ONT NDP Leader Andrea Horwath will become Premier of Ontario 2

Skinny Dipper wrote:

As much as I have criticized Andrea Horwath on her policies and some of her strategies, I do think this was the right time for the Ontario NDP to stop supporting the Liberal government.  If the party were to keep supporting an incompetent Liberal government, voters could just assume that the NDP would be an extension of the Liberal Party.

Oh! And that should read, "incompetent and corrupt Liberal government". One of the nice things about the crushing defeat that is about to be handed to the Liberals, one way or the other, is that we will finally get to see Michael Bryant's backside. He has been weasling his way back to the trough as of late, and it will be good to see him gone. The LIberal party in a nutshell, he was actually on Wynne's "transition team".

Speaking of troughers, the presented Liberal budget might have addressed the insane salaries of public sector CEOs as the NDP asked, but this budget was careful to protect the free lunch, limosine and yachting set.

I feel bad for Wynne, she isn't so bad, and certainly the best that the Liberals had to offer in terms of a "progressive" face, and she was offered a real shit sandwich of a positition by McGuinty. A bad time to be at the helm of the Liberal party, but then again, it highly doubtful that "the boys" would have let her in had it been a good time to lead the party.

Who knows, if the NDP get some wind in their sails like they did in the last federal electin they could take it.

Likely worst case scenario is a PC minority.

terrytowel wrote:

Only Warren (Smokey) Thomas, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), said the NDP should join with the Progressive Conservatives in toppling the Grits.

Thomas took shots at his fellow union leaders after Horwath’s news conference for saying the NDP should support the budget, which also gives $4 hourly raises to personal support workers in the home care system.

“They’re afraid of Tim Hudak,” Thomas said of the Progressive Conservative leader whom he called “anti-union.”

“I’m not afraid of Tim Hudak,” Thomas added, saying Unifor president Jerry Dias “supported the budget without reading it” and “I’m disappointed in Brother Ryan,” a reference to the OFL president.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/05/02/ontario_heading_for_el...

Excellent comments from the OPSEU head.

But this should say;

Quote:

Thomas took shots at his fellow union leaders after Horwath’s news conference for saying the NDP should support the budget, which also gives $4 hourly raises to personal support workers in the home care system, paid for by kicking seniors out of hospital beds because it cost more to keep them there.

End of the "Working Families Coalition"? Lets hope so. Those ads were a terrific waste of the members dues.

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Likely worst case scenario is a PC minority.

Don't the PC's have a chance of getting a majority?

And something was going to happen between now and next year that would prevent them from having a chance at a marority? What percentage would there be in letting the scandal ridden government continue? The only result would be to discredit the NDP for propping them up, likely ensuring a PC win and a good chance of a majority.

I think Horwath made this point quite well in the conclusion of her most recent letter on the budget:

Quote:

If we sold out today then, in the next election when the public looked for change, they would punish Liberals and New Democrats alike. We can’t let that scenario play out.

Probably the best chance for preventing a PC victory is going now, rather than before the PCs dump Hudak. He is their biggest liability. It is simple nonsense to believe that we can keep the PCs out by propping up a manifestly corrupt government for ever and ever.

From my experience on union negotiating committees, it seems that if many aspects of settlements of the past were never enacted upon by the boss AND a future proposed settlement was presented as "this is it, you have one week to decide -- no discussion!" (especially if it included poison pills like privatising hydro) then I would say, screw this, we're walking!  So, good for Andrea.  Liberal scandals and empty promises.  Time to give us a chance to throw the Libs out.  Andrea will be Premier.

The Liberals will sink like a stone. The NDP has a chance to win minority, if they get some wind in their sails. Andrea did a nice performance in her press conference today. Things could go well.

Hold your nose and "vote Liberal" voters may signal a preference on the phone when polled, but they are hardly committed. Just ask Smitherman, who polled toe-to-toe with Ford until E-day, when he got crushed by 10%.

People are mad.

They will vote down the Liberals. Andrea has no baggage.

 

Imagine how helpful it would be if the NDP had hard-hittling full court press communicators in the media like this.

Talk about effective.

 

Wynne and the Liberals: Running on empty

 

“This budget is not a solid plan for the future,” she declared. “It’s a mad dash to escape the scandals by promising the moon and the stars.”

And with that, Wynne saw no need to hang around in the legislature, only to be defeated on the budget. So she went off to see the lieutenant-governor and got herself a writ.

Considering the bad hand she was dealt by McGuinty, Wynne has hardly put a foot wrong as premier. She’s been very good at facing up to bad news such as the gas plants, and she looked born for her role last year as chair of the Council of the Federation.

But there was more than avoidance of the tainted McGuinty brand in her statement and news conference. There was something hollow, even empty, about her message.  “We can’t veer off to the left or the right,” she said at one point. Ontarians, she said, face “a choice between safe hands and risky tactics.”

This had the group-think ring of focus-group feedback.

Then there was this guy named Harper, a bogeyman whose name isn’t on the ballot.

“We need a premier to stand up to Stephen Harper,” she declared. “Tim Hudak shares his values. How will that help Ontario?”

What’s that got to do with her vision of Ontario? Nothing — except that it ties one Conservative leader to another. But on the Toronto subway or GO train, I absolutely guarantee you won’t overhear anyone saying: “We need someone to stand up to Harper.”

If these are Wynne’s core messages, she needs new ones.

She didn’t even appear anxious to run on her budget, one that promised $30 billion in new transportation infrastructure over the next decade, half of it in the Greater Toronto Area and the remainder in the rest of Ontario.

But the rest of it isn’t a budget to run on, because it shows Ontario awash in red ink. It forecast a deficit of $12.5 billion, $2.5 billion more than projected last year. Ontario’s debt as a percentage of GDP is now 39 per cent, up from 26 per cent when the Liberals took office in 2003.

Sure, there was the recession of 2008-09, and the need to stimulate recovery. But that was five years ago, and Ottawa is on the verge of returning to balance as part of Jim Flaherty’s impressive legacy. The Ontario budget talks about balanced books in 2017, but offers no roadmap to get there. It’s not to be taken seriously.

Wynne won’t be talking about Ontario’s deficit and debt over the coming six weeks, but you can be sure that Hudak will be.

For the Progressive Conservatives, the challenge is the opposite of the ones faced by Liberals and Wynne. The party’s brand is strong, especially outside Toronto, but the leader’s approval numbers trail far behind. The PC campaign derailed in 2011 over Hudak’s musings about “foreign workers,” which the Liberals torqued into “foreigners,” resulting in a meltdown of Conservative support in heavily multicultural ridings of the 905 belt around Toronto. He won’t make that mistake again.

Hudak’s challenge is to stay on the message. And the message is not only a simple one. At the right time, it’s also powerful and unstoppable.

Time for a change.

 

 

 

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/03/wynne-and-the-liberals-running-on-empty/

josh,

Liberals are big on promises before elections. The budget means dick. Wynne's Liberals did not deliver on their promises when they were in office as Andrea mentioned in her presser yesterday.

That is the reason we are having this election.

-------

17,200

 

Unionist wrote:

Why does this remind me of November 2005 in Ottawa? Anyway, let's try the same thing again and hope for a different outcome. 

That's easy. The 2006 outcome was that the NDP could not make any kind of agreement with Martin despite the two having 132 MPs against Harper's 124, because of the 51 Bloc MPs. So Martin resigned.
A Hudak plurality would NOT be the same outcome as 2006.

I'm not sure what you mean by lets try the same thing again.

Which could mean, "last time didnt go well, but that doesnt mean it will not this time."

Or it could be just sarcasm about the "hope for a different outcome".

At any rate, the Martin Liberals in 2005 were beyond any reasonable doubt playing a game of dangling out things that looked good, but not really being interested in negotiating on any big ticket items. [We dont need you. Gonna win this anyway.]

I haven't been paying enough attention to make my own call on whether the Wynned Liberals are playing a similar or equivalent game.

Wynne pulled the plug quickly after Horwath said it was a no go with the NDP.  The real reason for the speed was to avoid more Liberal damage at upcoming gas plant hearings.

Fact Check: Liberals don't want a Financial Accountability Officer because they're afraid of accountability

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1349125/fact-check-liberals-don-t-want-a...

Unionist wrote:

Why does this remind me of November 2005 in Ottawa? Anyway, let's try the same thing again and hope for a different outcome.

 

  I also remember the previous budget where many deals were cut and some were even kept.  I remember in particular being part of a campaign with Libby Davis to save the Affordable Housing commitment.  It was in the budget but the government was gong to allow the fiscal year to expire without allocating the funds and thus allowing them to flow back into general revenue.  Fancy words on paper mean nothing if there is no real committment to putting words into action.

NorthReport wrote:

I hope Unifor can get their act together, and start supporting political parties that actually represent working peolple, as opposed to the cozy little connections their union bosses have with the Liberals.

NR, the label "union bosses" is a generic term used by anti-labourists to denigrate organized labour and should not be used in a progressive community like babble.

Quote:

Right here, John! Well, at least this New Democrat is. Where will Andrea Horwath and the NDP Caucus be during this debate?

Forging ahead, as they have always done, with proposals for how we can build a more fair and prosperous Ontario, for all Ontarians, of course. I know the burning question on all our minds is "will they or won't they support the budget?" And my understanding is that the NDP plans to look very carefully at the budget being proposed by the Liberals and to consider whether it's in the best interests of Ontarians to let it pass or to go to the polls.

Andrea Horwath and the NDP haven't sat on the sidelines with Tim Hudak and the Conservatives over the last three years. They've been using this opportunity to try to make real gains for Ontarians, and I think they have done that. They'll be weighing whether the Liberal budget (that the Liberals are spending millions to slowly unveil with much fanfare) is worth supporting.

Sadly, the Liberals keep making the same mistakes, over and over. Ontario's unemployment rate has been above the national average since January 2006. That's nearly 10 years. We're still down more than 300,000 manufacturing jobs.

Can a government mired in scandal and with an abysmal record on the economy and jobs still have the confidence of Ontario voters? We'll see....

 

 

http://ontarionewswatch.com/onw-news.html?id=740

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Of course, the debate over what timing is best for the NDP's fortunes is not necessarily the same as what's best for Ontarians.

Of course. I was discussing only the partisan political situation.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Of course, the debate over what timing is best for the NDP's fortunes is not necessarily the same as what's best for Ontarians.

It seems to me that all the political parties put their self-interest ahead of the public interest. That's probably why so few people are members of political parties. Our winner-take-all FPTP system makes the parties much more self-centred than they would be if we had proportional representation (PR). If we had PR political parties would have to cooperate with each other much more for the common good. Under FPTP cooperation hurts parties chances of electoral success. FPTP encourages parties to go it alone and to be very antagonistic to the other parties. I think Canada would be a lot better off if we had PR.

JKR wrote:

It seems to me that all the political parties put their self-interest ahead of the public interest. That's probably why so few people are members of political parties. Our winner-take-all FPTP system makes the parties much more self-centred than they would be if we had proportional representation (PR). If we had PR political parties would have to cooperate with each other much more for the common good. Under FPTP cooperation hurts parties chances of electoral success. FPTP encourages parties to go it alone and to be very antagonistic to the other parties. I think Canada would be a lot better off if we had PR.

I will agree.

Under FPTP, the political parties have no incentive to work together.  The goal of political parties is not to propose good policies; it's to win power by winning elections.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Of course, the debate over what timing is best for the NDP's fortunes is not necessarily the same as what's best for Ontarians.

Of course. I was discussing only the partisan political situation.

Oh, I understood that, and wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. But it's clear that there are many who do conflate the two.

Skinny Dipper wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Of course, the debate over what timing is best for the NDP's fortunes is not necessarily the same as what's best for Ontarians.

The Liberal budget may have been a very progresive one.  However what is good for Ontarians may not have been good for the Ontario NDP.  Andrea Horwath wouldn't have gained anything by supporting this budget.  She probably calculated that she had more to lose in the long run with her party propping up the Liberal government.  Anything good coming from the budget would be credited to the Liberals.

The irony is that this is the budget she decided she simply could not support. She had no qualms about supporting the two previous budgets, which were much worse, even with the meagre "concessions" the Liberals acceded to her.

If Wynne really thought her budget was so great she could have waited to have it debated in the legislature, rather than pulling the plug on her own government. She didn't.

Rokossovsky wrote:

for someone who was bellyaching about the NDP not offering to return of OW, and ODSP levels to those prior to Mike Harris era, you certainly don't seem to have a problem with the Liberals offering a lower than the rate of inflation increase to subsistence payments in those two categories.

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1437410#comment-1437410]Oh, don't I?[/url]

onlinediscountanvils, a day and a half ago wrote:

Quote:

The good bits:

the establishment of a $2.5-billion Jobs and Prosperity Fund, including the development of a strategy to support advanced manufacturing

the proposed establishment of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (the details of the plan are still not determined)

a realistic and long-term plan to invest in public transit

increased wages for Personal Support Workers and Early Childhood Educators

the permanent indexation of the Ontario Child Benefit

expansion of dental services to low-income children

introduction of health benefits to low-income children

[s]a 1% increase to social assistance [/s]

progressive income tax reform

increased supports for Aboriginal communities

Fixed that for ya, Jerry. There's nothing remotely good or progressive about a sub-inflationary increase to social assistance.

Up until now you've been trying to bait me by putting words in my mouth. Now you're trying to take words out of my mouth. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but you really do suck at it.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Your concern for the least fortunate, rings hollow once again, or only worth talking about when dishing it out to the NDP.

You haven't done your homework.

Rokossovsky wrote:

It's still really hard to believe that you are sincere in your demands, when the Liberals are offering a dismal increase in the minimum wage, and what amounts to a cut in support for the most needy in society.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck what you believe about me. You go right ahead and cheerlead for the NDP, and I will continue to eke out an existence while fighting the poverty and austerity agendas being offered up by all parties.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Oh! But its an "increase". An increase that is lower than the rate of inflation is still a "cut".

It's a cut. I've always said as much. Like when your fellow NDP-booster claimed that Horwath was somehow responsible for giving [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1429339#comment-1429339]"more money to people on disability"[/url].

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Andrea was the one who pushed to boost taxes on the rich to give more money to people on disablity.

She demanded a sub-inflationary increase to ODSP, amounting to a cut in buying power.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Austerity moves on and "the left" calls it "progressive".

Perhaps some have. I've said exactly the opposite.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

for someone who was bellyaching about the NDP not offering to return of OW, and ODSP levels to those prior to Mike Harris era, you certainly don't seem to have a problem with the Liberals offering a lower than the rate of inflation increase to subsistence payments in those two categories.

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1437410#comment-1437410]Oh, don't I?[/url]

onlinediscountanvils, a day and a half ago wrote:

Quote:

The good bits:

the establishment of a $2.5-billion Jobs and Prosperity Fund, including the development of a strategy to support advanced manufacturing

the proposed establishment of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (the details of the plan are still not determined)

a realistic and long-term plan to invest in public transit

increased wages for Personal Support Workers and Early Childhood Educators

the permanent indexation of the Ontario Child Benefit

expansion of dental services to low-income children

introduction of health benefits to low-income children

[s]a 1% increase to social assistance [/s]

progressive income tax reform

increased supports for Aboriginal communities

Fixed that for ya, Jerry. There's nothing remotely good or progressive about a sub-inflationary increase to social assistance.

Up until now you've been trying to bait me by putting words in my mouth. Now you're trying to take words out of my mouth. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but you really do suck at it.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Your concern for the least fortunate, rings hollow once again, or only worth talking about when dishing it out to the NDP.

You haven't done your homework.

Rokossovsky wrote:

It's still really hard to believe that you are sincere in your demands, when the Liberals are offering a dismal increase in the minimum wage, and what amounts to a cut in support for the most needy in society.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck what you believe about me. You go right ahead and cheerlead for the NDP, and I will continue to eke out an existence while fighting the poverty and austerity agendas being offered up by all parties.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Oh! But its an "increase". An increase that is lower than the rate of inflation is still a "cut".

It's a cut. I've always said as much. Like when your fellow NDP-booster claimed that Horwath was somehow responsible for giving [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1429339#comment-1429339]"more money to people on disability"[/url].

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Andrea was the one who pushed to boost taxes on the rich to give more money to people on disablity.

She demanded a sub-inflationary increase to ODSP, amounting to a cut in buying power.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Austerity moves on and "the left" calls it "progressive".

Perhaps some have. I've said exactly the opposite.

Cheerleading? Hardly, I have made one point only. The Reg Cohn spin you are promoting around here that the Liberals and their budget are more progressive than the NDP platform is pure corporate media crap.

Here you are regurgitating the turd offered up by TorStar resident Liberal press release delivery boy.

Here is clue (you even picked it out yourself): This schill tried to sell the idea that a 1% increase in OW and ODSP, was the "good stuff". But of course, having made that little find, you accepted everything else he had to say at face value.

The "good stuff":

A 1% increase in OW and ODSP, which is a cut because it is lower than the rate of inflation. A "pension plan"... without a plan. Lol. An increase to wages for "home care" workers, at the expense of hospital space for seniors because its cheaper to have a home care worker visit for $250 a day, than to have someone in hospital for $1000. A "realistic" plan for public transit, based on removing funding from other programs, by shifting revenues. "Progressive income tax reform", while opening up millions of dollars in corporate tax loopholes.

Think much? Not.

Is it surprising that I missed the one thing you got right on the entire laundry list of the "good things", when you have fallen for every other dodge they throw at you?

Not, also.

[PS: And I don't take responsibility for the things that other people say, especially when they are in a party I am not in. You can leave me out of your argument by association, therefore.]

Rokossovsky wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

for someone who was bellyaching about the NDP not offering to return of OW, and ODSP levels to those prior to Mike Harris era, you certainly don't seem to have a problem with the Liberals offering a lower than the rate of inflation increase to subsistence payments in those two categories.

[url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1437410#comment-1437410]Oh, don't I?[/url]

onlinediscountanvils, a day and a half ago wrote:

Quote:

The good bits:

the establishment of a $2.5-billion Jobs and Prosperity Fund, including the development of a strategy to support advanced manufacturing

the proposed establishment of an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (the details of the plan are still not determined)

a realistic and long-term plan to invest in public transit

increased wages for Personal Support Workers and Early Childhood Educators

the permanent indexation of the Ontario Child Benefit

expansion of dental services to low-income children

introduction of health benefits to low-income children

[s]a 1% increase to social assistance [/s]

progressive income tax reform

increased supports for Aboriginal communities

Fixed that for ya, Jerry. There's nothing remotely good or progressive about a sub-inflationary increase to social assistance.

Up until now you've been trying to bait me by putting words in my mouth. Now you're trying to take words out of my mouth. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but you really do suck at it.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Your concern for the least fortunate, rings hollow once again, or only worth talking about when dishing it out to the NDP.

You haven't done your homework.

Rokossovsky wrote:

It's still really hard to believe that you are sincere in your demands, when the Liberals are offering a dismal increase in the minimum wage, and what amounts to a cut in support for the most needy in society.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a fuck what you believe about me. You go right ahead and cheerlead for the NDP, and I will continue to eke out an existence while fighting the poverty and austerity agendas being offered up by all parties.

 

Rokossovsky wrote:

Oh! But its an "increase". An increase that is lower than the rate of inflation is still a "cut".

It's a cut. I've always said as much. Like when your fellow NDP-booster claimed that Horwath was somehow responsible for giving [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/1429339#comment-1429339]"more money to people on disability"[/url].

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Brachina wrote:

Andrea was the one who pushed to boost taxes on the rich to give more money to people on disablity.

She demanded a sub-inflationary increase to ODSP, amounting to a cut in buying power.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Austerity moves on and "the left" calls it "progressive".

Perhaps some have. I've said exactly the opposite.

Cheerleading? Hardly, I have made one point only. The Reg Cohn spin you are promoting around here that the Liberals and their budget are more progressive than the NDP platform is pure corporate media crap.

Can you show me where I've done this? No. You can't. When it comes to me, you've done little else but lie about what I have and haven't said. It was slightly amusing for awhile, but after more than a week it's become tiresome, and IMHO, violates the terms and conditions of this board.

Rokossovsky wrote:

Here you are regurgitating the turd offered up by TorStar resident Liberal press release delivery boy.

Here is clue (you even picked it out yourself): This schill tried to sell the idea that a 1% increase in OW and ODSP, was the "good stuff". But of course, having made that little find, you accepted everything else he had to say at face value.

The "good stuff":

A 1% increase in OW and ODSP, which is a cut because it is lower than the rate of inflation. A "pension plan"... without a plan. Lol. An increase to wages for "home care" workers, at the expense of hospital space for seniors because its cheaper to have a home care worker visit for $250 a day, than to have someone in hospital for $1000. A "realistic" plan for public transit, based on removing funding from other programs, by shifting revenues. "Progressive income tax reform", while opening up millions of dollars in corporate tax loopholes.

Think much? Not.

Is it surprising that I missed the one thing you got right on the entire laundry list of the "good things", when you have fallen for every other dodge they throw at you?

LOL. Given that you've been baiting me for more than a week, no, it's not surprising at all.

I'll help you out. See the part where it says "Quote:"? It's not my list. It's Unifor's. Take it up with Jerry Dias.

Oh, my.
"We need to slow down the cash flow [for transit]."  Kathleen Wynne
http://transittrackrecord.ca/

 

Which one of these five scandals is the most damaging to the Liberals?

1 Ornge

2 Cancelled gas plants

3 eHealth

4 Windsor Parkway

5 PnAm Games

5 scandals likely to resurface during the Ontario election campaign

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/5-scandals-likely-to-resurface-during-the...

ODA, please check your PMs - and let's not allow this character to destroy our discussion forum. I've complained to the mods about his deliberate misquotes and provocations. I'm confident they'll take action. They're not here full-time.