News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
I need some clarity on the 407.....on the one hand we "lost billions" based on the amount of tolls the private operator has/does/will charge.....on the other hand one of the benefits of continued public ownership is we could have dramatically reduced toll charges......is that about right?

Even a reduced level of tolls compared to the current private operator, aggregated over the 99 years that it has been leased, would squarely put the deal to have leased it in the consortium's favour, not Ontario's.

Of course lower tolls also would allow/encourage more drivers to take the 407, which would produce more revenue. The relationship between toll levels, number of drivers, and revenue is obviously highly nonlinear.
 
Yes. I hate the Harper conservatives more than you can imagine, but the one thing they got right was managing the books. The Liberal government back in the 1990s balanced the budget and paid off a bunch of debt, but it came at significant cost to our economy and society. While Harper has damaged our society in many ways with his horrible policies, those horrible policies aren't his fiscal ones.

That is an absolutely bizarre reading of history.
 
Off peak tolls could be lower, but if peak fares were lowered congestion would start to show up. It's not like the highway sits empty at rush hour.
 
Yes. I hate the Harper conservatives more than you can imagine, but the one thing they got right was managing the books. The Liberal government back in the 1990s balanced the budget and paid off a bunch of debt, but it came at significant cost to our economy and society. While Harper has damaged our society in many ways with his horrible policies, those horrible policies aren't his fiscal ones.

Now, income splitting, if implemented, will ruin a huge chunk of that record. It's the most stupid tax cut ever. I liked when Harper cut the sales tax, as sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes we have in our society. (Still think that $12B a year should have went to transit instead, but at least its a fairness-helping tax cut). Income splitting only benefits the well-off, and most importantly, it only benefits married couples with kids. What about the rest of us? What about those of us who don't have kids and don't get married? We already are f**ked over thanks to the massive tax subsidy the government gives to married folk this will only make it worse. The money would be much, much, much better spent increasing the basic personal credit, as that move would help everybody, with the greatest help given to those who need it the most.

Children are the one's who will be paying for your healthcare and other benefits when you retire.
 
Rumors abound, but remember to vote!

SOURCE: Globe Editorial Board endorsed Wynne Liberals, was overruled
Jesse Brown's picture Jesse Brown • June 11, 2014


A highly-placed source within the Globe and Mail has leaked the following item to CANADALAND:

The Globe and Mail Editorial Board unanimously agreed to endorse a minority Liberal government for the Ontario provincial election but was overruled at deadline by Editor-in-Chief David Walmsley. Walmsley held the section up at noon last Friday for over two hours, costing the budget-strapped and job-slashing Globe tens of thousands of dollars as Editorial Board editor Tony Keller gnashed his teeth and squeezed out a forced endorsement for Tim Hudak's Conservatives.

The Globe newsroom was in miserable spirits today as Walmsley's honeymoon came to an end. It is widely felt that Walmsley was carrying water for publisher Philip Crawley, who in turn was carrying out the orders of the Globe-controlling Thomson family, whose interests would be best served by a Conservative government.

Staffers have been seething since Friday, yet policy states that the final decision of the Editorial Board does belong to the Editor-in-Chief, and any insurrection was contained within the Globe. But tempers boiled over today when Walmsley held forth in a Globe Now video, explaining the thoughtful, throrough and principled process that led the Board to the Hudak endorsement:

Q.How does the Globe and Mail go about giving an endorsement?

Walmsley: "It's a significant process that's quite sophisticated and it goes on really from before election begins, there's a discussion among the board...we see the platforms, we study them, we convene a series of meetings...we keep an open mind throughout the process...we had meetings with each of the leaders, and out of that we came to a conclusion and decided that Tim Hudak was the person to endorse in this occasion, the Conservatives."

According to CANADALAND's source, every word of the above is true until the name Tim Hudak is mentioned. The Globe's Ed Board put weeks of work and thought into arriving at the Wynne endorsement, and they are now baffled as to why they even bothered. This sentiment is shared throughout the newsroom. It was more than one staffer could take, to stand by passively as Walmsley piously held forth about the "certain values" that "the Globe and Mail stands for" while seemingly speaking on behalf of journalists he second-guessed and overruled at the behest of his masters.

CANADALAND's source points out a Facebook post issued by the Globe and Mail on Friday morning, promising the announcement of the Editorial Board's endorsement by noon. The post was later edited (the original fortunately saved by Google Cache) to push the release back to 1pm. The actual didn't appear until 2:40pm.

For a decision that, as Walmsley describes it, was weeks, even months in the making, it sure seems like there was a mad scramble at the end to deliver it.

http://canadalandshow.com/article/source-globe-editorial-board-endorsed-wynne-liberals-was-overruled
 
Yes. I hate the Harper conservatives more than you can imagine, but the one thing they got right was managing the books. The Liberal government back in the 1990s balanced the budget and paid off a bunch of debt, but it came at significant cost to our economy and society. While Harper has damaged our society in many ways with his horrible policies, those horrible policies aren't his fiscal ones.

So...if he stops funding transit, raises tuition, reduces welfare payments and fires a bunch of people at the Ministry of the Environment (for example) to pay a tax cut, are those FISCAL policies or SOCIAL policies? I want to make sure I'm putting each of those things in the totally distinct column in which it belongs.
 
That globe and mail story is weird. I think a lot of people scratched their heads when they heard their endorsement. I was expecting a non-endorsement or even a slight Wynne but Hudak just didn't seem right especially with the credibility the globe been trying to portray as a central logical voice.

Have you noticed that whenever somebody endorses left-wing causes the right-wingers scream for them to "keep out of it" but has no problem when corporations do the same for their right-wing candidates . Perfect case in point that somehow the press union shouldn't endorse anybody. But newspaper editors (which normally swing to the right) they have no problem with that.

Something else I found odd. I see a lot of normally conservative outlets pushing the "non of the above" option and I wonder why. Then I figured out. The smaller the sample size the better for Hudak (that's why he is winning in likely poll, they remove all the indifferent people) Hudak is the most unappealing out of the 3 candidates so if you have a lot of people choosing "the best of the worst" Hudak will normally end up last on that. So they want just the hard cores to vote where then he has a chance of winning

Angus Reid polled appealing unappealing poll. Appealing: Horwath 33%, Wynne 30%, Hudak 21%. In the unappealing poll. Horwath 30%, Wynne 46%, Hudak 60%!! 60% percent find Hudak and the conservative movement unappealing! The media keeps pushing the (wanting change poll) of course they would not mention this poll where Hudak and the conservatives have way more negative feeling towards them then the current Liberal government. Which of course is why he wants to stay as far away from ranked ballots. He wants to limit the number of voters who actually vote and sneak it with a 38% majority even though 60% can't stand him.
 
Isn't the Globe aligned with CP24/CTV that is finding in its polling a last-minute out-of-whack surge for the NDP? If that isn't replicated in the results someone will need to look at what was happening there.
 
Isn't the Globe aligned with CP24/CTV that is finding in its polling a last-minute out-of-whack surge for the NDP? If that isn't replicated in the results someone will need to look at what was happening there.

Agreed, that does seem a bit suspicious. Give people the impression (possibly a false one) that the NDP is surging so they don't vote strategically for the Liberals because they think the NDP can win, and they end up splitting the centre/left vote, allowing the PCs up the middle.
 
Spending money like the Liberals did on cancelling gas plants is not illegal, and not corruption. Dumb yes, corrupt no.

Let's not quibble. That decisions surrounding the gas plant were politically motivated - along with the cover up/willful underestimating of the associated costs - rather smacks of corruption to me. Perhaps you prefer you governments to be cagey?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top