[nfitz]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1811732013

You don't have to have representation in Cabinet for it to be a "coalition".

Hang on. That report is from May 1985. The Tories didn't resign after all, and tried to govern, eventually losing a non-confidence vote, with Premier Miller not resigning until late June!

You can't use a news report dated a month before your "coalition government" to prove that it happened!

Looking through the Toronto Star of June 26 and June 27, there is no mention of "coalition", and almost no mention of the NDP or Bob Rae, other than one reference to a "deal".

I wonder where “NO ANAL SEX!” lies on their five point platform.

Given the Ford family positions on sex, I really don't want to know where their prostitutes lie while receiving anal sex.

 

[OneCity]

This is truly ignorant. I am living in the US temporarily since late 2016 on exchange. Let me tell you the best news service are the public outlets (NPR and PBS Newshour). CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, have all kinds of bias to outright propaganda.

This is what private ownership of media does:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...as-local-news-anchors-recite-script-in-unison

If you want to talk about propaganda, let's look at the feedback loop between Donald Trump and Fox News:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fox-news-coordinated-white-house-false-story-lawsuit-says

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/16/media/fox-news-campaign-against-fbi-robert-mueller/index.html

Sorry. But not having an independent public broadcaster which covers the news is the mark of a backwards nation to me. The best news sources are virtually all public broadcasters. BBC. FR24. Deutsche Welle. ABC (Australia). And the CBC. In fact, I sometimes get better news and analysis about US issues from the CBC than I do from American media.

*I come in peace*

There is zero doubt many private stations are bias propaganda trash but that doesn't make Government funded news any more necessary. In this day and age people are becoming far more aware of the bias and can access information in many different ways. Teaching how to navigate could be the role of the government and be far more helpful.

The problem with the CBC is that we now have a conflict of interest and they have become an extension of the private Left cycle news stream. There is ample need for them to have atleast moderate bias and ensure their supportive party stay in power, otherwise they can be shut down. In this day an age of information access overload there is still absolutely no need for any Government party to being supporting a news station. News is all over internet and understanding who and what the motives of the sources are is what is most important. It would take less money to educate teens and could be taught in schools going forward so no one is naïve to the agendas when they are ready to cast votes. Its a reality the internet has made it even more important to teach youth whether about propaganda and motive. This is true whether we have Government funded news or not. All we need is to ensure everyone is aware and people can atleast make educated decisions on their own

 

[Neutrino]

In Canada, where it's virtually all corporately owned? That's why they virtually all endorse the Cons and rarely even centrists like the Libs.

The BIG papers lean left. Relax with the obsession with corporate ownership. They are sympathetic to leftist causes. I suppose that's what people refer to as neoliberalism. I wouldn't call today's liberals centrist. Both federal and provincial liberal governments have been moving toward some of the leftist rhetoric found on campus.

 

[wolfewood]

The BIG papers lean left. Relax with the obsession with corporate ownership. They are sympathetic to leftist causes. I suppose that's what people refer to as neoliberalism. I wouldn't call today's liberals centrist. Both federal and provincial liberal governments have been moving toward some of the leftist rhetoric found on campus.

 

[Neutrino]

@wolfewood Sorry, the left can't meme.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Doug Ford says he first needs to "talk to the people"...

Doug Ford won’t confirm if he’ll definitely follow through on the Liberal promise for daily GO train service to Niagara until there is—wait for it—further public consultation.

https://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/8373571-not-so-fast-on-niagara-go-ford/

Doug truly is a man of the people. Do you have any idea how many doors Doug has knocked on? Literally hundreds of thousands of doors. How many doors have you knocked on? Yea.. that's what I thought.

 

[wolfewood]

@wolfewood Sorry, the left can't meme.

Eh have the memes, you're still blatantly incorrect on every point you made.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The BIG papers lean left. Relax with the obsession with corporate ownership. They are sympathetic to leftist causes. I suppose that's what people refer to as neoliberalism. I wouldn't call today's liberals centrist. Both federal and provincial liberal governments have been moving toward some of the leftist rhetoric found on campus.

Neoliberalism is "leftist"?!

AoD

 

[muller877]

Doug Ford says he first needs to "talk to the people"...

Doug Ford won’t confirm if he’ll definitely follow through on the Liberal promise for daily GO train service to Niagara that most locals have been demanding for at least a decade until there is—wait for it—further public consultation.

https://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/8373571-not-so-fast-on-niagara-go-ford/

I do have questions about this service. What's the total subsidy per rider (operating and capital)? Is it worth it? How many people will be willing to (1) drive to a station in Niagara, (2) get on a train, (3) get off a train, (4) wait for a GO train in Hamilton, (5) get on the train and get to Toronto. vs driving to Hamilton and getting on the GO at one of the new stops being built.

And has there been studies to see if the amount of casino traffic will drop with the new casino's being built elsewhere?

All good questions.

And when you say most locals...i know people in the Niagara region and almost all of them haven't even heard of this proposal. Yes, the "most locals" who read urbantoronto but not the general public.

 

[crs1026]

^There has been a pretty thorough business case document done for the Niagara service.

If anyone wants to do a little research, take a drive down the QEW and observe a) how many cars there are on that road at all hours of the day and night and b) how much housing development is a-building along that corridor. Seems to me that the existence of potential ridership on that route is a no-brainer.

The idea of a transfer in Hamilton or Aldershot needs a good analysis. On the one hand, having every train continue on to Toronto is pretty expensive, both operationally and in terms of the capacity investment east of Hamilton. And it complicates operations. On the other hand, many people will be goint to and from places along the Lakeshore and through service enables that. Some better data would help. But in the end - the service is two decades overdue.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I do have questions about this service. What's the total subsidy per rider (operating and capital)? Is it worth it? How many people will be willing to (1) drive to a station in Niagara, (2) get on a train, (3) get off a train, (4) wait for a GO train in Hamilton, (5) get on the train and get to Toronto. vs driving to Hamilton and getting on the GO at one of the new stops being built.

And has there been studies to see if the amount of casino traffic will drop with the new casino's being built elsewhere?

All good questions.

And when you say most locals...i know people in the Niagara region and almost all of them haven't even heard of this proposal. Yes, the "most locals" who read urbantoronto but not the general public.

It really isn’t a viable commuting option, in my opinion. You need HSR for those distances.

 

[Neutrino]

Neoliberalism is "leftist"?!

AoD

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism to be precise. @wolfewood Tell me more. Or don't. Let's agree to disagree on politics and get back to transit.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism to be precise. @wolfewood Tell me more. Or don't.

That is the definition of neoliberalism of Mike Harris, Thatcher and even Harper yore, and they are hardly leftist by any stretch of the imagination. Your usage and equivocation is far from precise - and if you consider neoliberalism as "left", it is hardly surprising you claim that everything has a "leftist" bent.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

For the record only:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2]:7 Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[3] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[11] These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[

 

[Neutrino]

That is not "leftist", that is the definition of neoliberalism of Mike Harris, Thatcher and even Harper yore. Your usage and equivocation is far from precise - and if you consider that as "left", it is hardly surprising you claim that everything has a "leftist" bent.

AoD

Yeah sure, I can see that as neoliberalism. Well, sue me. I don't consider that left. To wrap this up, there's some creeping leftism in the mainstream media that I am not liking, despite the corporate ownership. Hence why I mentioned neoliberalism - social liberalism and fiscal conservatism (represented by corporate ownership). Which is funny because I am left on most issues, but I don't like the way some of today's louder/more hysterical voices that the press seems to latch on to (same applies to the right). So I am left, but I don't like the way some of the left discuss the issues. And I don't think the right is some awful monster as the more vocal on the left (and some on this forum I would say) paint the right to be. And there are some things on the right that I don't like. I am not a fan of social conservatism and I was happy when Brown cracked down on that (although stifling dissent is probably not a viable long term strategy). In some sense, I don't really have a party at the moment.