Ontario General Election 2014

1773 posts / 0 new
Last post
JeffWells

That was precisely the problem. Tory wanted to extend funding. In his mealy way he tried to not offend anyone, but pissed off everyone. The Green proposal is far more sensible. Radical, sure, in the context of the gutless consensus of the major parties, but I think it's what most voters either know is right, or could be persuaded of without much effort.

 

 

ygtbk

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

Unionist

We can certainly count on Horwath's clique not to mess with the status quo. On anything. She must be counting on the votes of those who love the status quo.

josh

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/05/15/ontario_ndp_sheds_r... NDP sheds role as champion of the poor[/url]

Right on schedule, Ontario’s churches, charities, social activists and anti-poverty advocates issued a [url=http://isarc.ca/?p=435]statement[/url] in the second week of the provincial election campaign, reminding candidates that more than a million Ontarians can’t afford food, safe housing and other basic necessities.

As usual, it received scant attention from the party leaders, the candidates and the media.

But this time, there was something different. The New Democrats, to whom the disadvantaged have always looked for support, were the least responsive of the three parties. Their leader, Andrea Horwath, is so preoccupied with winning middle-class votes, assuring the business community she would be a responsible economic manager and saving tax dollars that she has scarcely said a word about poverty, homelessness, hunger, low wages or stingy social programs.

The truest thing said in the piece is that there's no party on the left in this election.

JeffWells

josh wrote:

 The truest thing said in the piece is that there's no party on the left in this election.

 

I can't recall ever being so dispirited by a campaign as I am by Horwath's. As best as I can tell, she has neither a platform I can understand, let alone get excited about, nor even a credible path to power. So I have to wonder what the hell this election is about and why she's about to hand the province over to the Assassin of the Workers.

I'll be voting NDP, because I'm in Michael Prue's riding (and last leadership race, he suggested reviewing the separate school system), and I wish the best for the many good New Democrat MPPs and candidates. But IMO the best outcome for the party must include a finish so dissatisfactory that Horwath resigns election night.

terrytowel

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

JKR wrote:
Maybe Horwath is being clear? From out here in BC I don"t have a good handle on Ontario politics, but my impression of Horwath from here on the left-coast is that her positions coincide mostly with the right-wing side of the NDP. It seems to me she would probably also be comfortable on the left-wing side of the Ontario Liberals. But then again, maybe she'll clarify her positions on the issues and take more traditional social-democratic positions? After seeing the policies of recent NDP provincial governments, I wouldn't be shocked if the Ontario NDP also wasn't very social-democratic but mostly "centrist". Here in BC the BC NDP is centrist which makes some sense considering we have a two-party system here.

That's the impression of many people here in Ontario too.

It'll be interesting to see who Horwath supports if the Tories and Liberals end up in a tie.

There have been several op-eds that have suggested Andrea is trying to be more populist, reaching out to the base of the working class who usually vote conservatives. By appealing to their populist view of thinking.

There was some curious behavior on her part when she didn't denounce Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in all his scandals. She chided the Premier for not meeting with him, refused to comment on several of his gaffes, and when he entered rehab was the first provincial leader to issue a statement wishing him luck.

Which led some to speculate that she is trying to reach out to that angry electorate known as Ford Nation, the working class with a populist message.

Unionist

That's true, ygbtk. But he took the opposite stand that's being recommended here. His plan would have cost more, and intensified religious control and segregation of schoolchildren. What would a supposed progressive cost-cutter like Horwath be afraid of? The Pope?

ETA: Just realized I cross-posted with JeffWells - he said it better than I did.

terrytowel

The Toronto Sun just published an editorial suggesting Hazel McCallion is being senile for endorsing Kathleen Wynne, complete with a political cartoon saying "She's off her rocker"

Rokossovsky

ygtbk wrote:

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

No one here is addressing the real issue here about the attack on the school board system. The main reason that the Catholic board is so aggressively defended is because it is perceived to provide superior results, and more local autonomy.

Some people here are talking in terms of grand scheme theoreticals, without looking at the real contexts. So, in reality what is Unionist proposing:

Amalgamation of the TDSB with the TDCSB. Is Unionist suggesting that adding 3000 Catholic teachers to the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Local bargaining unit and that adding an addition 50,000 students to the rolls of the TDSB elementary system amounts to progressive change?

It is actually more amalgamation. Elementary Teachers of Toronto would swell to being a local of 15,000 members, and the TDSB elementary school system up to 200,000 students.

The problem here is that the assertion of an apparently progressive view, the creation of a truly secular and equitable public education system, can be used to impose austerity. The problem is that imposing "lateral" cultural equity might actually cause greater horizontal inequity.

Exactly what happened when the McGuinty government imposed class room size caps without adding staff.

One of the main reason people support separate schools is not religious, but because they seek high quality education that is responsive to local needs, something that the public school system is less able to provide with each passing wave of centralizing amalgamation.

That is why numerous non-Catholics actively support the Catholic system, and seek to have their children enrolled in it.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

Pogo wrote:

Unionist wrote:

[url=http://theagenda.tvo.org/blog/agenda-blogs/steve-paikin-green-party-prom... Green Party Promise That Could Shake Up The Ontario Campaign[/url]

Nice that someone has the guts to do the right thing.

 

  Why is this a display of guts.  Its not like they have any potential votes to lose.

Oh you're right, I misspoke. What it really is, is an exposure of the abject cowardice of the ONDP, which is scared shitless to promote a single secular public school system. Thanks for framing it in selfish partisan terms.

 

If push came to shove I would have to say what a pathetic job the progressive movement in Ontario has done on this issue.  Here is an issue that where the progressive solution saves money and lots of it.  A significant coalition of groups that would welcome the change could be created.  Properly framed it should be something the public would leap at.   Why cannot the political climate be created that all three main parties are rushing to be the one leading the change.  They should take a lesson from marijauna activists and get off their asses instead of sitting back and complaining that their party of choice is not willing to committ political suicide on the issue.

 

Rokossovsky

Unionist wrote:

To return to the topic:

If Horwath wants to "save the pennies", why doesn't she do what we did in Québec (and Newfoundland & Labrador) in 1998: Eliminate the separate school system, replace it with linguistic boards, and save more than $1 billion per year?

The Greens have proposed that. Is their math correct? The idea certainly is.

 

I think Unionist is demonstrating very nicely how the "save" money for the sake of saving money logic of austerity works. Horwath's error in her "Minister of Savings and Accountability" plan, now demonstrated for a different political end. Funny how political principles shift with the tide, depending on how people are politically predisposed. Here, we are "saving a billion" by killing Catholic schools allegedly in order to create "equity" in the public system, but in fact reducing service levels and eliminating entire levels of democratic process from the system, strangling democratic access to the system by eliminating many boards of education, and increasing economic inequity, in the name of erradicating religious favouritism.

Classic neo-liberalism, if neo-liberalism can be called "classic", running under the cover of "equity" and progressive principles, expressed as straightforward downsizing.

Not restructuring the system, but simply eliminating public service, the boards and administrations because it "overlaps", to "save" money. Not redirecting funds to strengthen the system to increase democractic access, just "saving money" for the sake of it. This is an age old technique of Liberal and Conservative austerity advocates: strangle democracy by removing funding for it -- it allows for even greater austerity measure in the future, by eliminating the public voice in the process.

Coming to a future Ontario, a single Ontario School Board, run on the charter school model, directed by the minister through the ministry.

terrytowel

Former broadcaster Donna Skelly is once again running for the PC party in Hamilton. I miss seeing her on Square Off.

Brachina
toaster

Rokossovsky wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

No one here is addressing the real issue here about the attack on the school board system. The main reason that the Catholic board is so aggressively defended is because it is perceived to provide superior results, and more local autonomy.

Some people here are talking in terms of grand scheme theoreticals, without looking at the real contexts. So, in reality what is Unionist proposing:

Amalgamation of the TDSB with the TDCSB. Is Unionist suggesting that adding 3000 Catholic teachers to the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Local bargaining unit and that adding an addition 50,000 students to the rolls of the TDSB elementary system amounts to progressive change?

It is actually more amalgamation. Elementary Teachers of Toronto would swell to being a local of 15,000 members, and the TDSB elementary school system up to 200,000 students.

The problem here is that the assertion of an apparently progressive view, the creation of a truly secular and equitable public education system, can be used to impose austerity. The problem is that imposing "lateral" cultural equity might actually cause greater horizontal inequity.

Exactly what happened when the McGuinty government imposed class room size caps without adding staff.

One of the main reason people support separate schools is not religious, but because they seek high quality education that is responsive to local needs, something that the public school system is less able to provide with each passing wave of centralizing amalgamation.

That is why numerous non-Catholics actively support the Catholic system, and seek to have their children enrolled in it.

Why must be be thinking about it only in relation to Toronto.  In small towns and cities, instead of having two Grade 4 classes of 10 students, you would have one with 20.

Aristotleded24

JeffWells wrote:
I can't recall ever being so dispirited by a campaign as I am by Horwath's. As best as I can tell, she has neither a platform I can understand, let alone get excited about, nor even a credible path to power. So I have to wonder what the hell this election is about and why she's about to hand the province over to the Assassin of the Workers.

In regards to the platform, it is still early going, and there is lots of time to flesh it out. As for "hand(ing) the province over to the Assassin of the Workers," I don't know why I keep bothering, but that to me completely false. Horwath isn't handing the province over to anyone, she triggered an election, and the people themselves will decide who they want. They can choose Hudak, Wynne, Horwath, Schreiner, or anyone else they want. And in the real world, many average people that the left claims to care about will support the PCs. I'd think the best course of action would be to find out why the PCs appeal to these guys and figure out a way to represent their better natures than by running scared.

JeffWells wrote:
IMO the best outcome for the party must include a finish so dissatisfactory that Horwath resigns election night.

Perhaps, but be careful what you wish for. Horwath's replacement might be an open Blairite leader who takes the party very far to the right end of the spectrum. The other thing you have to look at is the infrastructure around the leader. Yes, the leader should be accountable, but playing musical chairs with leaders while ineffective structures remain intact gets you nowhere. Ask anyone in BC.

And from my vantage point in Manitoba, where our NDP Premier broke a promise not to raise taxes by rasing the PST after this government has given up revenue through tax cuts for businesses, corporations, and high-income earners, a leader who at least talks about raising corporate taxes is a breath of fresh air.

mark_alfred

Aristotleded24 wrote:

And from my vantage point in Manitoba, where our NDP Premier broke a promise not to raise taxes by rasing the PST after this government has given up revenue through tax cuts for businesses, corporations, and high-income earners, a leader who at least talks about raising corporate taxes is a breath of fresh air.

That's what puzzles me about those who complain about Andrea.  She advocates raising corporate taxes, raising taxes on the wealthy, strengthening public utilities and fighting privatization, raising the minimum wage for two years by twice the rate of inflation and then indexing it to inflation, raising social assistance and indexing it to inflation (last campaign -- we'll see if she repeats that this time around), eliminating blanket corporate giveaways/tax cuts and instead only giving out job grants to companies that will invest in Ontario (protectionism, as right wingers call it), investing an extra $100 million in childcare, etc.  What is right-wing about any of this?

mark_alfred

Linda McQuaig on Hudak's nutty "job plan":  link

Rokossovsky

toaster wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

No one here is addressing the real issue here about the attack on the school board system. The main reason that the Catholic board is so aggressively defended is because it is perceived to provide superior results, and more local autonomy.

Some people here are talking in terms of grand scheme theoreticals, without looking at the real contexts. So, in reality what is Unionist proposing:

Amalgamation of the TDSB with the TDCSB. Is Unionist suggesting that adding 3000 Catholic teachers to the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Local bargaining unit and that adding an addition 50,000 students to the rolls of the TDSB elementary system amounts to progressive change?

It is actually more amalgamation. Elementary Teachers of Toronto would swell to being a local of 15,000 members, and the TDSB elementary school system up to 200,000 students.

The problem here is that the assertion of an apparently progressive view, the creation of a truly secular and equitable public education system, can be used to impose austerity. The problem is that imposing "lateral" cultural equity might actually cause greater horizontal inequity.

Exactly what happened when the McGuinty government imposed class room size caps without adding staff.

One of the main reason people support separate schools is not religious, but because they seek high quality education that is responsive to local needs, something that the public school system is less able to provide with each passing wave of centralizing amalgamation.

That is why numerous non-Catholics actively support the Catholic system, and seek to have their children enrolled in it.

Why must be be thinking about it only in relation to Toronto.  In small towns and cities, instead of having two Grade 4 classes of 10 students, you would have one with 20.

No, Because if you have only 10 kids for a grade 4 cohort in the public system, the student cap demands that you would have a split grade 3/4 or 4/5, with 20 kids in it.

They don't run classes in Ontario with 10 student in them. One of Wynne's "improvements" in the education system when she was Minister of Education.

:)

mark_alfred

I was checking the NDP's candidate list, and it's almost 50% women.  The list is not yet complete, however.

Brachina

 Cool.

mark_alfred

Representation of women in the candidates of Ontario Parties (from the current listing of candidates upon their respective websites):

Green Party of Ontario:

Total candidates listed is  83; total count of women is 23.  So, the Green Party of Ontario has 28% women, and 72% men.

Liberal Party of Ontario:

Total candidates listed is 107; total count of women is 37.  So, the Liberal Party of Ontario has 35% women, and 65% men.

Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario:

Total candidates listed is 107; total count of women is 29.  So, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has 27% women, and 73% men.

And finally, the Ontario New Democratic Party:

Total candidates listed is 71; total count of women is 33.  So, the Ontario New Democratic Party is 46% women, and 54% men.

*Note, some candidates in all parties did not have photos, and had names that were not definitive; so, in these cases I assumed they were women.

 

toaster

Rokossovsky wrote:

toaster wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

No one here is addressing the real issue here about the attack on the school board system. The main reason that the Catholic board is so aggressively defended is because it is perceived to provide superior results, and more local autonomy.

Some people here are talking in terms of grand scheme theoreticals, without looking at the real contexts. So, in reality what is Unionist proposing:

Amalgamation of the TDSB with the TDCSB. Is Unionist suggesting that adding 3000 Catholic teachers to the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Local bargaining unit and that adding an addition 50,000 students to the rolls of the TDSB elementary system amounts to progressive change?

It is actually more amalgamation. Elementary Teachers of Toronto would swell to being a local of 15,000 members, and the TDSB elementary school system up to 200,000 students.

The problem here is that the assertion of an apparently progressive view, the creation of a truly secular and equitable public education system, can be used to impose austerity. The problem is that imposing "lateral" cultural equity might actually cause greater horizontal inequity.

Exactly what happened when the McGuinty government imposed class room size caps without adding staff.

One of the main reason people support separate schools is not religious, but because they seek high quality education that is responsive to local needs, something that the public school system is less able to provide with each passing wave of centralizing amalgamation.

That is why numerous non-Catholics actively support the Catholic system, and seek to have their children enrolled in it.

Why must be be thinking about it only in relation to Toronto.  In small towns and cities, instead of having two Grade 4 classes of 10 students, you would have one with 20.

No, Because if you have only 10 kids for a grade 4 cohort in the public system, the student cap demands that you would have a split grade 3/4 or 4/5, with 20 kids in it.

They don't run classes in Ontario with 10 student in them. One of Wynne's "improvements" in the education system when she was Minister of Education.

:)

 

I'm a supply teacher with 3 boards in Northern Ontario.  Yes, there are many classes with 10 or less students in them.  Most are split, some even 3 grades.  

Rokossovsky

toaster wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

toaster wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

I agree with both of you, Jeff and Unionist.

1) In my most-preferred outcome, there would be no religious component to Ontario primary and secondary education.

2) In a second-best outcome, all religions would be treated the same.

3) The current Ontario system is inferior to the first two alternatives.

The lesson that politicians came away with from 2007 was (I think) "don't mess with the status quo". That's why I think the three main parties won't address this issue. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong...

No one here is addressing the real issue here about the attack on the school board system. The main reason that the Catholic board is so aggressively defended is because it is perceived to provide superior results, and more local autonomy.

Some people here are talking in terms of grand scheme theoreticals, without looking at the real contexts. So, in reality what is Unionist proposing:

Amalgamation of the TDSB with the TDCSB. Is Unionist suggesting that adding 3000 Catholic teachers to the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Local bargaining unit and that adding an addition 50,000 students to the rolls of the TDSB elementary system amounts to progressive change?

It is actually more amalgamation. Elementary Teachers of Toronto would swell to being a local of 15,000 members, and the TDSB elementary school system up to 200,000 students.

The problem here is that the assertion of an apparently progressive view, the creation of a truly secular and equitable public education system, can be used to impose austerity. The problem is that imposing "lateral" cultural equity might actually cause greater horizontal inequity.

Exactly what happened when the McGuinty government imposed class room size caps without adding staff.

One of the main reason people support separate schools is not religious, but because they seek high quality education that is responsive to local needs, something that the public school system is less able to provide with each passing wave of centralizing amalgamation.

That is why numerous non-Catholics actively support the Catholic system, and seek to have their children enrolled in it.

Why must be be thinking about it only in relation to Toronto.  In small towns and cities, instead of having two Grade 4 classes of 10 students, you would have one with 20.

No, Because if you have only 10 kids for a grade 4 cohort in the public system, the student cap demands that you would have a split grade 3/4 or 4/5, with 20 kids in it.

They don't run classes in Ontario with 10 student in them. One of Wynne's "improvements" in the education system when she was Minister of Education.

:)

 

I'm a supply teacher with 3 boards in Northern Ontario.  Yes, there are many classes with 10 or less students in them.  Most are split, some even 3 grades.  

Ok, in areas where it is impossible to conglomerate kids into larger groups due to logistical difficulties because of distance.   Regardless the point is that the reason nearly half a million people support the Catholic board in Toronto, is not because of religious affiliation, it is because they feel they get better service through the system.

And there are reasons for this.

The flip side of the "save a billion" through killing the Catholic system, is further amalgamation of the system, something that is going to further centralize the system and eliminate direct democratic control of the system, and turn it into an unwieldy faceless bureaucracy managed from the center.

JeffWells

The Sun trumpets an EXCLUSIVE this morning that Horwath has actually been expensing "muffins, bagels, Tim Hortons lunch combos" to - heaven forfend! - the taxpayer.

Ridiculous, of course. But she walked right into it, playing the populist game within the right's austerity framework, building a campaign on "watching every penny" and decrying public sector CEO pay.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/17/ndps-andrea-horwath-expensed-muffin...

And The Sun still calls her "the socialist leader."

Sigh.

 

Joey Ramone

Good to see the Greens have said what has to be said about merging the Catholic school system into the public system.  Not surprising that the ONDP is too cowardly to say what they know should be said. The NDP is playing the same stupid game that's played so many times before - trying to prove that it is no different than the Libs because the brain trust advising Horwath is so out of touch with ordinary people that they are convinced that a real, principled left party will frighten voters.  They will fail because voters do not respect or support such unprincipled parties and leaders.  Even if I'm wrong and the Ontario NDP does manage to capture the anti-Lib vote and win this election with their right-wing campaign, they will have won with a mandate for what exactly?  If I were one of those people who hoped for an NDP firmly on the side of workers and the disadvantaged, I'd be really depressed and longing for a principled party like Quebec Solidaire to vote for.  Fortunately, I'm a middle aged activist who long ago realized that positive change can and will happen, but will happen in spite of the NDP, not because of it. 

Skinny Dipper

JeffWells wrote:

The Sun trumpets an EXCLUSIVE this morning that Horwath has actually been expensing "muffins, bagels, Tim Hortons lunch combos" to - heaven forfend! - the taxpayer.

Ridiculous, of course. But she walked right into it, playing the populist game within the right's austerity framework, building a campaign on "watching every penny" and decrying public sector CEO pay.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/17/ndps-andrea-horwath-expensed-muffin...

And The Sun still calls her "the socialist leader."

Sigh.

This article will have an effect on a couple of voters who may be deciding between the NDP and another party.  I think there is an unwritten rule on not expensing every nickel and dime purchase, and not to expense over-the-top dinners.  At the bottom end, expensing muffins makes you look cheap.  Expensing high-class exclusive dining meals makes it look like you are living in luxury at taxpayers' expense.

 

Joey Ramone

Here's my prediction, for what it's worth:  As election day gets closer and the Hudack Cons lead in the polls, the Libs will make their usual pitch to "unite progressive voters" against the evil Cons.  Since the NDP have failed to distinguish themselves from the Libs as a the true progressive alternative, the Lib pitch will probably succeed and the NDP will see loads of progressive voters abandon them and once again vote Liberal.  The NDP will finish 3rd again, with nothing to show for all the abandoned principles and the desparate adoption of populist policies.  Voters are looking for a principled alternative, not another Liberal party, but Horwath's brain trust, who are hopelessly out of touch with ordinary people, will probably conclude that they need to move even faster to abandon the last vestiges of leftism and more firmly embrace right-wing populism.

mark_alfred

Toronto Sun wrote:
According to Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Ontario Liberals, the socialist leader and her assistant have charged taxpayers for muffins, bagels, Tim Hortons lunch combos and even a 25-cent Oshawa parking tab.

[..]

“We’ve seen the same kind of scandals with eHealth, the exact same kind of scandal with the Ornge air ambulance, where these folks at the very top are expensing not only things like coffee and tea and muffins, but trips all over the world,” NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is quoted as saying in a published report last September.

From Andrea's statement, it's not expensing little things that matters, but "trips all over the world".  IE, it's abusing a privilege, rather than sensibly using it.  Interesting that it's the Liberals who pursued this FOI.

Brachina

http://democraticvotingcanada.blogspot.ca/2014/05/toronto-star-pimps-lib...

 This is the most intelligent thing I've read so far anywhere this election. It puts things into perpective.

Rokossovsky

Joey Ramone wrote:

Good to see the Greens have said what has to be said about merging the Catholic school system into the public system.

What needs to be said about the education system is that it is in trouble, and that amalgamation and centralization isn't helping. And that further amalgamation will not help, only hurt the school system. Precisely why there is very large blow-back against any campaign against amalgamating the Catholic boards with the Public boards.

The Green party, and whoever else is promoting this policy, needs to address the central issue that leads to support of the Catholic boards, as opposed to appealing to cost saving "austerity" politics or abstract principles.

One should consider why precisely John Tory, a Conservative, killed his election chances on this slam dunk conservative fiscal conservative policy. It isn't because Conservative minded folks are opposed to "saving money", its because they don't think the Public Board's deliver as well as the Catholic boards.

That is why a half a million people in the GTA are TDCSB supporters.

The Ontario Public system is in dire straights, and a great deal of this is to do with the kinds of amalgamationist policies that the opposition to the Catholic board are proposing.

Nothing wrong with the idea in "principle", but the central issues need to be addressed, as part of the package.

JeffWells

mark_alfred wrote:
From Andrea's statement, it's not expensing little things that matters, but "trips all over the world".  IE, it's abusing a privilege, rather than sensibly using it.  Interesting that it's the Liberals who pursued this FOI.

IMO that's just pandering to the "anti-elitist" sentiments of under-informed Ford Nationalists. I can think of many examples of public sector CEOs needing to travel "all over the world" to do their job to serve Ontario.

I sincerely hope Andrea Horwath is embarrassed to see where she's found herself, throws off her advisors and tries to salvage something of this campaign. If not, then I guess I'm looking forward to the leadership race.

 

Rokossovsky

JeffWells wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
From Andrea's statement, it's not expensing little things that matters, but "trips all over the world".  IE, it's abusing a privilege, rather than sensibly using it.  Interesting that it's the Liberals who pursued this FOI.

IMO that's just pandering to the "anti-elitist" sentiments of under-informed Ford Nationalists. I can think of many examples of public sector CEOs needing to travel "all over the world" to do their job to serve Ontario.

I sincerely hope Andrea Horwath is embarrassed to see where she's found herself, throws off her advisors and tries to salvage something of this campaign. If not, then I guess I'm looking forward to the leadership race.

The fact that the NDP have lost the sympathies of the large bulk of ordinary working people who make up Ford nation, should be food for thought I think. Indeed, up to 25% of those who voted for Ford identified as NDP supporters.

These voters flocked to Ford because he crystalized their opposition to regressive flat taxes, such as the PVRF, which became the centerpiece of his campaign. The left lost the race for the hearts and minds of the working class in Toronto when they became identified with imposing more fees and flat taxes in order to sustain social programs, under Miller.

We are looking at a "through the looking glass" leap, where opposition to downloading of service costs is now perceived as a "right-wing" policy, when in fact what happened is that the left lost control of this stratetgic terrain when it became the handmaiden of the austerity program by increasing fees, and gave the right the opportunity to exploit opposition to austerity downloading.

These voters need to be reclaimed.

And what is the matter with being "anti-elitist". Is there something good about "elitism"?

I don't like a lot of the way Horwath is projecting her messaging, but the general direction of the NDP is correct, and entirely in keeping with traditional "Left-populism" of the Tommy Douglas stripe. Broadbent opposed the GST because it was a regressive tax, and Douglas removed "sales tax" on food and meals.

Don't be fooled about what left and right are just because the right populists are emulating traditional left populist positions.

JeffWells

Rokossovsky wrote:

And what is the matter with being "anti-elitist". Is there something good about "elitism"?

The problem is she is, IMO, uncritically adopting the jargon and framework of the Fords. What do the Fords mean by "elite"? They mean the educated urban left. So the ONDP's messaging is, to put it charitably, confusing.

 

Rokossovsky

JeffWells wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

And what is the matter with being "anti-elitist". Is there something good about "elitism"?

The problem is she is, IMO, uncritically adopting the jargon and framework of the Fords. What do the Fords mean by "elite"? They mean the educated urban left. So the ONDP's messaging is, to put it charitably, confusing.

 

No the Ford's have adopted the jargon of the "left", which often talks about "the elite".

Rokossovsky

Like the Social Democratic Party of Germany should have stopped talking about Socialism, because Hitler led a party with the word "socialist" in its name.

Rokossovsky

But I do see what you are saying. I think the "Ministry of Savings and Accountability" idea is pretty ridiculous, when framed as an initiative to "save money" through a quota.

This kind of "chit chat" is disturbing:

Quote:

She is also determined to prove she can make tough fiscal choices, even if it means driving a hard bargain with organized labour and cutting spending.

“I really do believe that there’s a heck of a lot of waste in Ontario at every level,” she says. “I tell [the unions] ‘I know that is a tough discussion to have, and I know we aren’t always going to agree.’ ”

PrairieDemocrat15

mark_alfred wrote:

Linda McQuaig on Hudak's nutty "job plan":  link

 

Excellent article by Linda! Shows how stupid Hudak's plan (and supply-side econmics in general) is. Shame on the Conference Board of Canada for being so dishonest in their effertive endorsment and vetting of Hudak's plan. Linda's article shows that they know better, but didn't say as much in their report.

This article should be re-printed in every newspaper in Ontario. Of course, it won't, though.

Aristotleded24

[url=http://www.ontariondp.ca/andrea_horwath_s_open_schools_plan_will_protect... schools Kingston residents:[/url]

Quote:
“We’ve seen communities torn apart by school closures and it’s no longer working for families. Our plan will protect schools that are the heart of our communities and ensure that they can be used by students, families and community groups can provide affordable activities in the evening and weekends,” said Horwath.

An NDP government will create an ‘Open Schools’ fund that will be available to local school boards to help keep schools open, make necessary renovations, or repurpose existing space to meet the needs of the community.

DLivings

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
Notably absent from it were any quotes from said "churches, charities, social activists and anti-poverty advocates", noting how they had been abandoned by the NDP, only the bald assertion of a Toronto Star editorialist echoing the sentiments reflected in Rick Salutin's preposterous hatchet job, feeding off the brick-a-brac whining of a few "leftist" bloggers.

The actual quote, if you click the link in the article, is as follows:

Quote:
“We are perplexed that the Opposition parties were able to support an austerity budget in 2012, yet were unwilling to support a progressive budget in 2014 that raised social assistance rates, indexed the minimum wage, increased the Ontario Child Benefit, provided affordable housing funds, and raised wages for many low-income workers,” says the Rev. Susan Eagle, the coalition’s Chair. “We challenge both Opposition parties to tell us, the people of Ontario, what exactly they oppose in the 2014 budget and how they plan to reduce poverty."

Although I'm from the right coast (formerly known as the 'left coast') I can't help but post this excerpt from another thread in response to the "churches, charities, etc"  It would seem they've taken a rather partisan position, or simply haven't been listening to the ndp's rationale for announcing that they would not support the Wynne budget (recalling that Wynne didn't actually take it to a vote)

 

Rosario Marchese wrote:

 

Why I couldn't support the budget

The decision to bring down a government is not one to take lightly. And after the government tabled a budget that -- on the surface -- seemed to offer so much that the NDP should welcome, some people have asked why we would not support it.

Here are my thoughts about the budget. I'm afraid this is a rather long letter, but as the saying goes, I no longer have the time to write a short one!

<snip>

The Liberals made ... three budget promises in exchange for NDP support. But unfortunately, none of these three promises have been kept.

This latest budget makes 70 new promises. After failing to keep three promises made to us during the last election, we simply cannot believe they will be able to keep these 70 new promises.

 

mark_alfred

JeffWells wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
From Andrea's statement, it's not expensing little things that matters, but "trips all over the world".  IE, it's abusing a privilege, rather than sensibly using it.  Interesting that it's the Liberals who pursued this FOI.

IMO that's just pandering to the "anti-elitist" sentiments of under-informed Ford Nationalists. I can think of many examples of public sector CEOs needing to travel "all over the world" to do their job to serve Ontario.

If it's a proper expense, then it's fine.  But it's almost certain there were misuses of expenses and funds in the eHealth and ORNGE scandals.

Rokossovsky

Aristotleded24 wrote:

[url=http://www.ontariondp.ca/andrea_horwath_s_open_schools_plan_will_protect... schools Kingston residents:[/url]

Quote:
“We’ve seen communities torn apart by school closures and it’s no longer working for families. Our plan will protect schools that are the heart of our communities and ensure that they can be used by students, families and community groups can provide affordable activities in the evening and weekends,” said Horwath.

An NDP government will create an ‘Open Schools’ fund that will be available to local school boards to help keep schools open, make necessary renovations, or repurpose existing space to meet the needs of the community.

 

That works for me. The Liberals have been putting indirect pressure on the school boards to sell assets. Broten was quite funny when she offered that the Liberals were not forcing the TDSB to close schools, insisting how they made up the budget shortfall was entirely up to them. In effect this meant they could sell schools, or partition the land and sell parts of school land.

Liberals lie as a way of being.

Indeed forcing school boards to sell their property because of budgeting restrictions is an indirect way of getting the municipalities to fund deficit reduction caused by corporate tax cuts. A direct transfer of wealth from the people to the banks.

Rokossovsky

Horwath promise to cut government spending wrongheaded, says CUPE Ontario president

Fred Hahn wrote:
"Let's be clear," Hahn said, "the government doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem. The mantra about government overspending is an illusion used to justify cuts in public spending, something more and more voters are seeing through."

Horwath needs to fix this.

Brachina

http://m.thestar.com/#!/news/ndp-promises-60m-a-year-to-renovate-repurpo...

 I love this idea and aside from fixing Hydro I think its her best idea yet, by far. I really really love this idea. Schools are often the hearts of commhnities and letting them die is a waste of publicly funded inforstructure.

 I also lkke that we're going to hear the rest of the platform soon. 

 

 Also I find it absurd tbat the party that blows billions on its fuck ups is worried about perfectly valid expenses like a muffin. Billion dollar boondoggles vs. A 1$ muffin. Really?

Rokossovsky

It is a good idea, often floated by community based social activists.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I love Fred Hahn.

mark_alfred

Ad from the NDP.  It's okay, but I found the narrator's voice a bit irritating.

Rokossovsky

It's a crap ad. Saw it today. They should put it away and use the happy one they produced earlier. They should take the high road on Wynne.

onlinediscountanvils

mark_alfred wrote:
Ad from the NDP.  It's okay, but I found the narrator's voice a bit irritating.

It's no "[url=http://vimeo.com/13165207]Get What You Want[/url]". LOL

Aristotleded24

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
It's no "[url=http://vimeo.com/13165207]Get What You Want[/url]". LOL

That

was

Awesome!

theleftyinvestor

My gut instinct is, the NDP will lose seats or make only paltry gains. Candidates who stand out and aren't just parroting the party lines will have a better chance of keeping or taking seats, and candidates who don't actually resonate with their base will be punished when the base stays home.

Pages

Topic locked