[Videodrome]

When was the last approval rating released for Tory? Could he re-enter provincial politics?

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

When was the last approval rating released for Tory? Could he re-enter provincial politics?

Well we do remember when he re-elected in October based on "overwhelming support", but that was only because the other high profile candidate was Keesmaat and not a lot of people know her. I think that was the last approval ratings for Tory if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Jonny5]

When was the last approval rating released for Tory? Could he re-enter provincial politics?

There were whispers someone was trying to draft him to be the OLP leader. It sounds unlikely, but he would be able to position himself as a credible blue-Liberal 'not-Ford' candidate. I think the strategy would be to put together enough wins in Toronto, the 905, plus Ottawa, and places like London and K-W to pull off a majority.

 

[BurlOak]

There were whispers someone was trying to draft him to be the OLP leader. It sounds unlikely, but he would be able to position himself as a credible blue-Liberal 'not-Ford' candidate. I think the strategy would be to put together enough wins in Toronto, the 905, plus Ottawa, and places like London and K-W to pull off a majority.

In another province (BC, Quebec), I could see Tory switching, but the PC party has a long history and Tory is very tied to that history.
Much like Harris had to fix things after the NDP screw up, and then Ernie Eves became the stabilizing leader, I think most PC's realize that Ford (or anyone for that matter) is needed to correct for the disastrous policies of the past 15 years - and it will be someone else who will lead the stability phase of the PC government.

 

[zang]

In another province (BC, Quebec), I could see Tory switching, but the PC party has a long history and Tory is very tied to that history.
Much like Harris had to fix things after the NDP screw up, and then Ernie Eves became the stabilizing leader, I think most PC's realize that Ford (or anyone for that matter) is needed to correct for the disastrous policies of the past 15 years - and it will be someone else who will lead the stability phase of the PC government.

Please tell me what Harris “fixed”.

Because municipalities, taxpayers and the like are still suffering his “gifts”.

 

[BurlOak]

Please tell me what Harris “fixed”.

Because municipalities, taxpayers and the like are still suffering his “gifts”.

I showed this chart before - but updated it for yesterdays jobs report. Comparing under which Premier Ontario created more jobs (relative to population) than the Rest of Canada (ROC) and when the ROC did better.

 

[zang]

I showed this chart before - but updated it for yesterdays jobs report. Comparing under which Premier Ontario created more jobs (relative to population) than the Rest of Canada (ROC) and when the ROC did better.

View attachment 198249

Funny how no one ever accounts for Bob Rae’s having to deal with a global recession. Either that, or Ontario is the most important economy in the world.

Also. “Job creation” is a BS metric. More jobs exist and more people work now than in the 1960s, and yet the cost of living has increased dramatically compared to income.

Stop cherry picking data to promote Conservative talking points. And most of all, stop trolling.

 

[BurlOak]

Finny how no one ever accounts for Bob Rae’s having to deal with a global recession. Either that, or Ontario is the most important economy in the world.

That's why I compare each leader to the rest of the country. Each is compared within their own era. Of course its not fair to compare absolute numbers - because you ignore the point that you raised.

Also. “Job creation” is a BS metric. More jobs exist and more people work now than in the 1960s, and yet the cost of living has increased dramatically compared to income.

Feel free to show another metric.

Stop cherry picking data to promote Conservative talking points. And most of all, stop trolling.

My chart even shows one era where Liberals did better than the ROC.

 

[Jonny5]

"Creating jobs"

LOL Yes. Because the precise day a premier eneters office is the precise day where they are personally responsible for "jobs created," because they personally create all jobs. Things instantaneously change and all economic acticity is instantly sigularly the responsibility of the new premier of Ontario. And we compare them to other places because every region used for comparison purposes always has a 100% identical economic mix and global relationships. Totally. I seriously believe this to be true because it was mentioned in an election TV commercial once.

 

[Northern Light]

"Creating jobs"

LOL Yes. Because the precise day a premier eneters office is the precise day where they are personally responsible for "jobs created," because they personally create all jobs. Things instantaneously change and all economic acticity is instantly sigularly the responsibility of the new premier of Ontario. And we compare them to other places because every region used for comparison purposes always has a 100% identical economic mix and global relationships. Totally. I seriously believe this to be true because it was mentioned in an election TV commercial once.

Yes, and you know that chart he is so proud of, I already corrected it for him to reflect the actual swearing in dates (instead of election dates) and showed it materially changed the outcomes). Clearly, the latter doesn't make the chart a useful metric, but a less egregious piece of misinformation.

He doesn't care.

 

[Jonny5]

Yes, and you know that chart he is so proud of, I already corrected it for him to reflect the actual swearing in dates (instead of election dates) and showed it materially changed the outcomes). Clearly, the latter doesn't make the chart a useful metric, but a less egregious piece of misinformation.

He doesn't care.

You do have to wonder why we haven't yet erected statues of Ernie Eves around Ontario. He's the greatest job creator in history!

 

[BurlOak]

"Creating jobs"

LOL Yes. Because the precise day a premier eneters office is the precise day where they are personally responsible for "jobs created," because they personally create all jobs. Things instantaneously change and all economic acticity is instantly sigularly the responsibility of the new premier of Ontario. And we compare them to other places because every region used for comparison purposes always has a 100% identical economic mix and global relationships. Totally. I seriously believe this to be true because it was mentioned in an election TV commercial once.

It's somewhat debatable when the responsibility of the new government starts. I am sure it depends on the economic times and how much different the new leader is from the previous. With a more major change like Harris or Ford or Trump, it is more likely the election day. Inauguration day, or swearing in of a new government is also a measure that could be used. For some leaders who continue on from the previous with similar economic policies, maybe like Harper, the lag is likely longer. Anyways, I consistently used the same measure to be fair to all.

What Region would be better to compare to;
1) Our Provincial neighbours that are subject to the same federal laws;
2) Should I pick some other country. How about Switzerland, Czech Republic, or maybe Cambodia.

 

[Northern Light]

It's somewhat debatable when the responsibility of the new government starts. I am sure it depends on the economic times and how much different the new leader is from the previous. With a more major change like Harris or Ford or Trump, it is more likely the election day. Inauguration day, or swearing in of a new government is also a measure that could be used. For some leaders who continue on from the previous with similar economic policies, maybe like Harper, the lag is likely longer. Anyways, I consistently used the same measure to be fair to all.

What Region would be better to compare to;
1) Our Provincial neighbours that are subject to the same federal laws;
2) Should I pick some other country. How about Switzerland, Czech Republic, or maybe Cambodia.

Not that you really care a whit about accuracy or relevance............but I have 5 minutes to kill..........

What you use to make comparisons, should relate to what you are trying to establish.

Pre-supposing that your reference to jobs was intended to establish the superiority of a particular set of political leaders in terms of their policies having positive effects on economic performance.............

Here is what I would suggest you have to do.

The first thing would be simply to establish when a material change in economic policy has in fact occurred.

In the absence of such a change, there is no intelligent reason to believe there is any relationship between the performance of the economy and the current government.

That requires an examination of key moves on taxation, and spending, and to a lesser degree on deficits (these may have adverse impacts down the road but don't tend to show those effects in real time).

For the most part, that means any change in economic performance will not occur prior to the passage of some variant of a provincial budget; and even then, I'd look carefully to see the effective date of any policy change.

ie. A cut in sales tax might be announced in a budget in April, but not take effect until July or even the following January.

Once you've established a policy change, you have to show what type of lag is normative in terms of that change having an effect.

This is tricky, in as much as some effect may pre-date a change if that change is strongly anticipated to happen.

But you need to understand that if a sales tax cut did spur any new retail spending, that the effect on employment in terms of hiring more retail staff would likely be at least 1 quarter later.

You also need to adjust your finding for secular economic realities. For instance, almost all retailers see peak-spending in the period leading up to Christmas in western countries.

As a result, retail hiring peaks in either late Q3 or early Q4 every year without fail.

Likewise, retailers almost always layoff staff in January and February which are the slowest months of the year as consumers recover from shopping fatigue and pay down credit card debts.

This is all true, regardless of economic policy, tax level or the government of the day.

As such, if you see a change in government in October and retailers layoff staff in January, that really has nothing tangible to do w/who is in power or what they have or have not done.

The appropriate comparison is year over year at the same moment in time to see any differences.

You must then adjust for demographic constants.

By which I mean, if the population is growing, all other things being equal, that should result in job growth and economic growth (though not necessarily per capita).

In the case of Canada, such growth is driven primarily by immigration, and as such is solely a federal matter, outside of the control of any given provincial government.

Population growth resulting from babies made by people already in Canada matters too, but its important to say, most people's decisions on when to have children, or how many to have are
not strongly influenced by whose in power in Queen's Park or the economic policy of the day.

There are many other secular factor considerations, such as the state of the US economy, on which Ontario heavily depends, as well as major economic changes at a national or international level such as those
brought about by a Free Trade Agreement, to which Ontario will not have been a direct party.

Once you factor all of those in; you may be able to reasonably infer the impact of a given government's economic policies.

Maybe.

Aren't you glad you asked?

You're welcome.

 

[Towered]

Not that you really care a whit about accuracy or relevance............but I have 5 minutes to kill..........

What you use to make comparisons, should relate to what you are trying to establish.

Pre-supposing that your reference to jobs was intended to establish the superiority of a particular set of political leaders in terms of their policies having positive effects on economic performance.............

Here is what I would suggest you have to do.

The first thing would be simply to establish when a material change in economic policy has in fact occurred.

In the absence of such a change, there is no intelligent reason to believe there is any relationship between the performance of the economy and the current government.

That requires an examination of key moves on taxation, and spending, and to a lesser degree on deficits (these may have adverse impacts down the road but don't tend to show those effects in real time).

For the most part, that means any change in economic performance will not occur prior to the passage of some variant of a provincial budget; and even then, I'd look carefully to see the effective date of any policy change.

ie. A cut in sales tax might be announced in a budget in April, but not take effect until July or even the following January.

Once you've established a policy change, you have to show what type of lag is normative in terms of that change having an effect.

This is tricky, in as much as some effect may pre-date a change if that change is strongly anticipated to happen.

But you need to understand that if a sales tax cut did spur any new retail spending, that the effect on employment in terms of hiring more retail staff would likely be at least 1 quarter later.

You also need to adjust your finding for secular economic realities. For instance, almost all retailers see peak-spending in the period leading up to Christmas in western countries.

As a result, retail hiring peaks in either late Q3 or early Q4 every year without fail.

Likewise, retailers almost always layoff staff in January and February which are the slowest months of the year as consumers recover from shopping fatigue and pay down credit card debts.

This is all true, regardless of economic policy, tax level or the government of the day.

As such, if you see a change in government in October and retailers layoff staff in January, that really has nothing tangible to do w/who is in power or what they have or have not done.

The appropriate comparison is year over year at the same moment in time to see any differences.

You must then adjust for demographic constants.

By which I mean, if the population is growing, all other things being equal, that should result in job growth and economic growth (though not necessarily per capita).

In the case of Canada, such growth is driven primarily by immigration, and as such is solely a federal matter, outside of the control of any given provincial government.

Population growth resulting from babies made by people already in Canada matters too, but its important to say, most people's decisions on when to have children, or how many to have are
not strongly influenced by whose in power in Queen's Park or the economic policy of the day.

There are many other secular factor considerations, such as the state of the US economy, on which Ontario heavily depends, as well as major economic changes at a national or international level such as those
brought about by a Free Trade Agreement, to which Ontario will not have been a direct party.

Once you factor all of those in; you may be able to reasonably infer the impact of a given government's economic policies.

Maybe.

Aren't you glad you asked?

You're welcome.

Please, your analysis is far too logical and nuanced for the troll in question to grasp, particularly as it does not promote the PC party.

Any facts that don't support their agenda are dismissed as "fake news". It's disgusting how partisan and pointless political discussion has become.

 

[BurlOak]

Not that you really care a whit about accuracy or relevance............but I have 5 minutes to kill..........

What you use to make comparisons, should relate to what you are trying to establish.

Pre-supposing that your reference to jobs was intended to establish the superiority of a particular set of political leaders in terms of their policies having positive effects on economic performance.............

Here is what I would suggest you have to do.

The first thing would be simply to establish when a material change in economic policy has in fact occurred.

In the absence of such a change, there is no intelligent reason to believe there is any relationship between the performance of the economy and the current government.

That requires an examination of key moves on taxation, and spending, and to a lesser degree on deficits (these may have adverse impacts down the road but don't tend to show those effects in real time).

For the most part, that means any change in economic performance will not occur prior to the passage of some variant of a provincial budget; and even then, I'd look carefully to see the effective date of any policy change.

ie. A cut in sales tax might be announced in a budget in April, but not take effect until July or even the following January.

Once you've established a policy change, you have to show what type of lag is normative in terms of that change having an effect.

This is tricky, in as much as some effect may pre-date a change if that change is strongly anticipated to happen.

But you need to understand that if a sales tax cut did spur any new retail spending, that the effect on employment in terms of hiring more retail staff would likely be at least 1 quarter later.

You also need to adjust your finding for secular economic realities. For instance, almost all retailers see peak-spending in the period leading up to Christmas in western countries.

As a result, retail hiring peaks in either late Q3 or early Q4 every year without fail.

Likewise, retailers almost always layoff staff in January and February which are the slowest months of the year as consumers recover from shopping fatigue and pay down credit card debts.

This is all true, regardless of economic policy, tax level or the government of the day.

As such, if you see a change in government in October and retailers layoff staff in January, that really has nothing tangible to do w/who is in power or what they have or have not done.

The appropriate comparison is year over year at the same moment in time to see any differences.

You must then adjust for demographic constants.

By which I mean, if the population is growing, all other things being equal, that should result in job growth and economic growth (though not necessarily per capita).

In the case of Canada, such growth is driven primarily by immigration, and as such is solely a federal matter, outside of the control of any given provincial government.

Population growth resulting from babies made by people already in Canada matters too, but its important to say, most people's decisions on when to have children, or how many to have are
not strongly influenced by whose in power in Queen's Park or the economic policy of the day.

There are many other secular factor considerations, such as the state of the US economy, on which Ontario heavily depends, as well as major economic changes at a national or international level such as those
brought about by a Free Trade Agreement, to which Ontario will not have been a direct party.

Once you factor all of those in; you may be able to reasonably infer the impact of a given government's economic policies.

Maybe.

Aren't you glad you asked?

You're welcome.

If I do this, I could artificially decide that different events were important to different governments and pick any date I want as the date that the new party is effective from. That would be very biased method. My method is 100% impartial (same applied to all parties) and arguably just as accurate (if not more so) that any other method.
I'll give you that it may be a touch early to judge Ford, with 13 data points. Although it's still not that bad. But the others all have at least 70 months data, so a shift of a few months is not that significant.