn't seem to be much light between what she demanded, and what's been presented. But, we'll probably have to wait until the end of May to find out, and then off for the Summer, and the BBQ circuit.

.

janfromthebruce wrote:

autoworker wrote:

I think the B.C. polls may have Horwath spooked. After she drags her decision out, she'll likely continue supporting the stench-ridden Liberals, since there doesn't seem to be much light between what she demanded, and what's been presented. But, we'll probably have to wait until the end of May to find out, and then off for the Summer, and the BBQ circuit.

The one BC poll done by the Naitonal Post - for sure, the NDP is spooked - not. Of course, it was one poll but you keep saying "polls". One would think on a progressive babble comment section there weren't be these silly political games but yeah, political games is what you like.

Dix will be BC Premier, and the BC libs are going down - big time.

I wonder what their own numbers indicate? You're right about games, of course. The NPD plays plenty.

I looked at that consultation the NDP is running in Ontario, and it's quite painful. The first point they solicit comment on is accountability and offers a choice of stronger rules and spending guidelines, independent financial oversight, and mandatory public cost benefit reviews on energy projects. The second is on ways to save money. Shouldn't they be talking about higher spending, debunking Drummond, rescinding the Harris-era tax cuts, funding education and all that? Wynne is already delivering kinder, gentler austerity--the NDP needs some substance.

What I find disconcerting is the NDP's stand on the gas plants.  No one likes to see money wasted, but even if the NDP scores a few points in the public debate that has unfolded since the budget was tabled, those points will only gain more votes for Hudak, because that's his issue.

The real lesson from the Liberals' screw-up is that power generation should be publicly-owned.  Had the gas plants been in the public sector, we wouldn't be looking at over $700 million in penalties to private companies.  The NDP should be proposing alternatives such as social, or, at least, public (Howard Hampton's issue) ownership.  That should be our issue.  Of course, someone ought to have told federal New Democrats that in Montreal, before they decided to snuggle up even more tightly with the "free" market. (But that's another thread.)

Sadly, the NDP, as always, never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Yes, there would still be a price to pay, but it wouldn't be the same price we're paying now, and if it were publicly owned, we could at least recoup some of the money from the power generated when it was finally up and running wherever we ended up building it.  We should be the party of public enterprise, not P4s (Public Pays for Private Profit).  Sorry - old joke.

The Clean Energy Benefit, which helps those with higher incomes, and consumption rates, should have been eliminated, and directed at those most in need. Even applying the savings directly to the deficit would have been preferable.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Well Unionist, one needs to go into an election with a sense that one would come out better in the end. Walking off the plank, with one's righteousness in place, may not serve the poor and workers in the end.

And I'm not hearing "labour" beat the drum beat for an election in which their voiced fear is a Tim Hudak govt with the right to work laws as their "election drum beat". And because of that "fear" (which may be irrational) they may (as they have in the past - think working families coalition which is headed by a big time liberal) to herd labour towards the "liberals" as the lesser of the evils.

But sure let's have an election.

All fears are irrational.

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

No it is the opposite of cynical. The aim of all political action should be to effect the world. We are always evaluating the potential success of actions. To do otherwise is at best to blindly tilt at windmills. To think out wise often amounts to self congratulatory huberous.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Well Unionist, one needs to go into an election with a sense that one would come out better in the end. Walking off the plank, with one's righteousness in place, may not serve the poor and workers in the end.

That was the federal Liberals' excuse for voting with Harper for years on end. Fear of elections. Shit, let's cancel 'em altogether if we can't be sure of winning them.

You ridicule "labour" for some reason which I can't fathom. You suggest that "labour" are just like the ONDP - that all they care about is avoiding an election so as to keep Hudak out of power. I read CUPE Ontario's statement linked to above. Did you? Is CUPE the biggest union in Canada? Do they count as "labour"? Has Horwath made a similar statement? If so, bravo to her, and please send me the link. If not, then she's no friend of labour or the poor. I'm hoping for her to be a friend. Not just a cringing opportunist to whom political survival is everything.

.

Unionist wrote:

<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote:

With great respect, it is very important to evaluate possible election outcomes, including likelyhoods based on polls, when desciding to trigger an election. It is an important political responsibility.

 

Like when Layton decided to trigger an election in November 2005? Good move, that.

If Wynne wants to stand by her budget, and distance her government from McGuinty's, she doesn't have to wait on Horwath. She can seek a mandate from Ontario by calling an election, without the usual nonsense about cost (which can be added to the gas plant writeoff), and the people not wanting another election so soon. Let the voters decide.

janfromthebruce wrote:

oh here we go again. Layton didn't trigger an election but libs just love to say that over, and over again, to get a rise and know that it will be defended. So why should Layton and the NDP kept a corrupt Liberal govt in operation when they had stuffed envelopes with money from adscam?

Oh, god. Ok, I'm a Liberal. You can quote that all over the place. It'll make you feel much better. But remember this: While you believed in and campaigned for the Liberal party in the 1993 election based on their fraudulent red book promises, I have never supported or voted Liberal in my entire life - not once. In fact, I have voted strategically in my riding to keep the natural Liberals out, including voting for the Bloc (didn't work), and finally voting 3 times in a row for Mulcair (worked, worked, and worked).

So get off your high horse and try to think an issue through without hurling epithets around.

You've [b]actually forgotten[/b] why Layton claimed he voted non-confidence in 2005. You think it was because the Liberal government was "corrupt" because of "adscam"? Please, please, be honest and tell me that you honestly do not remember the bullshit pretext they used to bring down the minority government???

I'll give you a big hint: "HEALTH CARE." The hint won't help much, though. Know why? Because it has never, ever been revealed exactly what Paul Martin did, or refused to do, about health care that month which caused the NDP to switch gears after its budget deal that same year with the "CORRUPT" Liberals (ohhhhh, I guess when Layton shook hands with Martin in May 2005, he didn't know yet that Martin was a corrupt crook - why didn't you phone him and wake him up???).

So, back to the point. The NDP has a sad record of having no tactical clue whatsoever as to when to trigger an election and when not to. When things work out for them, it's generally been due to dumb luck.

.

What I also do not understand is what readers on this list believe could be gained from an election. Unless someone actually believes that today in Ontario it is realistic to foresee and NDP majority, one way or another the best we get is a Liberal minority government. At worse Hudak wins the majority, why would we want to go to a new election?

.

.

I think it would be a tactical and poitical mistake. The NDP made anti-austerity demands. The Liberal party conceded most of them and exceeded them in many cases. There's more to be gained from declaring victory that the NDP improved the budget than by pulling the rug and say "enh, I know we got everything we asked for, but it''s still not good enough". Especially with the Liberal party excited about its supposed resurgencey under Trudeau.

I'm pretty furious about the gas plant too. But accountability isn't dead. When the investigation concludes, the accountability moment will be that much more damning.

There's really nothing to be gained from an election. The NDP is simply calling for a "balanced" approach to eliminating the deficit. They really aren't challenging the Liberals on the reduction on hospital spending or the restriction of of program spending increases which are below the rate of inflation. I'd be more supportive of the ONDP if they were more clearly anti-austerity. I seriously doubt if the ONDP had a majority, their budget would be radically different than the one the Liberals propose now.

I'm not a happy camper if the Ontario NDP wants to force an election over road tolls, which for some reason seem to be the big outstanding issue.

toaster wrote:

I'm not sure why Andrea is against the pay-for-HOV lanes. Disappointed in her position on that one. Instead of cutting services (transit), funds are raised to keep them. Also, anyone who owns a car is wealthy enough to afford insurance and this cost (plus it is optional, too). Those hurting the most, ie. those without cars, will not see any benefit by reductions in auto insurance or a lack of toll roads. Andrea needs to stop this populist thing and get back to social democratic ideologies.

From what I understand of her position, she takes issue with people who have money paying to ride in HOV lanes, and taking away space from people who are trying to do the right thing by car-pooling or whatever.

Right, but it doesn't benefit the lowest income population at all.  If the focus is on encouraging people to do what is right, then we should be encouraging residents to use transit, not HOV lanes.  Every region that has HOV lanes has rapid transit options.  So instead of doing the "good" thing in carpooling, residents should do the "best" thing by taking transit.  HOV tolls are progressive by definition because only those wealthy enough to drive will be paying them.  The poorest Ontarians, who do not own vehicles, will not.  

Aristotleded24 wrote:

toaster wrote:

I'm not sure why Andrea is against the pay-for-HOV lanes. Disappointed in her position on that one. Instead of cutting services (transit), funds are raised to keep them. Also, anyone who owns a car is wealthy enough to afford insurance and this cost (plus it is optional, too). Those hurting the most, ie. those without cars, will not see any benefit by reductions in auto insurance or a lack of toll roads. Andrea needs to stop this populist thing and get back to social democratic ideologies.

From what I understand of her position, she takes issue with people who have money paying to ride in HOV lanes, and taking away space from people who are trying to do the right thing by car-pooling or whatever.

If motorists choose to pay a premium to drive in HOV lanes, it will free up traffic in the other lanes, and contribute revenue to expand public transit. It's no different than paying to use the 407, except that the revenue remains public. The egalitarian alternative is gridlock, or more pavement contributing to the deficit.

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.