[rbt]

The NDP have made the same statement about the Golden plan...if it includes increased gas taxes...they won't support it.

The official public statement isn't necessarily the same as how they actually feel. They're not supposed to agree with the government of the day (heck, we even title them opposition despite requiring cooperation).

There is a lot of compromise in the Golden plan taken directly from NDP books. No, it's not exactly what they want, but there is a good chance they will vote in favour anyway.

 

[Glen]

That's exactly correct. TBM won't reduce road congestion. It will just help to mitigate it as our population grows.

Hardly. TBM is based on projections that are already are overly optimistic. TBM relies on employment projections contained in the Toronto Regional Forecast and the Provincial Places to Grow. Already the city is 250,000 employment positions behind schedule. In its initial form, TBM would do more to alleviate transit congestion than road congestion.

docs.trb.org/prp/13-4261.pdf‎

 

[TOareaFan]

The official public statement isn't necessarily the same as how they actually feel. They're not supposed to agree with the government of the day (heck, we even title them opposition despite requiring cooperation).

Yet, in our discussion, we are supposed to accept that their official public statement about the ML investment/funding strategy was exactly how the feel? You are confusing me a bit.

 

[rbt]

Yet, in our discussion, we are supposed to accept that their official public statement about the ML investment/funding strategy was exactly how the feel? You are confusing me a bit.

No, you need to read between the lines on that too.

With what Metrolinx put out, NDP fired back with several things they disagreed with including wanting the inclusion of corporate taxes.

With the Golden package, the NDP disagreement is much more hand wavy. While fuel tax is specifically mentioned, it's also bogus. NDP are in favour of a cap & trade carbon policy which would indirectly add tax to fuel. They can now get a fuel tax (can swap out for cap & trade later) while simultaneously saying they were forced into this. Fuel tax objections are a smoke-screen.

I try to look at the collection of official statements then remove the smoke & mirrors of politics to figure out what they might actually do. Wynne and Golden will both have a much much better understanding of what they might do than I.

 

[BurlOak]

The chances of the NDP picking up more seats aren't great. And I don't they'll want to work with a potential Conservative government. This makes an election unlikely IMO.

I would say that the chances of the Liberals increasing their seats is next to nothing. I do not know anyone who supports the Liberals - not even anyone who will hold their nose and vote Liberal. However, being only one away from majority, they may think they have a shot and think they can tempt the NDP.

The NDP can probably pick up seats from the Liberals, but how much is the question. They could still wind up in third place (either as junior partner to the Liberals again or to a PC majority), or they could finish first and lead a minority government. However, the longer they wait, the more their support will drop. They will lose all credibility if they continue to prop up the current Liberals. The question is whether to maintain influence for a year and then lose big, or take a chance now.

The PC's have no downside. Either they win a majority, a minority, or finish second in which case they can quickly dump Hudak and reload with a new leaader.

 

[TFC]

I would say that the chances of the Liberals increasing their seats is next to nothing. I do not know anyone who supports the Liberals - not even anyone who will hold their nose and vote Liberal. However, being only one away from majority, they may think they have a shot and think they can tempt the NDP.

The NDP can probably pick up seats from the Liberals, but how much is the question. They could still wind up in third place (either as junior partner to the Liberals again or to a PC majority), or they could finish first and lead a minority government. However, the longer they wait, the more their support will drop. They will lose all credibility if they continue to prop up the current Liberals. The question is whether to maintain influence for a year and then lose big, or take a chance now.

The PC's have no downside. Either they win a majority, a minority, or finish second in which case they can quickly dump Hudak and reload with a new leaader.

I think the PC's only downside is Hudak. The guy is unelectable (as premier). As much as people hate the Liberals, I think they notice that the PC's don't have a transportation plan for the GTA, and neither do the NDP.
Hudak will be dumped after the next election, which will produce another Liberal minority.

 

[rbt]

I do not know anyone who supports the Liberals - not even anyone who will hold their nose and vote Liberal.

Perhaps the people you surround yourself with may not be a representative sample?

I can fairly easily name a dozen acquaintances who would vote for each of the major parties (PC, NDP, and Liberal) if an election were held today; even a couple of Green party enthusiasts if they actually got out to vote.

Anyway, here are some actual poll results for those who are interested.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/ontario.html

Also interesting is the poll history including the last election.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rT5qtCo9f...J-5sWiPlRo/s1600/Monthly+Provincial+Polls.PNG

It's too bad http://predictionmarkets.ca doesn't have a market open for Ontario elections. The spring budget is bound to be polarizing and I've done fairly well with it and it's UBC predecessor.

 

[salsa]

I would say that the chances of the Liberals increasing their seats is next to nothing. I do not know anyone who supports the Liberals - not even anyone who will hold their nose and vote Liberal. However, being only one away from majority, they may think they have a shot and think they can tempt the NDP.

The liberals lost some seats in the by-elections, so they will need to gain more than just one to get a majority.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Burloak, Polling shows that the libs are still quite popular regardless, anecdotal evidence is pointless when you are dealing with 4-5 million people voting.

also important to remember that it is possible for more people to vote for the PCs overall but still have the liberals win, as PC support is heavily focused in rural areas while liberal support is more spread out, meaning it is easier for liberals to grab seats as their voting base isn't focused in a few ridings.


if there is indeed an election this spring, I get the feeling that the NDP will get more votes than people are anticipating. I think we will end up with one of two scenarios:

1. Much smaller liberal minority with 1 or 2 additional PC seats but a lot more NDP seats, only a 1 or 2 seat difference between the liberals and the PCs. Could last a few years as the current minority has.

2. Small PC minority with NDP and Liberal MPPs taking up the vast majority of the house. probably won't last long, i would see another election in 2015 if this happened.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

2. Small PC minority with NDP and Liberal MPPs taking up the vast majority of the house. probably won't last long, i would see another election in 2015 if this happened.

Potential for NDP + Lib coalition? The PCs would be unable to push their agenda with that situation.

 

[ShonTron]

Michael Schabas directly reponded to me in a letter to the editor in Today's Star: Transit renewal must involve tradeoffs

Part of me is flattered to get such a direct reply. But he's awfully defensive. The one thing that bugged me was him saying that my point about getting Main Street Station wrong was "trivial" when I think it demonstrates that the Main-Danforth DRL alternative wasn't well thought out, showed a lack of research in at least one matter, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the local context.

 

[Johnny Au]

Michael Schabas directly reponded to me in a letter to the editor in Today's Star: Transit renewal must involve tradeoffs

Part of me is flattered to get such a direct reply. But he's awfully defensive. The one thing that bugged me was him saying that my point about getting Main Street Station wrong was "trivial" when I think it demonstrates that the Main-Danforth DRL alternative wasn't well thought out, showed a lack of research in at least one matter, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the local context.

Wow. I never knew that you wrote the letter to the Toronto Star about Neptis and how Michael Schabas made many fallacies against your well-written letter.

I must commend you, Sean.

 

[diminutive]

Part of me is flattered to get such a direct reply. But he's awfully defensive. The one thing that bugged me was him saying that my point about getting Main Street Station wrong was "trivial" when I think it demonstrates that the Main-Danforth DRL alternative wasn't well thought out, showed a lack of research in at least one matter, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the local context.

It is a trivial observation in that the point really has no bearing on his larger arguments and conclusion. Really, if you accept all of his other premises (just for the sake of argument), the revelation that Main stn was not built with a GO transfer in mind doesn't impact the overall conclusion. Maybe it adds 10-20m dollars on one side of the ledger; so what?

It's always good to correct inaccurate statements. Not all inaccurate premises necessarily undermine conclusions, however. Or at least not significantly (and, the opposite of 'significant' here being 'trivial').

More over, Schabas responded more or less like I did to your early article. For instance, clarifying that he meant generic "medium capacity systems" as opposed to some kind of dogmatic insistance on Bombardier's version.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Michael Schabas directly reponded to me in a letter to the editor in Today's Star: Transit renewal must involve tradeoffs

Part of me is flattered to get such a direct reply. But he's awfully defensive. The one thing that bugged me was him saying that my point about getting Main Street Station wrong was "trivial" when I think it demonstrates that the Main-Danforth DRL alternative wasn't well thought out, showed a lack of research in at least one matter, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the local context.

Awfully defensive, and some of his replies are disingenuous

One example:

"Marshall says I ignore local needs when I suggest stations at Oakwood, Chaplin, Avenue and Laird should not be built. I think there must be a tradeoff: these stations will cost $200 million each, yet will only attract a few hundred new riders. Construction will devastate local businesses. "

With any construction project, there will be impacts on local business, and there are ways to help businesses during construction. What's interesting is that Mr. Schabas is so concerned about Oakwood, but says nothing about Dufferin Station.
How will construction of his automated light metro line impact business?

 

[ShonTron]

With any construction project, there will be impacts on local business, and there are ways to help businesses during construction. What's interesting is that Mr. Schabas is so concerned about Oakwood, but says nothing about Dufferin Station.
How will construction of his automated light metro line impact business?

The Laird Station might impact the (worst-managed) Canadian Tire and maybe a strip plaza with a Second Cup and a Mac's. Big whoop. The Chaplin Station might take out a Mr. Lube. Cry me a river.