News   Jul 19, 2024
Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon Topped Off in South Hill
 495     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
TTC's Next Big Step: Replacing Rick Leary
 2.1K     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
Third Phase of Quad Residences Advances at York University
 782     1 

Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

Status
Not open for further replies.
gweed123 said:
I don't think the transit plan is a bait and switch, I just think the funding mechanism that was proposed in the budget was structured the way it was to make it more palatable to the NDP. If the Liberals win a majority, they can tell the NDP's faux populist stance to go take a hike, and implement the funding recommendations of the Golden panel.
Click to expand...

but...in putting the budget forward as their platform....it was also structured to make it more palatable to the voters.....other than people making over $150k, the transit plan being put forward would see lots of new service with no direct cost to anyone. If it gets reworked with tolls and other tools/fees/taxes...how is that not a bait and switch on the electorate?
 
TOareaFan said:
but...in putting the budget forward as their platform....it was also structured to make it more palatable to the voters.....other than people making over $150k, the transit plan being put forward would see lots of new service with no direct cost to anyone. If it gets reworked with tolls and other tools/fees/taxes...how is that not a bait and switch on the electorate?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying switching the funding formula wouldn't be a bait and switch, I'm just saying they're much more likely to change that than they are to change the plan itself. Who knows, they may also think that a Federal Liberal government in 2015 would invest more money in infrastructure, which would plug the hole that currently exists in the funding plan. That's not exactly the kind of thing you can say publicly in an election, because the federal election is still almost a year away.
 
TOareaFan said:
Aside from not dealing with the deficit..
Click to expand...

The deficit concerns me as well and I'm not sure who I trust more to deal with it.

On the right we have the PCs who are promising aggressive cuts that I have little doubt will harm many in this province. They've committed to balancing the budget within two years, but they still haven't said exactly how theyll do that.

On the left, the Liberals have also committed to balancing the budget, albiet not as quickly as the PCs have promised. Im honestly not sure if this "delay" in balancing the budget would be significantly detrimental, but I'm sure there's potential for harm. The Liberals wouldn't cut programs as aggressively as the PCs and they'd continue infrastructure investments, which are good things for those of us who are concerned about how PC cuts would harm the economy. Like the PCs, we still don't know how exactly the Liberals will balance the budget.

I do believe that both parties would eventually balance the budget (PCs faster than Liberals), but I don't hold much faith in their time frames.

Voters are going to have to decide which approach they believe will be more beneficial to the province.
1. Cut and hope the cuts don't kill us.
2. Delay the balanced budget and hope that won't kill us.

Pick your poison
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
The deficit concerns me as well and I'm not sure who I trust more to deal with it.

[...]

Voters are going to have to decide which approach they believe will be more beneficial to the province.
1. Cut and hope the cuts don't kill us.
2. Delay the balanced budget and hope that won't kill us.

Pick your poison
Click to expand...

Isn't the timeline between the PCs eliminating the deficit only 1-2 year's difference to that of the Liberals?

The Progressive Conservatives would run balanced budgets once they eliminate the red ink in 2016, but deficits are OK if there's an economic crisis, party leader Tim Hudak said Friday.
Click to expand...
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/deficit-s...nomic-downturn-pc-leader-hudak-says-1.1824744

The government expects significant increases in revenue will eliminate the deficit by 2017-18.
Click to expand...
http://www.nugget.ca/2014/05/01/ont-liberals-table-budget-with-125b-deficit

Why did Mr. Hudak commit to eliminating the deficit in three years? There is no economic or empirical justification for a deficit elimination period of three, or four, or even five years. The answer is obvious: Since the Liberals were already promising to eliminate the deficit in four years, Mr. Hudak could hardly promise to do it in five.
Click to expand...
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/05/20/bad-math-the-ontario-election-fiscal-platforms-crunched/

Regardless, the polls are still fluid at this point, and may very much change in the coming weeks.
 
gweed123 said:
I'm not saying switching the funding formula wouldn't be a bait and switch, I'm just saying they're much more likely to change that than they are to change the plan itself. Who knows, they may also think that a Federal Liberal government in 2015 would invest more money in infrastructure, which would plug the hole that currently exists in the funding plan. That's not exactly the kind of thing you can say publicly in an election, because the federal election is still almost a year away.
Click to expand...

I guess what I am saying is that it is not possible to consider the plan without also considering the funding of the plan. I also think the political parties know this. It is a lot easier for Glen Murray to ask people to support his transit plan if, for most of the people, there is no direct cost to them.

So Suburban Sally and Sam (even if they don't use transit) can look at the 15 minute GO train plan and the HSR and say "yeah, those are good things and since we both "only" earn $145k a year there is no cost to me".....if, however, you said to them "your contribution to that plan is a 1% hike in gas taxes and tolls on these roads that you now drive on...." Suburban Sally and Sam might say "nope, not supporting that". So baiting and switching on the funding formula is, in my mind, baiting and switching on the plan.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Yes. The Liberals have committed to balanced budget one year after the PCs.

I don't believe that extra year will harm our province. But I'm sure that the PC's cuts will
Click to expand...

Yes...as I have said before, though, the cuts are identified ..whereas the Liberal plan is...increase budget deficit for one year.....then balance it two years later....without telling us what they would cut. So, as I have asked before, why are the cuts that balance a $11.5B deficit in two years so disastrous but the cuts that would balance a $12.5B deficit in two years not so?
 
Since they are running in the majority of ridings, here is what the Libertarians have to say about transit in their New Candidates Guide:

Example: Funding of Public Infrastructure and Services

Difficult Question: How would your party pay for and encourage people to take transit?

Positioning: Transit is a service like any other. >> Libertarians would prefer the free market to provide that service. But given that government is involved, we need a short-term approach to manage the current funding shortfall.

Supporting: If Ontario taxpayers and families are forced to pay more for public services like transit, everybody will want access to it, in an unsustainable way. We would pay for transit like any prudent householder would, with a balanced budget. >> The most recent Ontario budget (May 2013) approaches $128 Billion. The cost to improve transit is estimated to be about $2 billion or about 1.6% of the total. Find savings in the other parts of the overall budget and re-prioritize those expenditures. If transit is so important, then treat it as important and find the money.

Illustrative: Flexibility is key to encouraging people to take transit. (applies to GTA only) Whenever subways or streetcars need repair shuttle buses are called in. Whenever snow blocks the Scarborough RT in east Toronto, shuttle buses are called in. Whenever water mains burst and subways are stopped, shuttle buses are called in. Buses are the most flexible and inexpensive mode of transportation we have. We would also invite other bus companies to offer their competitive service using existing municipal bus ways and roadways. With many companies competing using various sized buses and catering to the comfort of commuters, prices would be competitive as would service. Some bus companies would offer express service, some door-to-door service, some economy service, and some with luxury service. This way, the needs of more commuters would be met and more would be encouraged to leave their cars at home.

Illustrative (alternate): It is possible to fund and operate transit in a financially sustainable way. Singapore's transit infrastructure is managed by two private-sector operators, SBS Transit and S.M.R.T., and the transit system actually posted an overall operating profit (as of 2007).
Click to expand...

http://libertarian.on.ca/doc/ncg
 
TOareaFan said:
Yes...as I have said before, though, the cuts are identified ..whereas the Liberal plan is...increase budget deficit for one year.....then balance it two years later....without telling us what they would cut. So, as I have asked before, why are the cuts that balance a $11.5B deficit in two years so disastrous but the cuts that would balance a $12.5B deficit in two years not so?
Click to expand...

+1

I've always voted Liberal but I'm seriously annoyed that there has been almost zero mention of what cuts will be necessary. You gotta hand it to Hudak, he's at least saying that deep cuts will be necessary, where as the other two parties keep talking about new expenditures
 
ehlow said:
They don't seem to care at all about public transit in Toronto.

I guess because the "average family" drives, it's all about lowering car insurance and widening highways.
Click to expand...

Screw the NDP. I hope they get thrashed in this election - and I'm a usual NDP voter. I have no idea what they're thinking. Between subsidizing hydro, lowering car insurance, and the highways, they're basically campaigning on a pro-pollution agenda. It's total BS.
 
Hmm, call me a conspiracy theorist, but what would happen if one decouples the subway system from the TTC and move towards complete municipal funding of the rest of the transit system? I would foresee a decline in ridership due to service cutbacks and/or fare increases - and that would erode the urgency for a DRL.

AoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top