# Ontario Election



## mind_business (Sep 24, 2011)

Well, looks like another Liberal Government here in Ontario


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

It's not clear yet whether it will be a minority or majority though.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I never vote. But if I did, it would not be Liberal.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Not really surprised that McGuinty won. I guess many thought that it was better to dance with the familiar devil [not me]. 

I think the Liberals need just 1 or 2 more seats to pull a majority at this moment.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

McGuinty is winning because he favours the foreigners. Of course he is going to win in Ontario.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> McGuinty is winning because he favours the foreigners. Of course he is going to win in Ontario.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Are you joking, Kae? Foreigners can't vote!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

You did not hear about this? That's what he meant. 

http://www.canadaupdates.com/conten...centives-mcguinty-canada-employers-16811.html


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

I'm one of those who decided that better the devil we know. I have to say though that I was extremely impressed with Andrea Horwath. She ran a positive campaign instead of mud slinging. Too bad she belongs to a party I could never vote for.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

I forgive you CC. 

Yes, Ms. Horwath did much better than expected.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Voting for the devil you know is like going back to your ex! 



... but it happens.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

It seems the Liberals will have lost a majority by 1.  I guess we won't find out until tomorrow.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

All right, boys and girls, prepare for more taxes, more fees, more scams, more gifts and bailouts for special interest groups, etc.

But hey, rest assured, all upcoming taxes are guaranteed to be revenue-neutral, so no worries.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ 

Rather black and white worldview you got there. A certain amount of corruption, deception, and other scandals are endemic to any government. I mean, look at the previous government, of which Hudak was a cabinet member.

T.gal: Hudak stepped right into that bear-trap. Calling immigrants foreigners lost Hudak the election. The PCs had a healthy lead going into the campaign, and they blew it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

From the poll results at midnight: 43 Lib; 37 PC; 17 NDP, there is no clear winner, except that both the NDP and the PCs picked up some seats over the last session
at the expense of the McGuinty led Libs. With a split vote in Ontario, the polls were predicting a minority gov't this time, and it appears that the polls were a good indicator, although the polls didn't specify which party would have the most seats in a minority gov't. 

If these seat numbers hold true, then at least out of all this, we have now 
a more humble minority Lib gov't that will kept in check, being held accountable by the other two parties, and that's probably a good thing for hard pressed Ontario
families. 

Right now, the way it stands, I am happy with the outcome, because now ,
the "tax man" will have a shorter leash over the next 4 years, although frankly, there isn't much more to tax than what hasn't been already taxed with the HST.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> All right, boys and girls, prepare for more taxes, more fees, more scams, more gifts and bailouts for special interest groups, etc.


Well these things go on in any gov't. It is hard to say what could have 
happened with Tim Hudak in charge. He had some good ideas and some
bad ideas. Certainly the TV ads that special interest groups and the Liberals
put on, didn't really put him in a favourable light, even if some of the cuts he
voted on were in previous gov'ts. Digging up any dirt like that about
your past, can work against you at the polls even if people want change.

From the election results, Ontarioans voted for change, but not the way
the PCs or the NDP expected it..and they certainly didn't give McGuinty
a clear majority this time to ramrod taxes and other issues through without any
accountability to the people. The HST may have been defeated last time
if he had a minority back then, and more than likely he wouldn't have even attempted such a bold move as the HST, because that certainly would have defeated his gov't.


He mentioned in his TV ads that he knew he was unpopular, and now the
Ontario voters have confirmed to him that he is.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Third consecutive government formed by McGuinty. First time in 50 years.

One more seat and he would have formed 3 successive majority governments for the first time in 100 years.

Pretty impressive track record for any politician.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It will be interesting to see who appoints a Speaker to the House. The party would lose one vote................hmmm.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Third consecutive government formed by McGuinty. First time in 50 years.
> 
> One more seat and he would have formed 3 successive majority governments for the first time in 100 years.
> 
> Pretty impressive track record for any politician.


Premier "Dad" is now the first politician in Ontario's history to become it's premier 
three times in a row. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it.

As of this morning, it still looks like a PC minority gov't, and maybe that's
a good thing for Ontario. At least most of the incumbents have won re-election in their ridings, so although there may be some new faces on the PC-NDP side of the legislature, most of McGuinty's Liberals will be returning, so it will be "business as usual".

I think the 3 party split vote ruined Hudak's chances of getting a majority,
combined with his cut! cut! cut! track record (in the past) and TV attack ads
leading up to the election. People want lower taxes, but they don't want services cut either, like health services. 

The last thing Ontario needs right now is some inexperienced premier and
MLAs throwing another wrench in it's economic engine.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ng-mandate-to-dalton-mcguinty/article2193934/


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

> Premier "Dad" is now the first politician in Ontario's history to become it's premier three times in a row.


Gordon Campbell held that same distinction in British Columbia. Let's hope McGuinty doesn't cut his own throat the way Campbell did!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> Gordon Campbell held that same distinction in British Columbia. Let's hope McGuinty doesn't cut his own throat the way Campbell did!


Karen; Are you referring to the fact that he resigned into his 4th term as premier, due to protests within his party members over his declining popularity because of the HST revolt and other taxes imposed like the carbon tax?

The political landscape is a lot different here in Ontario which is a different 
cultural mix. While we all hate taxes (especially new consumption taxes on
essential things like electricity and home heating), I think people here are
more aware of the fragile economy and the huge deficit Ontario is facing
these days. 

Premier Dad bailed out the Ontario auto industry during the recession to
save jobs, as well as other infrastructure spending in the recession years.
Somebody's got to pay for all that spending... and it's the Ontario taxpayers.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Carverman: I realize the circumstances were very different; I simply meant that Campbell well might have set another record by winning another election if he hadn't made such a mess of bringing in the HST the way he did. I don't think the revolt was by his caucus members - some of them weren't too pleased, but he was coping with that. It was the public in general, egged on by our disgraced former premier Bill Vander Zalm, trying to save his own reputation in the history books, who eventually brought Campbell to his knees. How soon the public forgot Vander Zalm and the circumstances that led to his resignation!

My feelings are that Campbell and his cabinet handled the whole HST affair very badly, but I voted to retain it in the referendum, and I will undoubtely vote Liberal in the next election too. I can't understand why so many people were unable to separate the two issues: (1) Is the HST good for the province? and (2) am I even going to consider whether it's good for the province because I'm so angry at the Liberals for the way they introduced it that I'm going to vote against it without even trying to understand it?


----------



## slacker (Mar 8, 2010)

My guess is that there are more militant cut-taxes-at-all-cost types in BC.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> My feelings are that Campbell and his cabinet handled the whole HST affair very badly....
> I can't understand why so many people were unable to separate the two issues: (1) Is the HST good for the province?


Karen, the HST, a consumption tax on practically all goods and services is ALWAYS good for the provincial coffers. It changes the formula for transfer payments between the Harper Gov't and the provinces that have implemented it. 

The Maritime provinces long ago, realized it was to their advantage to harmonize their sales taxes since they have been "have not" provinces for quite some time. 

Quebec is a different story, they prefer to collect their own taxes separately, and fight over the alleged missing tax transfer payments they were supposed to receive from the Harper gov't. 

So 5 out of 10 provinces (not sure about the former NWTs) have the HST implemented now. The holdouts are the western provinces where their economies are still in reasonable shape.



> (2) am I even going to consider whether it's good for the province because I'm so angry at the Liberals for the way they introduced it that I'm going to vote against it without even trying to understand it?


Karen, new taxes can always be considered inflationary, because they affect
the household incomes. Provincial gov'ts could hold a referendum before implementing a new tax such as the HST, but generally with taxation, it tends to backfire..because NOBODY likes paying taxes!

In Ontario, Premier Dad, realized in his last term, that we are heading towards financial "icebergs" with the growing deficit and implemented the HST. 

The opposition fought it, but because the McGuinty gov't had a majority before yesterdays election, it was rammed through on the majority vote for the "good of the province".

Yesterdays election, IMO, was not a good time to place an inexperienced "captain" at the helm as we are trying to reduce the growing deficit. 

We all realize what can happen if people don't pay their fair share of taxes (like the US...their debt in the trillions now).


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Good points, Carverman. In the case of B.C., which is facing a situation none of the other provinces have ever had to deal with, we're in the stupid situation where we're having to reverse the HST and return to a GST -PST at an enormous cost. This is causing all kinds of problems - the NDP is criticizing the Liberals for not going back to the PST immediately which, of course, is impossible, and the NDP knows that full well.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Rather black and white worldview you got there.


You may use as many     as you like, but in this case, yes, for me it is a black and white result.
I mean, either McGuinty is the premier or he's not.
The majority/minority discussion is pointless, esp. since it's only by 1 seat.
Pretty much all of his policies are counter to my own ideas/opinions.

And given the way he has pillaged my family budget in the last 8 years, I would have voted for the proverbial "yellow dog" had he been running against McGuinty.

Had it not been for the fact that three generations of my family are settled in Ontario and we have built our lives here, I would have moved on long ago.
But those considerations outweigh pure economic imperatives.



> Calling immigrants foreigners lost Hudak the election. The PCs had a healthy lead going into the campaign, and they blew it.


Agreed 100%.
That was purely his inexperience talking.
A crafty, scheming and seasoned politician like McGuinty took that to the cleaners and hung him out to dry.

Ironically, that specific policy that Hudak spoke out against is just plain silly (like most things McGuinty has promised in this election).

Think about it : why would you give tax breaks to businesses for hiring only from within one particular community or sub-section of the population?
Of course Hudak is not xenophobic, but it came out all wrong.
Hopefully he has learnt his lesson.

And some of us now have to resign ourselves to the fact that this insanity will now continue (and get worse) for 4 more years, and how to prepare ourselves for it and what counter defensive actions to take.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> T.gal: Hudak stepped right into that bear-trap. Calling immigrants foreigners lost Hudak the election. The PCs had a healthy lead going into the campaign, and they blew it.


I can't disagree, after all, Hudak was the rookie & McGuinty the experienced one & he played that bear-trap card to perfection. Better luck next time!


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> A crafty, *scheming* and seasoned politician like McGuinty took that to the cleaners and hung him out to dry.


Good description. Wonder how long it took them to come up with something that they knew would positively destroy Hudak's chances by way of his reaction.  Too bad no one in his party caught the scheme, guess they were inexperienced too.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> I can't disagree, after all, Hudak was the rookie & McGuinty the experienced one & he played that bear-trap card to perfection. Better luck next time!


Absolutely! Here is a prime example of where "negative advertising" doesn't
work..ie: "McGuinty-the tax-man" TV ads etc, and those stupid ETFO ads
"On Oct 6th, Vote against children" ads, that were modified in the last
2 weeks before the election.. and were still lost on the majority of voters!

What I want to see as a voter..is results of the current gov't vs the election
promises of other political parties.

I watched the debate last week and although McGuinty seemed to be
on the defensive in some cases, he handled himself quite well.

Ms Horwath, just kept "harping" (not an intentional pun), about only
one particular aspect of the Ontario budget , health care,
and wait times for her son. Ok, as a monthly user of OHIP services, 
I understand that..but so what! What was her party going to do about
the rest of Ontario's problems? (Other than capping the salaries of
hospital CEOs, I didn't see anything that really interested me about her platform)
well...other than she is still a good looking single mom! 

Tim Hudak kept hammering away at McGinty for this and that, but again
he complicated the issues with no focus on the real issues...it was
as though this was a personal attack. At least Ms. Horwath..(good looking
single mom ) kept her cool. I voted for change not because I especially
wanted McGuinty out, but when the pre-election polls suggested a minority
gov't, I made a concious decision to help Ontario get that minority gov't
where there will be some accountability in the next 4 years.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. Ms Horwath, just kept "harping" (not an intentional pun), about only
> one particular aspect of the Ontario budget , health care,
> and wait times for her son.
> 
> ...


1. I agree and actually what sounded rather silly or desperate to me, was when she criticized her son's diagnosis & made the doctors sound incompetent by saying that they did not put a cast on her son's fractured arm as though in Canada that would happen just to save money? Even I know that not all fractures require a cast.  But she maintained a calm demeanor & I appreciated that as I had expected the opposite to be honest.

2. Boys will be boys. 

3. Well, thank you!


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

carverman said:


> Tim Hudak kept hammering away at McGinty for this and that, but again
> he complicated the issues with no focus on the real issues...it was
> as though this was a personal attack. At least Ms. Horwath..(good looking
> single mom ) kept her cool. .


That's when I tuned him out (and he still got my anti - McGuinty vote since this time I wasn't voting for anyone, I was voting against McGuinty), it seemed like he had nothing to say about his plans and quite frankly I know exactly what McGuinty did in the last 8 years so he is the know factor in the equasion, too bad Horwath is not PC leader.

I actually wish green party had some kind of reasonable platform.

ps, Mister you need a date ;-)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Hudak, like John Tory in the last election, made an unforced error by making waves on social issues. Ontarians are allergic to social conservatism. 

By black and white, I mean that you think Hudak would have turned Ontario into a land of milk and honey, while McGuinty will reduce Ontario to a post-apocalyptic hellscape. NEWSFLASH: all successful politicians are crafty, scheming, etc. It's a necessary skill. Voters don't like politicians who are honest with them. They want to have sweet nothings whispered to them then turn a blind eye to what is actually done.

I'll also note that you think crafty and scheming is a bad thing in McGuinty, and an awesome trait in Harper. Gimme a break!

Let's face facts here: Hudak was not promising a change in direction. He very intentionally proposed adopting the Liberal agenda in large part with a little window dressing to make his platform look a bit different. The only substantive difference I saw between the two was on green energy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Good description. Wonder how long it took them to come up with something that they knew would positively destroy Hudak's chances by way of his reaction.  Too bad no one in his party caught the scheme, guess they were inexperienced too.


The Liberal war room claimed that they didn't set this as a trap. They were surprised that Hudak made an issue out of it. Not sure I believe them.

I don't think the stance Hudak took was unintentional or unconsidered. He and his advisors would have carefully developed their message. Their problem is that the federal Conservative electoral coalition in Ontario is rural, generally anti-immigration and suburb immigrants. Two groups that are naturally uneasy with each other. Hudak has the rural anti-immigrant crowd sown-up, but they still decided to court them with the anti-immigrant message. It was a mistake in my opinion. Hudak has their votes regardless, he should have 100% courted suburban Toronto, and especially immigrants. That was the recipe the federal government used to great success. Hudak's message should have been that McGuinty had done too little to help immigrants and that this was too little, too late. His mistake. I think they'll learn that one for next time.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> NEWSFLASH: all successful politicians are crafty, scheming, etc. It's a necessary skill. Voters don't like politicians who are honest with them. *They want to have sweet nothings whispered to them then turn a blind eye to what is actually done*.


Yes, Ms. Horwath, you can whisper sweet nothings into my ears, but all
I can do is offer you only one vote in return. 

Now for the blind eye..can I play pirate with an eye patch, or do I have to have someone poke out one of my eyes? 



> Let's face facts here: Hudak was not promising a change in direction. He very intentionally proposed adopting the Liberal agenda in large part with a little window dressing to make his platform look a bit different. The only substantive difference I saw between the two was on green energy.


I agree, I didn't see any real changes in his platform either. Sure there
was the "if I get in power, I will squash the PST portion of the HST on
electricity bills", but that was more of a carrot than anything, and whether
he had the financial data available to him at the time, or just hoping that
that was enough to swing the voters, I don't know...but even if that
did happen, they still have the DRC portion of the hydro bill that they can
play with as a percentage of the actual hydro used, so they could always
adjust that upwards to make up for the 8% loss in revenue..and because
the DRC charges is tax on a debt that is not available to the public to scrutinize,
that little scheme could go on for many years and no one would be the wiser.

BTW..if we are discussing "sneaky tricks" by politicians..with the Libs
only out by 1 seat for a majority, what is to prevent a "defector"
from "changing colours" in exchange for some favoritism in his/her riding?

All they would have to do is resign their seat and leave it open for 
a by-election, since they have to be re-elected, in order to sit as a MLA
for their riding. We know from the past, this has happened at least on a couple
of ocassions with the Federal MPs.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> The Liberal war room claimed that they didn't set this as a trap.


Of course not, what else could they have said? But I don't believe them for a second, in fact, the moment I heard about that job subsidy for immigrants [or foreigners as KaeJS/Hudak called them, lol], I became suspicious. 

As Harold so eloquently said, I think those that felt *'pillaged'* by the Liberals, would have voted for the *'proverbial yellow dog'*, lol, but it was not enough for Hudak, who did not seem to have been able to *'shake off the “Tea Party Tim” tag'* early enough.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think it is a real issue that needs to be addressed. I'm not convinced the proposed policy will help, but I'm not 100% convinced it was a cynical ploy to trap Hudak.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The immigrant thing _sounds_ like a trap, but I could be wrong.
No matter, the fact is that it is a silly policy.

If this is not _whispering sweet nothings_ into the ears of immigrant dominated GTA voters, I don't know what else it can be called.

The issue with immigrant employment is not that they can't get *a* job - the issue is that they can't get the job that they *want*.
And the reason for that is their education and degrees from their native countries are not recognized here.
That is why all across the GTA we have doctors and engineers driving cabs, accountants waiting tables, etc.
And that is a larger, deeper issue that cannot be solved by offering a $10,000 bribe to businesses for hiring an immigrant.
Like any other subsidy, all this is going to do is create a temporary spike in immigrant employment (at best).
Those jobs will last about a year, the minimum required, and then will be withdrawn.

I honestly believe that back in the summer, McGuinty himself did not believe he could win.
So he went amok making "sweet nothing" promises left, right and center.
And now it's time to fulfill those promises.

$10,000 for immigrant jobs, $1,600 per student grant, and so on.
Hmm...I wonder where he plans to get the money for that


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Do you really think they would hire someone for a year and then fire them without cause?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Not dismissal, just regular attrition.

Either a real job exists, or it doesn't.
Either a candidate is qualified, or s/he isn't.
Forcing subsidies for hiring from within a small, narrowly defined community within the workforce is silly.

If we do need a job creation subsidy, let's do a universal, across the board job creation subsidy.
If we need to do something to support a certain group of immigrants, let's do that directly via education grants, new job training grants, direct financial assistance, etc.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

First of all, the idea of McGuinty's plan had been to offer a one-year training opportunity to get Canadian experience & not necessarily a permanent job.

At any rate, these days many employers are reluctant to hire employees on a permanent full-time basis with all the perks that come with it, and the reasons for that are obvious, hence many offer contract jobs that don't have to be renewed and that does not constitute 'firing'.

I actually don't blame employers as it takes a lot to fire an incompetent employee; first they need a warning, then a second, then a third & then you better have enough proof, otherwise be prepared to be sued for wrongful dismissal. There are legitimate cases of course, but many file dubious claims, which are motivated by grudges rather than facts.

I agree with everything Harold said.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I see it as encouraging companies to take a risk when choosing between candidates with local qualifications and experience, and a recent immigrant. Many hiring managers are risk averse when it comes to foreign credentials. I don't think this will create new positions, but it might help recent immigrants integrate into the labour market more quickly.


----------



## Jutzi (Oct 7, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Voters don't like politicians who are honest with them. They want to have sweet nothings whispered to them then turn a blind eye to what is actually done


I would vote for someone who says listen....I'm gonna tax you till your cry, then tax you for crying! I want honesty! Just give it to me straight up. You get sick? If your not dying your waiting! You want your kids to go to school? Make sure their lunch boxes have wads of cash in there too! 

It would be nice not to have to listen to someone promise to make everything better and then have them empty my pockets! Just tell me your gonna do it!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Not really surprised that McGuinty won. I guess many thought that it was better to dance with the familiar devil [not me].
> 
> I think the Liberals need just 1 or 2 more seats to pull a majority at this moment.


Well, its only a couple of days after the election..all the Fiberals need to do
is to convince a MLA to resign (family issues/health etc..something that
is believable and won't come back to haunt the Libs), then they get someone
really popular within that riding to join the Liberal party and run for that spot
in a by-election. Just like they have an pre-election "war room", they also employ
strategists to exploit weak areas in the other parties for special cases. So in
most cases, the necessary action is well planned out and executed. 

There has been a long history of politicians "crossing the floor" for one reason or another, namely some dissatisfaction with either the leaders or the party policies. The list is endless..practically.... and as recent as 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_politicians_who_have_crossed_the_floor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_politicians_who_have_switched_parties

I don't know if Premier Dad would resort to dirty politics to push an unpopular
vote on his next agenda in the next 4 years, but certainly at this point
the Ont Libs would welcome ANY elected MPP to cross the floor to their side.

Whether this would raise anger in the voters that voted them in, I don't
know, as most candidates that are voted in incumbents, and the incumbents
that end up not, there is usually a very close horserace in their riding. 

Toronto.Gal, how did I do with explaining this?
Rank me on a (0-10 scale)?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Jutzi said:


> I would vote for someone who says listen....I'm gonna tax you till your cry, then tax you for crying! I want honesty! Just give it to me straight up. You get sick? If your not dying your waiting! You want your kids to go to school? Make sure their lunch boxes have wads of cash in there too!
> 
> It would be nice not to have to listen to someone promise to make everything better and then have them empty my pockets! Just tell me your gonna do it!


The Ontario Libertarian Party came up with a "solution" with a "fair tax
on consumption" and "negative income taxes", that scheme is
perhaps even better... in theory... than "revenue neutral".

Honesty? That is an oxymoron with politicians. Remember Jean Chretien and
his red book Liberal party election platform? "If I get elected PM, I will KILL
the GST!"....those words still ring true today, instead of no consumption
taxes, In Ontario, we have two taxes on just about everything, except most foods that you have to prepare yourself. 

I guess they just didn't have the "heart" to tax the bread and milk, baby
formula, baby shoes that our children need to grow up..to become...
you guessed it!..the next generation of taxpayers! 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...omists-love-consumption-taxes/article1753185/


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> Toronto.Gal, how did I do with explaining this?
> Rank me on a (0-10 scale)?


Since I agreed with most of what you said, I'll give you a 9.5/10. 

If I did not tell you before, let me tell you now, that in fact, I find your posts very informative & always appreciate the humour as well; on many I have given you an invisible 10/10.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Since I agreed with most of what you said, I'll give you a 9.5/10.
> 
> If I did not tell you before, let me tell you now, that in fact, I find your posts very informative & always appreciate the humour as well; on many I have given you an invisible 10/10.


WoW! Thanks! Didn't know anyone cared about poor me! 

Read in today's Ottawa Citizen, a few "by lines" about the Ontario election
and Premier Dad's comments during the election campaign ..
what Ontario needs right now .."is a steady hand at the tiller"..aye! aye! Captain Dalton. Just don't steer us into more tax increases please!

In one of the editorials, the reporter's comment on the Prime Minister
meeting with Premier "Dad" after the election, congratulating on his very narrow win this time, but secretly wishing the the Tory "Blue Steamroller" would have flattened his party (as in the Bill Davis "Big Blue Machine" days,
and had given Tim a majority. Then they could continue along the same political
mandates, and hammer out a new deal on medicare transfer payments. 
The current deal with the provinces signed by Paul Martin (PM then),
expires in 2015. 

Obviously 2015 will be a decisive year for not only the provinces, because it's it's another election year, but the Feds as well as Harper will be campaigning again
for re-election against a very weak Liberal party and the NDP. 

Harper will still be there because of his majority, but it's hard to say with Premier "Dad" will last the entire 4 years of his 3rd term now, because all they need is 1 vote to defeat the Ont Liberals in a non-confidence vote. 

We can rest assured, that the PCs/NDP will strive to take that opportunity on any issue that is deemed to be as critical to the taxpayers, as the HST debate.

However, the writer ( Ottawa Citzen article) wrote that Ontario voters "will not get swayed (fooled) again", and "decided" that at least in his 3rd term as Premier, there has to be more co-operation now with the people of Ontario and the opposition parties. 

Now this is the writer's opinion of course, as in reality, the split
vote between three parties, and the campaigning targetting different
cultures/voters beefs and preferences, in rural, ethnic, and urban ridings is
probably what did it this time..

plus.. any mistakes made by inexperienced party leaders and their 
campaign managers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't think the PC/NDP opposition will defeat the Liberals before the next scheduled election unless the wheels really come off the bus. Neither of them will want to take the heat for calling an early election.

I kinda hope that they do something to reschedule the next election. As it stands, the next federal and provincial elections are only a few days apart in 2015.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I kinda hope that they do something to reschedule the next election. As it stands, the next federal and provincial elections are only a few days apart in 2015.


Yes, I know what you are saying. The voters are getting election weary
this year. This last one, only 49.9% of the eligible voters turned out
to cast their split vote on 3 parties.

The rest either didn't care about it, or got turned off by the the negative
and stupid ads that they ran on TV which didn't give Hudak much credibility
for becoming premier.

Even though the Ontario political landscape added more blue/orange than before,
in most cases, it was the PC/NDP incumbent that got in, because the voting
public had no clue about the other candidates on the voter ballots.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The reason why I think the elections should not be concurrent is that voters have enough difficulty keeping federal and provincial politics separate and distinct between elections, seeing debates and ads for both levels would get people confused and unduly influence the results between the federal and provincial elections.


----------

