[Amare]

Hands down agree on Elliot vs Ford.

More iffy on Pupatello vs Wynne.............was never a fan of Sandra's; always struck me as very right-leaning, business-minded and not overly empathetic.

Wynne is an interesting tail; because based on her promises and the way people broadly felt about her; I think she was probably the better candidate.

She utterly fumbled her first 3 years in office though, failing to deliver on her key promises, not delivering a balanced budget either, not putting some scandals to bed; and allowing another to arise via the Sudbury by-election.

Then, I think her policies improved enormously, albeit belatedly with OHIP Plus/Youth Pharmacare, the rise in minimum wage (done awkwardly, probably a bit too quick, but right policy); the low-income student grants etc.

Excepting the hydro debacle, she had a decent couple of years.

But she also muffed things in not walking away; when it became clear that the public weren't buying the 'new' Wynne and that she was dragging the party down.

Certainly, it could have been a much better run of 5 years and change; but I'm not sure Pupatello would have delivered better.

That's some very interesting analysis and perspective, most of which I agree on. However the thing I will say is that Wynne was extremely tone deaf when dealing with things that the public was visibly against.

For example with the Hydro One sell off which you touched on, most of the public was visibly angry and against the government selling a majority interest in it, but yet she still ploughed ahead and did it with her majority government. Energy prices just went out of control under her watch, and further exasperated the issue by deferring payments so it will become even worse in the near future.

On the cabinet side of things she chose some of the most inept and incompetent individuals to lead key files: ie: Glen Murray as Minister of Transport, Liz Sandals as Education Minister, Deb Matthews as President of the Treasury Board, Del Duca as Minister of Photo Ops....um I mean Minister of Transport. She would literally stand by and watch them run into their own scandals and get so deep into them before she did anything about it (half the time she didnt).

On the budget side she just blew through unnecessary cash through some of her good initiatives (ie: Free tuition didnt need to include families which such a high income threshold, nor did OHIP+). This just made the deficit worse for no reason at all, and the money could've been better used elsewhere.

And with transit we know just how badly her government dragged their feet before building anything. To have shovels on the ground for only the Crosstown LRT during her 5 years in power is just embarrassingly slow progress. Then she realized how desperate how party was for votes and came up with the laughable high-speed rail project linking Toronto-Waterloo and maybe someday London.

Pupatello despite her strong business ties, I believe, would have been the much stronger leader between the two but hindsight is 20/20 I suppose.

 

[Northern Light]

For example with the Hydro One sell off which you touched on, most of the public was visibly angry and against the government selling a majority interest in it, but yet she still ploughed ahead and did it with her majority government. Energy prices just went out of control under her watch, and further exasperated the issue by deferring payments so it will become even worse in the near future.

Agree completely with you on this. The Hydro sell-off was foolish and without merit, completely apart from the public's view, which was very clearly in opposition. Not good policy or politics.

On the cabinet side of things she chose some of the most inept and incompetent individuals to lead key files: ie: Glen Murray as Minister of Transport, Liz Sandals as Education Minister, Deb Matthews as President of the Treasury Board, Del Duca as Minister of Photo Ops....um I mean Minister of Transport. She would literally stand by and watch them run into their own scandals and get so deep into them before she did anything about it (half the time she didnt).

In full agreement on 3/4. No time for Del Duca or Murray or Sandals. Matthews has a more varied record.

On the budget side she just blew through unnecessary cash through some of her good initiatives (ie: Free tuition didnt need to include families which such a high income threshold, nor did OHIP+). This just made the deficit worse for no reason at all, and the money could've been better used elsewhere.

Disagree on OHIP+; I see strong advantages in 'universal' programs. Aside from the fact that the wealthy are asked to pay for them, and should therefore get something back; programs in which higher income people don't participate are more likely to suffer in quality.

Its the theory of mixed income communities. You want owners and market-renters who simply won't abide crap service; and have enough sway, in numbers to get problems fixed.

On the student grant system; my preferred choice is again universal; albeit different than Wynne's, I would prefer nixing the plethora of student aid programs in favour of much lower tuition. It saves administrative expense, its easy, you don't have to apply etc. I do agree, if going w/the income-based model, it served households at higher incomes than needed; though part of that is covering the extravagant 'professional' tuitions. Were those more in line w/their historic norms in Ontario at about a 50% premium to under grad tuitions, I think the income cut-off would have been lower.

And with transit we know just how badly her government dragged their feet before building anything. To have shovels on the ground for only the Crosstown LRT during her 5 years in power is just embarrassingly slow progress. Then she realized how desperate how party was for votes and came up with the laughable high-speed rail project linking Toronto-Waterloo and maybe someday London.

Total agreement here.

 

[kEiThZ]

For example with the Hydro One sell off which you touched on, most of the public was visibly angry and against the government selling a majority interest in it, but yet she still ploughed ahead and did it with her majority government. Energy prices just went out of control under her watch, and further exasperated the issue by deferring payments so it will become even worse in the near future.

Absolutely agree that privatizing Hydro One was a terrible idea.

But the rate hike and privatization aren't related. Hydro rates spiked because the debt that had been removed from Hydro years ago was put back in. The real hydro disaster was the green energy policy. A policy that they were warned was flawed by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. They plowed through anyway on wholly ideological grounds (thanks to Gerald Butts). I am full believer in combating climate change. And I firmly believe that green energy is the way to do it. Their implementation was massively boneheaded and ideological though. And borderline corruption when you look at some of the personnel involved.

And with transit we know just how badly her government dragged their feet before building anything.

The most striking incident wasn't some GTA transit project. It was the Toronto-Kitchener-London HSR. They commissioned the Collenette report. And after he delivered it, everyone (especially in KWC and London) expected real movement. Instead, they seemed to have no announcement planned. When people started asking about it before the election, they announced the EA. I was so disappointed and angry at them getting my hopes up. I can only imagine how people in KWC and London felt.

They were decent on transit. But just like their federal cousins today, infrastructure investment took a backseat to any and every social program commitment. And I would argue that this bit them in the backside eventually, since infrastructure is far more universal and visible.

On the student grant system; my preferred choice is again universal; albeit different than Wynne's, I would prefer nixing the plethora of student aid programs in favour of much lower tuition. It saves administrative expense, its easy, you don't have to apply etc. I do agree, if going w/the income-based model, it served households at higher incomes than needed; though part of that is covering the extravagant 'professional' tuitions. Were those more in line w/their historic norms in Ontario at about a 50% premium to under grad tuitions, I think the income cut-off would have been lower.

Universality is a good ideal. And had they started with that in mind, the logical idea would have been to make community college free. Instead, their whole zeal for symbolism had them giving free BAs to less well off students. My wife who is not the most political person and pretty left-leaning saw that policy, and the minimum wage hike as effectively devaluing her educational investments, while she is still paying off the debts on those. Her views showed me how out of touch they now were with the middle class.

 

[Northern Light]

Universality is a good ideal. And had they started with that in mind, the logical idea would have been to make community college free. Instead, their whole zeal for symbolism had them giving free BAs to less well off students.

That's a bit harsh. I don't like the way they did this program either, as I noted above. But I wouldn't characterize it as 'free BAs' nor, do i think that would be a bad thing, unto itself. (lots of countries provide free post-secondary education, one U.S. medical school is set to use its endowment for that purpose starting this fall.)

In a world of limited funds, my preference on the tuition reduction side is to make all programs equally affordable and have only merit determine access, not financial means.

To the extent that such a program is too expensive; I would prefer the direction of universal affordability vs anything that involves applications and processes. I like KISS and Lean Six Sigma as business process principles.

(Keep it Simple, Stupid) and (a business process plan that seeks eliminate the eight kinds of waste: Defects, Over-Production, Waiting, Non-Utilized Talent, Transportation, Inventory, Motion, and Extra-Processing.) or in this context, any unnecessary steps.

I would prioritize reregulation of tuition for professional programs and returning them to more moderate tuitions in line w/typical undergrad rates.

I want someone to be a doctor or engineer because that's what they have a passion for, and are good at, not because its what they can afford. (and someone else couldn't)

After that, there are interesting ways of expressing universality. As opposed to wholesale tuition reduction, you could entitle every Ontario to 20 lifetime post-secondary (full-credits) at no cost; then apply tuition thereafter.

Or you could reduce tuitions more broadly.

My wife who is not the most political person and pretty left-leaning saw that policy, and the minimum wage hike as effectively devaluing her educational investments, while she is still paying off the debts on those. Her views showed me how out of touch they now were with the middle class.

I'm disinclined to agree w/your spouse on this one, fine person though I'm sure she is! Though, I do think one way to sell this to such older grads, might have been to forgive some of that outstanding debt at the same time.

More $$ of course.

 

[kEiThZ]

I wouldn't characterize it as 'free BAs'

I would. Under the proposed program, how likely is someone to pick anything but a BA that doesn't incur further financial obligations?

In a world of limited funds, my preference on the tuition reduction side is to make all programs equally affordable and have only merit determine access, not financial means.

And produce a ton of low quality graduates? No thanks. That will not help our society or economy at all. It's one thing to subsidize college to provide a simple system of universal post-secondary. Like Quebec does with CEGEP. It's another to turn universities into early adult daycare with tons of subsidized students there. Universally free community college would have both vastly boosted employability and gotten folks into the workforce sooner. It would also provide an easy path to upgradability (3 years needed into university for a degree) for those who wanted to do that. It would have also given the universities a higher quality student who has been through a post-secondary experience, knows what it's about and presumably wants more.

I want someone to be a doctor or engineer because that's what they have a passion for, and are good at, not because its what they can afford. (and someone else couldn't)

That is all great and good. But there is the reality of competing priorities on the public purse and in a country where we have an oversupply of engineers and what OSPE has described as a crisis in engineering employment, why would we be training more. This province in particular, also receives a ton of engineers through immigration.

Likewise for doctors, what exactly is the obstacle? They rack up the debt, and then still end up in Canada's 1% because they have a high paying career after. There is nobody who is getting a medical school admission and not attending because of financial considerations.

More to the point, in the world of competing demands and interests, why should the government be acting as the "Make a wish foundation" for the poor? What exactly is the value of those tax dollars being spent to help one more low income student become an engineer over say helping fund one more transit bus? Is that harsh? Absolutely. But once governments start going down that rabbit hole, they stop seeking universal solutions and lose the middle class. Which is exactly what happened with Wynne.

Though, I do think one way to sell this to such older grads, might have been to forgive some of that outstanding debt at the same time.

Except that is not what was proposed. So effectively, my wife was correct. And since you had a whole generation of older millennials like her who have struggled for the better part of a decade, to get established in the job market, and still are struggling, they aren't like to be very sympathetic to policies that further erode their standing in the job market.

We can debate this back and forth. But politically here's a simple reality. When the Liberals lose a person like my wife, they've lost the election. This is exactly why I maintain that their policy was boneheaded. It was as bad politically as it was a socioeconomic policy.

More $$ of course.

Which would only blow the deficit higher.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't want to get too much more sidetracked down a rabbit hole here, but a couple of points.

And produce a ton of low quality graduates? No thanks.

I didn't suggest lowering standards at all, or creating more places in college, so I'm not sure I get your argument.

I want more competition for the same number of places with grades/skills determining access.

Likewise for doctors, what exactly is the obstacle? They rack up the debt, and then still end up in Canada's 1% because they have a high paying career after. There is nobody who is getting a medical school admission and not attending because of financial considerations.

This is definitely not accurate on 2 counts.

1) Canada has a relatively low # of doctors per capita relative to the OECD norm.

2) Medical school statistics show that those from low-income households are underrepresented, significantly so, in medical school enrollment. This is also true of other disciplines.

Now, to be fair, this is multi-faceted, and tuition is not the only barrier. People from financially disadvantaged families tend to have lower HS graduation rates, lower marks, and lower rates of college application.

One reason though is that students don't believe they will end up achieving university in the first place; and also that if they do, they and their families won't be able to afford it.

This may not be true (due to student aid) but communicating that message to parents or to students in grade 8/9 (or sooner) when it matters, when it can drive effort and achievement can be a problem.

More to the point, in the world of competing demands and interests, why should the government be acting as the "Make a wish foundation" for the poor? What exactly is the value of those tax dollars being spent to help one more low income student become an engineer over say helping fund one more transit bus? Is that harsh? Absolutely. But once governments start going down that rabbit hole, they stop seeking universal solutions and lose the middle class. Which is exactly what happened with Wynne.

As noted above, I am not suggesting giving anyone education that they don't merit.

I am also not persuaded that the financial issue is that large. I ran the numbers awhile ago.

If you nixed RESPs, all the scholarships, all the student aid/bursaries, the textbook tax credit etc. You would be well over 1/2 way to abolishing tuition all together, if that's how you prioritized the windfall.

The residual cost is a relatively small number in the context of our budgets (pre-Covid)

Which would only blow the deficit higher.

I oppose deficit spending. But our taxes, especially on business are far too low.

Likewise our consumption taxes.

Every province east of Ontario raised its sales tax to take up the Harper-era GST cut.

If Ontario had done the same, the budget would have balanced 3 years earlier, all other things being equal.

If the corporate tax rate were 13% (still well below the norm during the province's boom years in the post-war period (15.5%) we would have been running a substantial surplus and could have
freed up more by paying down debt.

Add to that the 1.5B we could save (conservatively) by merging our school systems (public and separate) and abolishing school boards all together.

There's lots of fiscal room (or was pre-Covid).

 

[kEiThZ]

I didn't suggest lowering standards at all

Absent a vast increase in funding, this is what would result though. I'm sure you've seen the triangle before: quality, quantity and price. If you hold the third constant, you can only have two. And I have zero confidence that quality will not be sacrificed when quantity and price are prioritized. Given how many universities we have that aren't globally competitive, this isn't some risk to handwave away. The knowledge economy relies on quality much more than quantity.

We do have a system that is cheap and could provide a quality education to all: the college system.

1) Canada has a relatively low # of doctors per capita relative to the OECD norm.

A fact which has absolutely nothing to do with the education system and everything to do with the healthcare system. We have thousands of immigrant doctors who could be certified in short order if we really wanted to employ more doctors. We impose a quota system on them and make them repeat residencies just to control demand. We don't allow Canadians who have studied abroad to easily compete for residencies, etc. So again, nothing to do with our education system.

2) Medical school statistics show that those from low-income households are underrepresented, significantly so, in medical school enrollment. This is also true of other disciplines.

Now, to be fair, this is multi-faceted, and tuition is not the only barrier.

And tuition is not the barrier there. Being competitive for medical school is. Getting into medical school in Canada is exceptionally difficult. That naturally means lower income students will struggle, since they would likely be underrepresented among the top ranks of undergrads.

But again, why should I care about this particularly minute priority against the myriad of other things the government had to deal with. We're the only country in the G8 without a universal school lunch program. We have under-invested in public transit for years, and so we have ridiculous congestion in the GTA and now starting to see it in Ottawa. We have serious issues of de-industrialization in Southwest Ontario, some of that driven by a disastrous energy policy. We have a large deficit. Our healthcare system isn't sufficiently prepared for an aging population. And before all that we're supposed to worry about sufficient low income students getting into medical school? This mentality is exactly why the Liberals lost. They've lost touch with middle class priorities.

But our taxes, especially on business are far too low.

Compared to what?

This is easy to say. And very hard to do when we border one of the lowest tax jurisdictions and largest markets in the world. What competitive edge is there for a business to stay in Ontario if you substantially jack up taxes?

A ton of manufacturing jobs have already been lost. And our economy is now basically dependent on real estate and resource extraction. The whole pyramid scheme (like our financial sector) is based on that. Jacking up taxes would simply push out the rest of what is left.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'll say this more broadly. The Liberals can choose to be a centre-left party. Or NDP-lite. Wynne chose the latter. And here we are. I hope the LPO doesn't make the same mistake again.

 

[jje1000]

I personally disliked Wynne towards the end of her term since there was no real attempt from her to actually fix the issues the Ontario faced; rather as her party numbers dropped, 'fixing' issues consisted of tossing money at problems as superficial band-aids. And of course, once the Liberal party was decimated, a lot of their crew ended up in the Federal Liberals.

Come to think of it, did the Liberals implement anything from the Drummond Report?

Compared to what?

This is easy to say. And very hard to do when we border one of the lowest tax jurisdictions and largest markets in the world. What competitive edge is there for a business to stay in Ontario if you substantially jack up taxes?

A ton of manufacturing jobs have already been lost. And our economy is now basically dependent on real estate and resource extraction. The whole pyramid scheme (like our financial sector) is based on that. Jacking up taxes would simply push out the rest of what is left.

This was one issue I had with people saying that our hydro prices were fine and that they could be even higher. Compared to high-tax states like New York or California, sure!

But when you have Quebec by your borders, and many more low-cost jurisdictions south of the border... forest for the trees.

Hands down agree on Elliot vs Ford.

More iffy on Pupatello vs Wynne.............was never a fan of Sandra's; always struck me as very right-leaning, business-minded and not overly empathetic.

Wynne is an interesting tail; because based on her promises and the way people broadly felt about her; I think she was probably the better candidate.

She utterly fumbled her first 3 years in office though, failing to deliver on her key promises, not delivering a balanced budget either, not putting some scandals to bed; and allowing another to arise via the Sudbury by-election.

Then, I think her policies improved enormously, albeit belatedly with OHIP Plus/Youth Pharmacare, the rise in minimum wage (done awkwardly, probably a bit too quick, but right policy); the low-income student grants etc.

Excepting the hydro debacle, she had a decent couple of years.

But she also muffed things in not walking away; when it became clear that the public weren't buying the 'new' Wynne and that she was dragging the party down.

Certainly, it could have been a much better run of 5 years and change; but I'm not sure Pupatello would have delivered better.

Honestly I think the Liberals would have been better off with Pupatello (who seemed far closer to a traditional blue-collar leftist like Notley) than Wynne (who felt more of an educated urban liberal).

The pendulum was starting swing as voters were already starting to get a bit wary of Liberal platitudes by then, and I think a 'Jobs Job Jobs!' candidate would have had far longer lasting appeal.

Regardless, I feel that Del Duca is far worse than either of the two, seeing as he's been a political critter all of his professional life. He's got a lot of work to do winning me over.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's very easy to say what's the big deal with green power and higher corporate taxes when it isn't your job and industry on the line. Some of the deindustrialization was just bad luck. But some of it was exacerbated by LPO policies. And then focusing on social justice issues over the concerns of the middle class just made the Liberals like they had no clue what was actually going on in the province.

Take a simple policy. $13 000 rebate for electric cars. Sounds good in theory. Doesn't look great when the vast majority of those were going to one percenters buying $90 000 Teslas while everyone else has higher power bills. That kind of policy can only come from a set of politicians who have lost complete touch with the middle class.

The rich have lawyers, accountants and offshore bank accounts. The poor have the government and the welfare state. The middle class foots the bill. And this is exactly why left leaning governments run into voter fatigue and frustration when they prioritize social justice goals over universal programs and services.

 

[TrickyRicky]

More broadly it was the cumulative cost escalations in the lives of everyday people that killed the Wynne Liberals in my opinion. It was a government that seemingly knew nothing about life outside government and the public service.

It’s not even that the policies themselves were theoretically bad but it’s not just were you locate your pitch it’s also the speed you throw the ball. On top of this Liberal policy appeared (notice I said appeared) “unfair” to many as they hit hard in some sectors while giving generous considerations elsewhere.

For example as initially conceived an independent handyman contractor would see his mandatory annual WSIB contribution set at 25% of GROSS (before tax) annual income. That contractor would see double digit increases in utility costs, gas prices, etc. and it kept going on and on. The Wynne government was not tweaking around the margins, it was raining down apocalyptic change that was devastating the “independent” middle-class. I’m speaking of those people who are middle-class neither as public sector workers nor as employees of large corporations. In that sector voting against the Liberals was not a matter of left or right, it was a matter of life or death.

 

[Northern Light]

It's very easy to say what's the big deal with green power and higher corporate taxes when it isn't your job and industry on the line. Some of the deindustrialization was just bad luck. But some of it was exacerbated by LPO policies. And then focusing on social justice issues over the concerns of the middle class just made the Liberals like they had no clue what was actually going on in the province.

Take a simple policy. $13 000 rebate for electric cars. Sounds good in theory. Doesn't look great when the vast majority of those were going to one percenters buying $90 000 Teslas while everyone else has higher power bills. That kind of policy can only come from a set of politicians who have lost complete touch with the middle class.

The rich have lawyers, accountants and offshore bank accounts. The poor have the government and the welfare state. The middle class foots the bill. And this is exactly why left leaning governments run into voter fatigue and frustration when they prioritize social justice goals over universal programs and services.

I 100% opposed the rebate for electric cars.

To me, the way you shift the market in cases like this is legislation and taxation, not grants.

You raise the cost of gas or inefficient cars or both; or just outlaw the true gas guzzlers; and then let the market take over.

Tax rebates, on cars otherwise only affordable by the upper middle class/rich, and making them just cheap enough that some in the middle class might buy them......is not good policy or good politics.

****

In general, I'm not overly interested in process or intent, I like to measure outcome.

Does it work? Does it achieve a justifiable policy objective, at a reasonable cost.

To me, this rebate never met that test.

On top of which it also failed pragmatically and politically, because it benefited far too few people.

 

[Jasmine18]

Why would the liberals run on increasing taxes.

It was their image of increasing taxes and fees that sent them to the political hinterlands.

 

[kEiThZ]

In general, I'm not overly interested in process or intent, I like to measure outcome.

Sometimes it's not always a policy failure. It's goal selection that can set you up for failure.

For example. If you are extremely concerned with wealth inequality and social justice issues, you might be tempted to launch a ton of programs. Of course, the deficit spirals. So now you raise taxes. Which might cause business or your most talented professionals to decamp for greener pastures. If those goes far enough you may end up with a smaller tax base and less economic opportunity for all. Conservatives have their own version of this where they prioritize tax cuts above all else, gut programs needed to sustain the economy or drive growth and then get voted out when voters get frustrated.

Governments that broadly aim for policies that benefit all universally do well and stay in power for a long time. The long Progressive Conservative reign from George Drew to Frank Miller, from the 1940s to the 1980s shows this. They built most of the transit infrastructure and the health and education system we use today.

I would like to see the LPO develop a policy framework and platform that could deliver a similar legacy. And since the conservative have moved right, this is very easy to. Heavy focus on infrastructure, healthcare, K-12 education and daycare. As long as they can do all that with a balanced budget, they can enjoy a long tenure. If Ontarians really care about the social justice stuff, we can elect the NDP.

 

[Amare]

I would like to see the LPO develop a policy framework and platform that could deliver a similar legacy. And since the conservative have moved right, this is very easy to. Heavy focus on infrastructure, healthcare, K-12 education and daycare. As long as they can do all that with a balanced budget, they can enjoy a long tenure. If Ontarians really care about the social justice stuff, we can elect the NDP.

One thing is for certain, we know for damn sure all that wont be happening with a Del Duca led Liberal party, as the guy is completely out of touch with just about everything that's needed by the general populous. He'll be too busy looking for photo-ops anywhere he can take one.

If people thought the scandals were juicy under McGuinty and Wynne, just wait until you see Del Duca in action.