Support NeoGAF

[Azih]

They're never going to get in. I don't know why'd they'd squander their chance to actually advance their agenda.

It says a lot about how incredibly bad the McGuinty scandal is honestly.

 

[Zombie James]

The Ontario NDP are dead to me.

 

[gutter_trash]

Azih, my comparison of Wynne and Marois is solely based on using a ''budget'' to launch an election and infringe on the Fixed Date Election law

ideologically, I am aware that they are nothing alike

 

[equippedwithtowel]

I think most reasonable people are fine with rail transit, once they understand that we don't have the money for the capital expenditures that a subway requires.

Should have made that sarcasm much more apparent.


At any rate it'll be a race between liberal sleaze revelations and PC's saying dumb shit. Should be a fun month.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Yeah, I don't see how this works out for the NDP. I suppose they're hoping people hate the Tories as much as the Liberals. Or, alternatively, they hope to have the balance of power again in a minority government.

Horwath was a very popular leader, almost no disapproval, until she supported the Liberal budget last year. That's when her disapproval ratings soared. Can't afford that to happen again.

Wynne and Hudak are despised heavily, Horwath is the only leader that is generally liked. Horwath also performed best on the debates last time, and Wynne debates worse than McGuinty. They don't have the numbers going in but it's probably best to pull the plug while you are still ahead of your worst case scenario.

Horwath's statement

Friends,

It is time for a change.

The Liberal budget is a mad dash to escape scandals by promising the moon and the stars.

The Liberals have wasted billions on scandals and waste, like the $1.1 billion cancellation of the gas plants.

It’s time they show some respect for people and their hard-earned money.

After ten years in power, the Liberals are desperate to promise everything they can. I’m not the kind of woman that believes those kinds of promises. I come from a simple place. Promising is good, but making good on promises is better.

This Liberal budget is not a solid plan. These are desperate moves from desperate people.

The Liberals are out of touch. This budget includes $2.5 billion in new, no-strings attached giveaways to the largest corporations. It does nothing to end the handouts to companies that ship jobs overseas.

Instead of cleaning up the mess in our electricity system and getting hydro rates under control, they want to drive up rates by selling our hydro system in a redo of the Conservatives’ privatization mistakes. The case for selling off public assets has not been made: it’s like burning the furniture to heat the house.

They have not acted on the priorities I hear about from families like jobs, hydro rates, making life more affordable, and making government more accountable.

They are unwilling to deliver on their promises. Last year they promised a Financial Accountability Officer. One year later, that office still sits empty. This budget has over 70 promises — just waiting to be broken.

Ontario New Democrats will not be voting for this budget.

It is time for a change. It is time for a government that stands up for middle class families. It is time for a government that makes sense.

Best,

Andrea Horwath
Leader, Ontario NDP

I'm undecided between Conservative and NDP but it's great to hear that Horwath realizes the stupidity of that corporate welfare fund too, and fire sale of assets (Highway 407 Liberal Edition). Tips the scales a bit.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Horwath was a very popular leader, almost no disapproval, until she supported the Liberal budget last year. That's when her disapproval ratings soared. Can't afford that to happen again.

Wynne and Hudak are despised heavily, Horwath is the only leader that is generally liked. Horwath also performed best on the debates last time, and Wynne debates worse than McGuinty. They don't have the numbers going in but it's probably best to pull the plug while you are still ahead of your worst case scenario.

If that's true then the NDP has a huge issue. Voting intention sank like a stone after Wynne was sworn in and hasn't recovered since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41st_Ontario_general_election#Opinion_polls

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

If that's true then the NDP has a huge issue. Voting intention sank like a stone after Wynne was sworn in and hasn't recovered since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/41st_Ontario_general_election#Opinion_polls

Honeymoon effect.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Honeymoon effect.

That's just some wishful thinking right there. Even if that were the case, the 'honeymoon' is still on. Why call an election now if you're the NDP? Especially considering you were getting concessions you wanted? Whatever party gets in is going to be able to pass a majority style budget because the other two parties won't call an election so soon. The only guarantee is that it won't be an NDP budget.

They let a good opportunity to advance their agenda because of short sighted, path of least resistance politics. It's a joke.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

That's just some wishful thinking right there. Even if that were the case, the 'honeymoon' is still on. Why call an election now if you're the NDP? Especially considering you were getting concessions you wanted? Whatever party gets in is going to be able to pass a majority style budget because the other two parties won't call an election so soon. The only guarantee is that it won't be an NDP budget.

They let a good opportunity to advance their agenda because of short sighted, path of least resistance politics. It's a joke.

I'm talking about how a party's numbers go up after they select a new leader. It's nothing to hawk about.

Majority style budget? I hope you weren't asleep during 2011. There's the budget and then there's the various budget bills. You can let the budget pass while voting down the bills if the government pulls a McGuinty and pretends it has a majority.

I won't comment on that other stuff. It seems mostly Liberals staying stuff like that, while conveniently ignoring that their party of choice is involved in criminal activity. Wynne is being a bit clueless, Horwath didn't say no to the budget, she said no to Wynne. Hopefully Ontario chooses the same.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I'm talking about how a party's numbers go up after they select a new leader. It's nothing to hawk about.

It's been a year and three months with no sign that the NDP is rebounding. That's not just a honeymoon period, that's a large scale shift in voting intention. Boiling it down to a honeymoon period is oversimplifying the picture. Surely the popularity of Justin Trudeau, and the relative sag of the federal NDP is also playing a role. Horwath rode the Layton bump and now it's back to reality. She's also not a particularly charismatic or competent seeming leader.

Majority style budget? I hope you weren't asleep during 2011. There's the budget and then there's the various budget bills. You can let the budget pass while voting down the bills if the government pulls a McGuinty and pretends it has a majority.

They can be as obstinate as they want, but they won't trigger an election on the heels of an election. Whichever party wins the inevitable minority government is going to feel no need to give actual concessions this go around.

I won't comment on that other stuff. It seems mostly Liberals staying stuff like that, while conveniently ignoring that their party of choice is involved in criminal activity. Wynne is being a bit clueless, Horwath didn't say no to the budget, she said no to Wynne. Hopefully Ontario chooses the same.

Trying to say she didn't reject the budget is just tangling yourself up in semantics where you're inserting your own narrative. She said she was not going to vote for the budget, therefore she rejected the budget. Have fun getting those same concessions from Hudak.

 

[Azih]

If the revelations of wholesale deletion of government hard drives hadn't come along with criminal charges against high ranking liberal insiders then the situation would be different. There was only so much Horwath could ignore. All of this isn't her fault, it is Mcguinty's

 

[firehawk12]

The Liberal budget was really really great for NDP priorities (and it's a pretty damn fine budget as far as I'm concerned).

The problem I think for Horwath was that propping up Wynne made her look like she's soft on Liberal corruption and I think the NDP internal polling was incredibly split on whether to prop up the Libs and take the good budget in exchange for being tarnished by Liberal sleaze (and there is a LOT of sleaze) or pull the plug.

I think there's a reason Horwath bolted yesterday and went radio silent. She had to pick her poison.

Edit: gutter it's a different situation. Marois created a crisis, Wynne inherited one and her budget was a straight up love letter to Horwath to try and survive.

Horwath was a very popular leader, almost no disapproval, until she supported the Liberal budget last year. That's when her disapproval ratings soared. Can't afford that to happen again.

Yeah, I appreciate she's in a no win position... but chances are she'll have less power by the time June 13th comes along.

I guess there's no real role the NDP can perform at this point but just play the nippy third party while the Liberals and Conservatives trade places.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

It's been a year and three months with no sign that the NDP is rebounding. That's not just a honeymoon period, that's a large scale shift in voting intention. Boiling it down to a honeymoon period is oversimplifying the picture. Surely the popularity of Justin Trudeau, and the relative sag of the federal NDP is also playing a role. Horwath rode the Layton bump and now it's back to reality. She's also not a particularly charismatic or competent seeming leader.



They can be as obstinate as they want, but they won't trigger an election on the heels of an election. Whichever party wins the inevitable minority government is going to feel no need to give actual concessions this go around.




Trying to say she didn't reject the budget is just tangling yourself up in semantics where you're inserting your own narrative. She said she was not going to vote for the budget, therefore she rejected the budget. Have fun getting those same concessions from Hudak.

There were 7 by-elections since Wynne came into power, she was humiliated in all of them. The more people see Wynne the lower her numbers go (the opposite is true for Horwath despite what you say about her charisma). There's no guarantee that the honeymoon will end anytime soon, but just like Trudeau's ended recently, we've learnt that it can end at any time.

That's simply isn't how it works. If the government writes a budget it can't even implement then there would be no point in continuing.

The budget is a fantasy document. London to Toronto HSR LOL. Who is paying for that??? The money fairies?

And when Ontario gets the inevitable credit downgrade because of our $14 bullion deficit, Liberals would sell off our assets to their friends for 1/3rd the price. Good riddance.

 

[Simon Belmont]

There were 7 by-elections since Wynne came into power, she was humiliated in all of them. The more people see Wynne the lower her numbers go (the opposite is true for Horwath despite what you say about her charisma). There's no guarantee that the honeymoon will end anytime soon, but just like Trudeau's ended recently, we've learnt that it can end at any time.

That answers the question about what the view from fantasy land looks like.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Thanks for proving my point. Look at the numbers in August 2013 and February 2014.

 

[Simon Belmont]

Thanks for proving my point. Look at the numbers in August 2013 and February 2014.

Did I miss the part where they cracked 30%? And that's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say Horwath has more support than Wynne, which is not borne out by evidence.

 

[firehawk12]

I guess I haven't been paying attention, but I just saw that Atleo resigned. I know that a lot of people didn't like how he handled the whole momentum generated by the Idle No More movement, but I suppose it just built and built.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Did I miss the part where they cracked 30%? And that's not the point you were trying to make. You were trying to say Horwath has more support than Wynne, which is not borne out by evidence.

I was talking about the by-elections, when Wynne had to advertise herself her numbers went down, Horwath's went up. I said Horwath is the more popular leader, not that she her party has more voter support.

 

[firehawk12]

I keep forgetting that Canada also has its own version of the White House Correspondent's dinner.

Of course, Harper has no sense of humour and has never shown up to one of them. I mean, even Bush let Colbert rip him a new one, but Harper is too good for it. lol

 

[Boogie]

Of course, Harper has no sense of humour and has never shown up to one of them. I mean, even Bush let Colbert rip him a new one, but Harper is too good for it. lol

I'm pretty sure neither Bush, nor whoever booked Stephen, knew what they were getting in for that night.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Of course, Harper has no sense of humour and has never shown up to one of them. I mean, even Bush let Colbert rip him a new one, but Harper is too good for it. lol

Harper used to show up for them, back when he was Leader of the Opposition. I remember stumbling across it on CPAC once. He was actually surprisingly funny -- he did a really good John McCallum impersonation.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Wynne: "I don't like personal attacks."

Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Classy.

List of people running this election. Wynne. Harper. Ford. That blonde chick who must not be named.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't really view that as a personal attack. It's an attack on the institutional privilege that elected officials enjoy which blinds them to the need of most Canadians. The stat given would still apply no matter who occupied the office. It's not an attack on Harper's background, choices, family, faith, or anything like that.

It's a distortion of policy, I guess, in that it conflates opposition to provincially pension schemes to opposition to the expansion of CPP, but I think conceptually it's absolutely fair game.

Politicians get unusually robust private pensions (last I checked, the standard was serving some or all of a second term means getting a pension that exceeds the working salary of 90% of Canadians) paid for directly by taxpayers; yet, the public pension system funds people to well below the poverty line and the federal Conservatives have proposed only to enhance private savings options or to avoid the actuarial implications of the current public system by delaying the retirement age.

I don't personally oppose the raising of the retirement age to 67, just as I wouldn't oppose looking for taxation avenues to strengthen CPP. It's an issue that impacts an enormous percentage of Canadians, since most Canadians have limited retirement savings and weak private pension options and will be relying on CPP for their "retirement" such as it is.

I do view Wynne's commitment to a provincial pension fund as basically a hail-mary grounded more in a desire to be elected than actual measured study of it as a policy option, but it is what it is.

Edit: If your beef is that she's trying to run against the federal conservatives rather than the provincial conservatives, that's not a personal attack, that's just a basic wedge strategy. The point is to get the provincial conservatives to either cede the issue or defend the federal conservatives and get similarly tarred.

 

[SRG01]

I don't really view that as a personal attack. It's an attack on the institutional privilege that elected officials enjoy which blinds them to the need of most Canadians. The stat given would still apply no matter who occupied the office. It's not an attack on Harper's background, choices, family, faith, or anything like that.

It's a distortion of policy, I guess, in that it conflates opposition to provincially pension schemes to opposition to the expansion of CPP, but I think conceptually it's absolutely fair game.

Politicians get unusually robust private pensions (last I checked, the standard was serving some or all of a second term means getting a pension that exceeds the working salary of 90% of Canadians) paid for directly by taxpayers; yet, the public pension system funds people to well below the poverty line and the federal Conservatives have proposed only to enhance private savings options or to avoid the actuarial implications of the current public system by delaying the retirement age.

I don't personally oppose the raising of the retirement age to 67, just as I wouldn't oppose looking for taxation avenues to strengthen CPP. It's an issue that impacts an enormous percentage of Canadians, since most Canadians have limited retirement savings and weak private pension options and will be relying on CPP for their "retirement" such as it is.

edit: Also, my prediction is yet another Liberal minority government.
I do view Wynne's commitment to a provincial pension fund as basically a hail-mary grounded more in a desire to be elected than actual measured study of it as a policy option, but it is what it is.

Edit: If your beef is that she's trying to run against the federal conservatives rather than the provincial conservatives, that's not a personal attack, that's just a basic wedge strategy. The point is to get the provincial conservatives to either cede the issue or defend the federal conservatives and get similarly tarred.

I agree with this post completely. The Wynne campaign is attempting to rationalize (to the public) an expansion of public pensions. The federal government has already stated that they're opposed to provincial plans amongst other things, so it's a clear issue that the Wynne campaign can exploit.

The problem, however, is how any provincial government can fund/administer such a program with the tax base of a single province.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Her pension (severance package) is just as large as Harper's. So if Harper's pension is too big to understand everyone else's struggles, what gives Wynne this insight of knowledge? If she's interested in real debate on pension reform then she wouldn't deal in personal attacks like that.

Harper never opposed the Ontario Pension Plan, he is simply against expanding the CPP out of concern for job losses. (and I trust his concerns more, since he actually acts on it, unlike Wynne who voted against Horwath's proposal to create an ORPP in 2010).

 

[RevoDS]

I agree with this post completely. The Wynne campaign is attempting to rationalize (to the public) an expansion of public pensions. The federal government has already stated that they're opposed to provincial plans amongst other things, so it's a clear issue that the Wynne campaign can exploit.

The problem, however, is how any provincial government can fund/administer such a program with the tax base of a single province.

We already have our own pension plan here in Quebec that complements the CPP. Why wouldn't it work for Ontario to fund such a plan of its own?

 

[SRG01]

Her pension (severance package) is just as large as Harper's. So if Harper's pension is too big to understand everyone else's struggles, what gives Wynne this insight of knowledge? If she's interested in real debate on pension reform then she wouldn't deal in personal attacks like that.

Harper never opposed the Ontario Pension Plan, he is simply against expanding the CPP out of concern for job losses. (and I trust his concerns more, since he actually acts on it, unlike Wynne who voted against Horwath's proposal to create an ORPP in 2010).

Okay, that part is fair. But yes, unequivocally there will be some impact on jobs and the economy if this thing goes through. It's the classic question of how to force/entice the public to save for their retirement. Many commentators have rightfully noted that investing for your own retirement outside of these mandatory plans is the right way to go... only problem is that no one is disciplined enough to look forward to their retirement.

We already have our own pension plan here in Quebec that complements the CPP. Why wouldn't it work for Ontario to fund such a plan of its own?

Have you seen Quebec's finances lately? They're not a good example of provincial finances at all.

 

[RevoDS]

Okay, that part is fair. But yes, unequivocally there will be some impact on jobs and the economy if this thing goes through. It's the classic question of how to force/entice the public to save for their retirement. Many commentators have rightfully noted that investing for your own retirement outside of these mandatory plans is the right way to go... only problem is that no one is disciplined enough to look forward to their retirement.



Have you seen Quebec's finances lately? They're not a good example of provincial finances at all.

Overall? No, Quebec isn't an example. But the RRQ itself is on solid ground and its model does work well enough to be replicated elsewhere successfully.

You aren't disproving my point by talking about the province's overall finances. I'm telling you apples are good and you're replying that the oranges are rotten.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Her pension (severance package) is just as large as Harper's. So if Harper's pension is too big to understand everyone else's struggles, what gives Wynne this insight of knowledge?

Because the nature of privilege is that some people reflect on it and try to overcome it to better be empathetic towards others, while others don't realize they have it at all and thus remain blind to its effects, as with literally any other usage of the term?

Harper never opposed the Ontario Pension Plan, he is simply against expanding the CPP out of concern for job losses. (and I trust his concerns more, since he actually acts on it, unlike Wynne who voted against Horwath's proposal to create an ORPP in 2010).

Is your objection that you feel her proposal is insincere, is your objection that you feel the proposal is bad, or is your objection that you don't think generous pensions for politicians have anything to do with the overall lack of engagement of politicians on the issue of the state of the public pension regime? The first is quite likely but I don't think a substantive critique because countless bad policies were passed by sincere people and countless good policies passed in shameless acts of politicking; the second might well be true but seems to diverge from the way you worded your criticism; and the third seems plainly false, just prima facie.

 

[Boogie]

Have you seen Quebec's finances lately? They're not a good example of provincial finances at all.

I don't know what you're talking about. Ether_Snake told me that Quebec's finances were the most sound in Canada.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Well the reason I made the post because I thought it was a nasty personal attack and still believe so. It's attempting to discredit him by targeting his (IMO, well deserved) pension. For a politician that talks the talk about positive politics, she doesn't seem to want to walk the walk. You can't say you don't believe in personal attacks and only want to debate the facts (she made a huge ad campaign out of it) and then bring in personal details and snipes and act like it's nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8agcmg823Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxFcsZFAgPY

As for the pension plan itself and her intentions behind it, there are many things I disagree about it. I agree that we need an expanded pension plan itself, but it should be phased in over 6 years like the CPP was.

 

[firehawk12]

So apparently the Harper government is accusing the Chief Justice of essentially sabotaging his Quebec pick for the Supreme Court.

I bet he wishes he was King of Canada at this point.

 

[maharg]

Well the reason I made the post because I thought it was a nasty personal attack and still believe so. It's attempting to discredit him by targeting his (IMO, well deserved) pension.

I agree with the others above that this is entirely fair game. A politician's pay is an inherently political topic, and trying to remove it from the political arena is a step towards corruption. The people have every right to look at the pay of their political leaders for the taint of hypocrisy and corruption.

And Harper (and the modern Canadian conservative movement, though to be fair, also its liberal movement) is decidedly pro-austerity. Being against pensions for average Canadians while collecting a nice one yourself is problematic at best. It's not really a question of if Harper deserves his (no one who brings this up is likely to say that the answer is to lower his and leave CPP alone), but to question whether everyone else deserves better.

 

[gutter_trash]

So apparently the Harper government is accusing the Chief Justice of essentially sabotaging his Quebec pick for the Supreme Court.

I bet he wishes he was King of Canada at this point.

she just raised a red flag that Haper and McCay overlooked (intentionally overlooked)

Nadon has not practiced law in Quebec for years/ decades, he is more of an Ontario Judge.

He should never have been nominated

Harper is a loon

 

[firehawk12]

she just raised a red flag that Haper and McCay overlooked (intentionally overlooked)

Nadon has not practiced law in Quebec for years/ decades, he is more of an Ontario Judge.

He should never have been nominated

Harper is a loon

Yeah, but now they're saying she fed information to the lawyer who raised the objection in the first place. lol

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

I agree with the others above that this is entirely fair game. A politician's pay is an inherently political topic, and trying to remove it from the political arena is a step towards corruption. The people have every right to look at the pay of their political leaders for the taint of hypocrisy and corruption.

And Harper (and the modern Canadian conservative movement, though to be fair, also its liberal movement) is decidedly pro-austerity. Being against pensions for average Canadians while collecting a nice one yourself is problematic at best. It's not really a question of if Harper deserves his (no one who brings this up is likely to say that the answer is to lower his and leave CPP alone), but to question whether everyone else deserves better.

So in the next election if the Conservatives start talking about how Trudeau doesn't get the middle class because his house is worth this many dollars and he earns this many dollars, he's a limousine liberal etc. so his position on GST tax cuts or other policies is irrelevant and possibly selfish. Do you think that is fair game?

 

[maharg]

So in the next election if the Conservatives start talking about how Trudeau doesn't get the middle class because his house is worth this many dollars and he earns this many dollars, he's a limousine liberal etc. so his position on GST tax cuts or other policies is irrelevant and possibly selfish. Do you think that is fair game?

If he's also talking about how much he gets what it's like to live a working class life, sure. Even so, this is not analogous. CPP and MP compensation are both matters of policy, the daily life of a politician is not.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

If he's also talking about how much he gets what it's like to live a working class life, sure. Even so, this is not analogous. CPP and MP compensation are both matters of policy, the daily life of a politician is not.

It is essentially the same message. It is saying Stephen Harper is too wealthy to understand your plight. Stephen Harper didn't say nobody needs pensions, he made it easier to get a workplace pension especially RRSPs. But because he didn't want to expand CPP, the Ontario Liberals decided to bring his personal pension into it to discredit him.

---

Never mmind that this a provincial election, and the provincial and federal government arguing in this campaign style manner is incredibly poor form from a Premier. Between that and begging for more handouts from Alberta to build HSRs and subways, I think the Ontario Liberals should rename themselves to Parti Ontarien.

 

[maharg]

It is essentially the same message. It is saying Stephen Harper is too wealthy to understand your plight. Stephen Harper didn't say nobody needs pensions, he made it easier to get a workplace pension especially RRSPs. But because he didn't want to expand CPP, the Ontario Liberals decided to bring his personal pension into it to discredit him.

And Harper doesn't want to expand CPP because he thinks it's an inappropriate use of taxpayer money. As I said, he's a supporter of austerity. If his pension were a private pension you'd have a point, but his pension is publicly funded and will cost taxpayers millions of dollars (especially when you consider that PMs aren't Highlanders, there can be more than one retired living PM).

A much better line of attack, precisely *because* this is a policy matter, is to point out that Harper actually cut PM pensions in 2012.

Never mmind that this a provincial election, and the provincial and federal government arguing in this campaign style manner is incredibly poor form from a Premier. Between that and begging for more handouts from Alberta to build HSRs and subways, I think the Ontario Liberals should rename themselves to Parti Ontarien.

This is also a much better line of argument.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

He didn't say was inappropriate use of taxpayers money, he said it would kill jobs in a fragile economy, which is true to an extent. The Liberals could phase it in over 6 years like the feds did with CPP, but they want to do it all in one year for god knows what reason. Even the internal documents that were leaked by the AMAPCEO union said that increasing payroll taxes by 1% can kill 75,000 jobs (ORPP will raise it by 1.9%). This is Harper's line of reasoning, and it's fair game. Bringing his personal pension into it does not discredit this line of reasoning, in fact, it is a pretty irrelevant thing to mention.

 

[maharg]

No matter the reasoning, Harper's pension is not his *personal* pension. It's a pension given to him as a public servant. It is a matter of policy.

If he goes and works in the private sector after he's done being PM and gets a pension from that, *that* will be his personal pension.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

He didn't say was inappropriate use of taxpayers money, he said it would kill jobs in a fragile economy, which is true to an extent. The Liberals could phase it in over 6 years like the feds did with CPP, but they want to do it all in one year for god knows what reason. Even the internal documents that were leaked by the AMAPCEO union said that increasing payroll taxes by 1% can kill 75,000 jobs (ORPP will raise it by 1.9%). This is Harper's line of reasoning, and it's fair game. Bringing his personal pension into it does not discredit this line of reasoning, in fact, it is a pretty irrelevant thing to mention.

I don't know about you guys but after CPP and my mortgage payment there isn't much left, let alone pay for another poorly run pension plan, the last thing I want is to pay more just so the liberals can dip into that revenue stream.

 

[gutter_trash]

NDP and Liberal supporters should just vote strategically to make Harper lose and never ever again allow the Bloc to come back.

if Liberals are ahead, then NDP supporters should vote Liberal.
If NDP are ahead, then Liberal supporters should vote NDP.

Just make Harper lose. And don't vote Bloc

 

[explodet]

So apparently the Harper government is accusing the Chief Justice of essentially sabotaging his Quebec pick for the Supreme Court.

I bet he wishes he was King of Canada at this point.

This situation is just so... odd.

What could Harper (and I guess MacKay now too) possibly gain by attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? If it's just hurt feelings, that's not very smart. And it's not like they're going to change the court's mind.

 

[SRG01]

This situation is just so... odd.

What could Harper (and I guess MacKay now too) possibly gain by attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? If it's just hurt feelings, that's not very smart. And it's not like they're going to change the court's mind.

Andrew Coyne remarked on his latest column on NatPo that it's most likely a play at wedge politics and playing to his base. However, the only problem is that playing to his base is not how he got elected to a majority government and only serves to alienate himself from moderates.

IMO, there's a fairly good chances that the Liberals may end up with a strong majority in the next election, simply because the government is wearing the blame for the TFW scandal (despite multiple liberal/conservative governments introducing the changes) amongst general perception that the government is becoming incapable of governing effectively.

Overall? No, Quebec isn't an example. But the RRQ itself is on solid ground and its model does work well enough to be replicated elsewhere successfully.

You aren't disproving my point by talking about the province's overall finances. I'm telling you apples are good and you're replying that the oranges are rotten.

It is totally relevant. You do remember what Paul Martin did with CPP/EI funds, right? The same situation can happen with any government needing funds.

I don't know what you're talking about. Ether_Snake told me that Quebec's finances were the most sound in Canada.

I can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not


Late edit, but what's going on with the Conservatives lately? Even MacKay is joining in: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...rt-suggesting-top-court-overstepped-on-nadon/

 

[RevoDS]

Andrew Coyne remarked on his latest column on NatPo that it's most likely a play at wedge politics and playing to his base. However, the only problem is that playing to his base is not how he got elected to a majority government and only serves to alienate himself from moderates.

IMO, there's a fairly good chances that the Liberals may end up with a strong majority in the next election, simply because the government is wearing the blame for the TFW scandal (despite multiple liberal/conservative governments introducing the changes) amongst general perception that the government is becoming incapable of governing effectively.



It is totally relevant. You do remember what Paul Martin did with CPP/EI funds, right? The same situation can happen with any government needing funds.



I can't tell whether this is sarcasm or not


Late edit, but what's going on with the Conservatives lately? Even MacKay is joining in: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...rt-suggesting-top-court-overstepped-on-nadon/

So the idea of a provincial fund can't work because we have a precedent of the federal government taking money in the CPP.

Got it.

 

[SRG01]

So the idea of a provincial fund can't work because we have a precedent of the federal government taking money in the CPP.

Got it.

The point is that it's a really bad idea to trust politicians with a pot of gold during a financial crunch. Saying that Quebec's pension is sound ignores the fact that the pension does not exist within a vacuum but rather in the greater sphere of Quebec politics and finances.

Let me give you another example: the Alberta Heritage fund is supposed to be a reserve fund for future years. Recent governments of late have either stopped contributing (IIRC) or made withdrawals from it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

So in the next election if the Conservatives start talking about how Trudeau doesn't get the middle class because his house is worth this many dollars and he earns this many dollars, he's a limousine liberal etc. so his position on GST tax cuts or other policies is irrelevant and possibly selfish. Do you think that is fair game?

I certainly think it's fair game to point out if you believe a candidate's wealth blinds them to the needs of their constituents; the entire premise behind the idea of improving diversity in representation in parliament, for example, is to mitigate problems associated with privilege. If a party ran a slate of candidates that only involved, say, 15% women, I think it would be fair to point out that that party does not understand the need for representation of women and by women in parliament.

Whether or not the criticism is accurate--IE whether or not the person does appear to be blind to the concerns of their constituents--is another question altogether. The question is about how someone is able to be critical of their own privilege and extend empathy and understanding to others. It's mostly a debate not about policy solutions (since there's room for a lot of disagreement on what best solves the problem) but rather of recognizing the problem to begin with. I think Trudeau would probably be able to pretty trivially refute that portrayal of himself on the grounds that his platform contains x, y, z, a, b, c "Big Ideas" about dealing with middle class issues.

Far more concerning on the attack ad front are relentless and vague attacks on Trudeau as human--he says swear words, he's pallin' around with terrorists, black-and-white footage with national post or sun headline excerpts, etc. Likewise I think attacks on Harper like the Liberals "SOLDIERS... IN OUR CITIES... WITH GUNS... IN OUR CITIES" nonsense from a few years ago. that materially misrepresent his positions are a problem. I think if an ad attacks someone's policy by linking it with their perspective in a way that the link is tangible and meaningful, that's an acceptable ad and not a personal attack.

Harper's pension, along with Wynne's pension and the pension of every MP (can't speak to MPP or other provincial pensions) are in fact obstacles to their ability to understand the daily experiences of those who are not afforded generous pensions but who have reached retirement age. I think it's eminently fair to challenge all politicians on this issue -- what makes you fit to decree what a suitable pension is for me when you are not subject to the same rules yourself? When you have stories about seniors eating pet food to save money to be able to pay their heating bills, I think it's pretty clear the present system does not represent a system that is working in terms of outcome.

And when your response is to tell the person eating pet food "well, looks like you made mistakes when you were younger, better luck next time"--which is the functional result of shifting the onus of preparing for retirement onto the individual--I think that also reflects denial of just how poorly people have decided in aggregate and the impact that has on our society and our humanity.

It also hurts younger generations as boomers will spend through all the equity they have in their homes in order to maintain their standard of living post-retirement, resulting in lower inheritance and less inter-generational class mobility, especially in light of rising education costs and higher debt burdens among the young would-be recipients of inheritance.

To me, the argument that there's a major problem that the federal conservatives are blind to seems very strong. The weaker part of the argument is Wynne's suggestion for fixing it, but that's besides the point of whether the framing of the issue as one of privilege is somehow off-limits.

 

[RevoDS]

The point is that it's a really bad idea to trust politicians with a pot of gold during a financial crunch. Saying that Quebec's pension is sound ignores the fact that the pension does not exist within a vacuum but rather in the greater sphere of Quebec politics and finances.

Let me give you another example: the Alberta Heritage fund is supposed to be a reserve fund for future years. Recent governments of late have either stopped contributing (IIRC) or made withdrawals from it.

Perhaps, but I'd argue that it's better to trust a provincial government with a defined pension fund than leaving it up to everyone to plan their retirement individually.

Studies have shown time and again that Canadians are basically saving nothing at all for their retirement.

I'm convinced it's more likely that people will have a decent retirement if they have a mandatory contribution to a government-created fund than if they're left on their own. Even if political leaders did end up partly dilapidating it for other purposes (which, by the way, hasn't happened in Quebec)

 

[Pedrito]

This situation is just so... odd.

What could Harper (and I guess MacKay now too) possibly gain by attacking the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? If it's just hurt feelings, that's not very smart. And it's not like they're going to change the court's mind.

It must be extremely frustrating for them to be on the losing end almost every time despite appointing six (well five for now) of the nine judges.