AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
And a candidate who promised both income and corporate tax cuts on top of additional transportation spending while the province is in a deficit condition is...?
AoD
|
|
|
2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
And a candidate who promised both income and corporate tax cuts on top of additional transportation spending while the province is in a deficit condition is...?
AoD
steveintoronto
Superstar
After doing a quick review of at least the media interviews, all three are way out on a limb, out-promising each other with not only a chicken in every pot, but two, with cherries on top, and a partridge in apéritif (apparative) tree.
And the obligatory: "Oh, but it won't cost you anything, it will be paid by....ummm...errr....^*^#@(_)...*them*!"
But how many of you would vote for someone who states: (gist) "Here's our plan, it will involve pain and sacrifice, and it will cost you more in taxes, nothing is free, but this can be done".
Canada as a nation did once. http://business.financialpost.com/uncategorized/lessons-from-canadas-basket-case-moment But those days of such honesty winning elections may be over.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Jasmine18
Senior Member
You have a premier that went into debt by 6 billion dollars to buy votes when the programs she says are urgent could have easily been started last year with a balanced budget.
I agree Ford is not great but you have to realize why does he even have a chance? Yes you can just be snobish and say people are stupid, but I think you more have to look at how bad the current leadership has to be to make Ford a viable option.
One thing I dont understand, why have the liberals not thrown her under the bus last year. Or the bigger question how can a person wake up with a 12% approval rating and want to keep running for office?
Wynne is the reason why the liberals literally have zero chance at all, people hate her guts and deservingly so.
Videodrome
Senior Member
I was in Ford Nation today and saw a good amount of Liberal and PC signs on lawns.
adma
Superstar
Show us the media-buzz proof re Schreiner "garnering notice and respect", above all others. Regardless of whether there's substance there (at least in your eyes), the critical buzz this past week has been over Horwath. Not Schreiner. Show me the proof otherwise. They may be "making the most sense" to *you*; but beyond that, it's at the moment a fatally "wonk" argument. In this race, he's a Soknacki, not a Nenshi. Yeah, that may reflect the cruel reality of "unfair" media bias or voting systems; but, so it goes.
Show me the proof *at the present* that the Ontario Greens are headed for anything other than Schreiner in Guelph at best. (Though from past figures, I'd allow for Dufferin-Caledon and Parry Sound-Muskoka to complete a "BC triad". But that'd require an awful lot of wind out of the PC sails--yet, who knows under Ford.)
Furthermore, the BC Greens have had a head start with a longer history as a viable double-digit share party (going back to the NDP-implosion year of 2001), not to mention the reflected glory of federal leader Elizabeth May. The GPO enjoys no such luxury; and the closest it came to doing so, in 2007, it was almost in spite of itself: a pox-on-all-houses reflex within a particularly dreary election (and the one seat which it truly contended for, Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, involved a "strategic" suppression of Lib/NDP except as names on the ballot). One can *hope*; but I see little sign unless Schreiner gets shoehorned into future debates...
APTA-2048
Senior Member
You realize Ford first went up against two people who were way more qualified than he was and they lost, right? Maybe you should be asking the PCPO why they thought he was the more viable option then.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Already posted it. Why are you so adamant that there aren't viable choices outside of the Three Stooges? It's been discussed and weighed in this string prior.
Jeezuzz...there *is no proof*! The only proof is the poll that really counts: The Election. What's been discussed, linked and referenced are *indicators*.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/jean_chretien_145285
Ford isn't a "viable option". What the polls have been indicating is abject disenchantment with the Big Three. But that reaction is volatile, and open to something 'better' being presented to them.
steveintoronto
Superstar
And therein lies a story to be told....honest or otherwise...but there's going to be Hell to pay when the charade falls flat. And maybe the rise of something Sensible Centrist from the ashes?
Meantime there's a massive vacuum for a Centrist to rise into.
And for those unfamiliar with the Green platform:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/green-party-campaign-1.4654421
Markedly less to the Left than Horwath, but a lot more believable in being so.
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
Didn't that already happen with the transition from Hudak to Brown?
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah, in retrospect, but the fix was in for Patrick. Turns out he didn't "take out life insurance"
It's Patrick He Took Out Life Insurance 1990 - YouTube
And the Center, (even a pseudo one like Brown) remains empty.
Schreiner's not even my kinda guy, but compared to the other three, I like his approach. He may have zero chance of winning a seat, I don't care, it's just so refreshing to hear someone point out the absurdities of Ontario politics, and as someone involved in the green energy program, I've seen what he sees and articulates so well:
Mike Schreiner discusses Green Party's vision for Ontario
Northern Light
Superstar
This post verged on intelligent commentary.
May I suggest, however, the reason you get mediocre government is the kind of post you previously offered over several years.
I don't mean it was your fault personally, per se.
The government itself is accountable for its own choices.
But the people who might have influenced it were never persuaded by ad hominem attacks you and many others mounted. In fact they tuned them out, because they were so shrill and high pitched.
Where you might have righteously impugned poor policy choices, you got caught up in character assassination and demonization of a particular party.
Here you come much closer to sounding reasonable, and it serves you well.
You could still use to polish the edges a wee bit, LOL
But good on you for improving in your persuasiveness (seriously) .
Attack policy over people, and either way back up your arguments.
Politicians too are swayable by arguments, if you come across as representing their best interest.
True of all parties.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I think Mike is the quintessential 'good guy'. The Greens writ large have a platform (and have many years running) that tends to better reflect a good mix of views.
Pay your own way, in real time.
Invest in a common future.
Be compassionate.
Use scare resources of all kinds wisely.
Prioritize the greatest needs first.
All that said, under the current electoral system, they are unlikely to do well.
I would be genuinely hopeful he will win Guelph, though it will be a tough fight, any other riding is remote, but if they end up w/3 or 4 seats, that will be a phenomenal outcome for them, well deserved, and it isn't completely out of the question, though highly improbable.
The NDP platform, has its share of flaws and areas w/which I disagree, but so far, among the big three, it is the most credible in terms of matching revenues to expenses (albeit still with a deficit), and does more, on balance, to provide opportunity for success to more people than the other 2 'majors'.
There are many ways in which it could be improved.
However, at the end of the day, in my riding, where there is no indication of the Greens being in contention for 2nd, and where the NDP are strong, they likely have my vote this time.
I'd love to see more and better genuine choice and an electoral system that allowed me to support my preferred choice without accidentally electing a bigoted clown. But I must live the system as it is today.
Last edited:
adma
Superstar
We. Are. Talking. About. Two. Different. Things. Here. I am talking about Media Buzz. Media Buzz. ***Media Buzz***. M.E.D.I.A. B.U.Z.Z. ***Over the past week***, especially. Something that has ***nothing whatsoever*** to do with raw quality of party/candidate/platform etc--yes, it may be "superficial"; but it's a fact.
What you're doing is *personally* advancing a cause for the Green Party as a viable, principled *voting* option. But realistically speaking, as it now stands until further notice, it isn't a viable *seat winning* option, except in Guelph and maybe a couple of other spots. And the reason I am adamant about that is that it is the truth--and furthermore, your "Why are you so adamant" statement reflects an ironic insecurity about the fact that the GPO, with their "laudable" platform, is nonetheless being squeezed out of the picture, media-wise. This isn't, or shouldn't be, about "selling" me on the Greens--for all you know, maybe I *will* vote that way. This is about a bigger issue, in which I take a purposely neutral stance.
You may be "principled", steveintoronto, but when it comes to grasping the bigger barometer of things, you're sure media illiterate (or contemptuous).
adma
Superstar
*You* like his approach. However, when it comes to critical overall voter-decision-changing pivot points, that clip ain't Jack Layton on Tout le monde en parle in 2011.
In practice, unless Schreiner gets a plum position in one of the leader's debates (or a rep-by-prop system's adopted), a clip like that will be "nice guy, nice platform, shame I can't waste my vote on him". Unless one lives in Guelph or Shelburne or Huntsville or something.