News   Jul 19, 2024
 366     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 1.7K     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 650     1 

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. From a TO perspective you can't see this, but many Ontario cities (Guelph & Kingston are two that immediately come to mind) are dependent on the provincial public sector to survive economically. Just look at all the economic malaise the city of Ottawa is now facing because of Harper's government cuts.

I'm going to be cheesy and take a line directly from Wynne: "Government should be a force for good in people's lives".

People need to STOP using 'government' like its some dirty word and propose all these stupid ideas to cut it down. Government is GOOD, it equalizes our society, makes everything fairer, provides us with services we need.


I don't think it's really an issue of government being good or bad. Rather, is it the right of any community or any person to be 'relying' on government for their livelihood?? Government should be providing the jobs that government needs, no more and no less. The onus must always be on individuals and communities being or becoming self-supporting. This is healthy, in so many ways. The opposite isn't, it lends to a culture of entitlement without contribution. Does this ever really bode well for any jurisdiction? To which:

Smaller cities with large government buildings such as Guelph, will have skyrocketing unemployment rates under Hudak, as they could lose over 1000 good paying jobs. Also means that there are fewer opportunities for young workers.

Again, is any of this the responsibility of the tax payer? How did Kitchener/Waterloo manage to innovate and reinvent itself (over time) while in Kingston and Guelph we assume they can't?
 
That being said, the 100,000 jobs cut will still devestate the public service. Whether it's through attrition or layoffs the impact on the workplace is the same - valuable positions are still being lost. Or in the case of casual employees and cleaners, cheap employees whose absence would save next to no money.

If you work in the Ontario government like I do, you would know that by cutting 7% positions (I am not using 100k to sensationalize things), it won't "devastate public service". I doubt 15% will do that.

Like in the private business, a public service jobs should be kept only when it provide enough value for taxpayers' money. How these people need their job, how that might affect the economy is completely irrelevant. It is about respecting taxpayers' money and not squandering it. If you think the Ontario government is so lean and efficient that there is simply no room to cut 7% fat, then you are being excessively optimistic about our government.
 
I don't think it's really an issue of government being good or bad. Rather, is it the right of any community or any person to be 'relying' on government for their livelihood?? Government should be providing the jobs that government needs, no more and no less. The onus must always be on individuals and communities being or becoming self-supporting. This is healthy, in so many ways. The opposite isn't, it lends to a culture of entitlement without contribution. Does this ever really bode well for any jurisdiction? To which:



Again, is any of this the responsibility of the tax payer? How did Kitchener/Waterloo manage to innovate and reinvent itself (over time) while in Kingston and Guelph we assume they can't?

Well put.
You can't squander taxpayers money just because an entire town's population needs those government jobs. That's very bad and dangerous logic. Government jobs are located there when it makes sense, not to support the local economy. You simply can't support a city's economy by government jobs. That's to the contrary of being a responsible government.
 
It's not like the jobs in Kitchener and Waterloo are tere for jobs sake, they are university staff, ministry departments, school staff, etc. It's not make work.

Cutting 100,000 positions is absolutely going to affect services. You are nuts to think otherwise. You honestly don't think the government would have figured it out if there were 100k redundant positions? As recently as a few years ago the Libs had Drummond do that report, and all of his recommendations were cuts to service as you can't simply cut those mystical and intangible "middle managers".

Conservatives come out with the same line every election. "We will cut waste and find magic money from it to cut your taxes". Ford's entire campaign focused around it. And what happened when he entered the office? He quickly learned that there was no redundant "waste", and he had to cut services to give his much ballyhooed tax cuts. If Hudak wins, expect the same. He will come in, start cutting education workers by increasing class sizes, standardizing curriculum in the name of efficiencies, dropping support workers, making librarians part time positions, cutting grade 13, etc.

You simply cannot cut expenses without cutting services. Period. No discussion. The question isn't whether it's possible or not, it's whether you think it's worth the cuts so that you can save $100 when it comes to tax time.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind reducing the number of employees the government employs, but Hudak has not given us details on who he will cut.

People keep on saying that we have a bloated government, but that's just rhetoric. How many of these employees do we really need? Or is the issue being exaggerated? How much of the increase in the number of public servants is related to the restoration of services lost during the 90s?

Can we trust Hudak when he says that he won't cut front-line staff (remember that the PC party in the 90s promised not to cut healthcare, then closed a whole bunch of hospitals). Or should we take his word as is?

Ontario election: Advice for the undecided voter, part 1
The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Jun. 03 2014, 8:15 PM EDT

Canada’s largest province, home to nearly 40 per cent of the country’s population, goes to the polls on June 12. How to vote? In a perfect world, we’d be recommending that Ontarians mark their “X†next to candidates for the Liberal Progressive Conservative Party. Unfortunately, that party isn’t on the ballot. Back here on planet Earth, voters are left with imperfect choices: a New Democratic Party that borrowed the most memorable parts of its platform from Rob Ford; a Progressive Conservative Party doing all it can to erase the “progressive†from its name; an incumbent Liberal Party simultaneously promising NDP social programs and a fiscally conservative budget. None of these is an ideal choice. And yet choose we must.

Over the next four days, this space will look at the options facing Ontarians. On Saturday, June 7, we’ll endorse one of those parties./B]

As the leaders met in their one and only province-wide debate on Tuesday night, polls were showing Tim Hudak’s Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals in a dead heat. In the coming days, we’ll look at the parties’ competing platforms. But first, consider the lie of the land: Ontario’s government and finances.

The deficit: This year, Ontario expects a budget deficit of $12.5-billion. As a raw number, it sounds enormous. But it has to be put in context. Ontario has a budget problem, but it is not in crisis. It isn’t Greece. The only figure that really matters is the debt-to-GDP ratio, the size of the province’s accumulated deficits relative to the size of a nearly three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar economy. That ratio, though it is higher than it should be in the long run, is barely rising at current deficit levels. It must be brought down, and both leading parties are pledged to turn it around by eliminating the deficit quickly: the Conservatives in two years, the Liberals in three. There are, of course, questions about the plausibility of each of those plans, which we’ll begin to dig into tomorrow.

Government spending: Ontario is the lowest spending province in Confederation. Queen’s Park spends less per person on programs and services than any other province. Yes, really. Ontario also has the lowest per capita provincial revenues, thanks in part to a lighter tax burden than most provinces. Any discussion on reducing the size of government has to consider that context.

For example, health care is the biggest driver of provincial spending. Ontario’s per capita health-care spending is the second lowest in the country, and spending restraint over the past few years has been tight enough that it is poised to fall below the current lowest spender, Quebec. If Ontario spent as much per person on health care as Alberta, Queen’s Park would be spending an extra $14-billion a year.

There is waste in Ontario’s budget. The incumbent Liberals proved that by making some remarkably bone-headed spending moves over the last decade. But in relative terms, Ontario’s government is more efficient, or at least less inefficient, than others. That doesn’t mean spending in many areas cannot be reduced. It can, and the Liberals and Conservatives are both committed to that, albeit to different degrees. But cuts will be more challenging than in other provinces, and more strongly felt.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...er-part-1/article18980450/#dashboard/follows/


New EKOs poll:

OLP: 36%
OPCP: 31%
NDP: 20%
GREEN: 10%(!!)

Good news, the more parties gaining viability the better- that means more choices to choose from.
 
I'm going to be cheesy and take a line directly from Wynne: "Government should be a force for good in people's lives".

People need to STOP using 'government' like its some dirty word and propose all these stupid ideas to cut it down. Government is GOOD, it equalizes our society, makes everything fairer, provides us with services we need.

Government is good to the extent its cost is worth the value it provides. However, everyone knows the government itself doesn't generate money. The government's role is to spend other people's money. If you are spending money on the wrong employee, although it is providing "well paying jobs", do you still consider a good thing?

Governments don't make everything fair. Equalizing society doesn't mean fairness. If I decide to stop working tomorrow and rely on social assistance for the rest of my life, do you think it is fair to other taxpayers? Just because there are income gaps and some people are poor doesn't mean it is not fair. Fairness means everyone gets what he/she works for, not everyone getting an equal share of the pie.
 
I don't mind reducing the number of employees the government employs, but Hudak has not given us details on who he will cut.

People keep on saying that we have a bloated government, but that's just rhetoric. How many of these employees do we really need? Or is the issue being exaggerated? How much of the increase in the number of public servants is related to the restoration of services lost during the 90s?

Can we trust Hudak when he says that he won't cut front-line staff (remember that the PC party in the 90s promised not to cut healthcare, then closed a whole bunch of hospitals). Or should we take his word as is?
.

Well, you can ask Wynne the same question: if there is no cuts and no tax increase, how the hell will she balance the budget in 3 years? Because the economy will magically fix itself and leads to prosperity?

Saying no cuts is easily and it pleases everyone. It takes guts to propose necessary cuts knowing you are losing a large number of voters.

If you can't take Hudak's word for it, then I think you can take Wynne's word that the liberal won't have any money squandering scandals?
 
Government is good to the extent its cost is worth the value it provides. However, everyone knows the government itself doesn't generate money. The government's role is to spend other people's money.

What do you call crown corporations? If they're still there to spend people's money, technically we can extend this all the way to the private sector, where private investments and employment generated from sales would technically still be 'spending other people's monies'.
 
Can we trust Hudak when he says that he won't cut front-line staff (remember that the PC party in the 90s promised not to cut healthcare, then closed a whole bunch of hospitals). Or should we take his word as is?

Wait a minute, it was the massive and unprecedented funding cuts and downloading of the federal liberals in the 90s that burdened Ontario and caused a lot of the cuts and closures, along with the mess left by Rae's NDP. Harper took the fall for a lot of this!
 
I think the Green at 10% really tells a lot about this election.
It's similar to what they were polling in the 2007 election, where they got 8%. NDP was lower that time, so I suspect that's where some of the unhappy NDPers are going.
 
Wait a minute, it was the massive and unprecedented funding cuts and downloading of the federal liberals in the 90s that burdened Ontario and caused a lot of the cuts and closures, along with the mess left by Rae's NDP. Harper took the fall for a lot of this!

First of all, I think you meant Harris; second, while it is certain the cutting of Federal transfers has an impact, it was Harris who reduced personal income tax by 30% - and the latter didn't hesitate to download the costs to municipalities either.

AoD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top