[nfitz]

All Day Kindergarten is good for two things: It provides early stimulus to children, expanding their minds. ...

And yet there's no studies that demonstrate any long-term benefits.

I really don't see the point of putting 3-year olds in school all day long.

 

[BurlOak]

And yet there's no studies that demonstrate any long-term benefits.

I really don't see the point of putting 3-year olds in school all day long.

If the purpose was to actually help children, then they would have implemented it for Senior Kindergarten for all schools - then done some studies to see if it is effective, and then extend it to Junior Kindergarten if the SK portion demonstrated results.

However, it was a political decision to buy votes. It was introduced in advance of the 2011 election and it was brought in for both SK and JK - with the first locations being the Liberal and swing ridings. This scandal is probably bigger than the Gas Plant scandal, even though it is not usually even included in the total Liberal waste. If you add the infrastructure costs to expand schools and classrooms, and add the $1B annual teaching costs, you could have paid for the DRL already and also had well over half the funds needed to pay for the Big Move.

 

[TOareaFan]

If the purpose was to actually help children, then they would have implemented it for Senior Kindergarten for all schools - then done some studies to see if it is effective, and then extend it to Junior Kindergarten if the SK portion demonstrated results.

However, it was a political decision to buy votes. It was introduced in advance of the 2011 election and it was brought in for both SK and JK - with the first locations being the Liberal and swing ridings. This scandal is probably bigger than the Gas Plant scandal, even though it is not usually even included in the total Liberal waste. If you add the infrastructure costs to expand schools and classrooms, and add the $1B annual teaching costs, you could have paid for the DRL already and also had well over half the funds needed to pay for the Big Move.

In addition to buying votes it is a very big factor in acquiring the much lauded/talked about "labour peace" in the educational system. Having caved to all the teacher demands early in their government, all that was left for the government was to create more teacher jobs.

I was talking a young guy the other day who made a comment about how all he remembers about the Conservative government was being in grade 7 and all the teachers were on strike.....and how we should not go back to those days. Well avoiding teacher strikes is a good idea, for sure, but avoiding them at all cost and essentially giving teachers a blank cheque has been a great contributor to our current deficit situation. Sometimes a bit of confrontation is necessary.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Well to be honest Harris days were pretty bad.. I remember being out of school all the time at that point. its one thing to have something like we had last year every 3 or 4 years, another thing to have full on strikes every spring.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I was talking a young guy the other day who made a comment about how all he remembers about the Conservative government was being in grade 7 and all the teachers were on strike.....and how we should not go back to those days.

that wasn't me but it could have been It was a very antagonistic time all around, whether you were a student in school or a nurse or, really, anyone not in the proverbial 1%. Even if the odd thing Harris did wasn't terrible, the atmosphere around here was a horroshow. For all the recent Lib scandals, can anyone imagine going back to riots at QP? No, it was a one-of-a-kind government....and one in which Hudak sat.

I don't think the all-day KG issue is going to be settled here. I will say that the idea of rolling it out for 1/2 of KG and seeing how it worked would be pointless. Firstly, because it's already been implemented and studied elsewhere and second because there are split grades (especially w/ JK/SK) all over the place. It's definitely a "feel good" policy but it's also a partial solution to huge daycare costs. We could attempt to debate the academic fine points about its academic effects and value but overall I think it's more good than bad. Anyway, when McGuinty did it, he'd already made a massive transit investment so it's not like he was choosing one or the other. If Hudak wants to cut one to do the other, that's his call.

Don't trust the Tories on transit. After all, tax cuts are their first priority. Not transit.

OTOH, I love the idea of having a TfL style agency for the GTA. Before, yet another squabble or debate on a line, I'd like to see such an agency stood up. I think this is the real transit/transport priority for the region: an empowered, properly funded, and politically supported regional tansport authority.

Definitely. I agree and I don't trust the PCs to do that for a second there. Metrolinx is in place; once they have funding, all you have to do is tweak the existing legislation. We're really most of the way there - creating them and passing Places to Grow and developing the Big Move were the tough parts. Now you just need the stones to make it happen.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

I was young still during the Harris days but I remember the poisonous atmosphere of politics in the province back then - and the way that his cuts affected my family. People are crazy to remember those days fondly.

 

[TOareaFan]

that wasn't me but it could have been

no it wasn't you....it was the kind of conversation people used to have in the old days....no screens, no screen names, no keyboard....actual face to face dialogue which we used to call "conversation"

It was a very antagonistic time all around, whether you were a student in school or a nurse or, really, anyone not in the proverbial 1%.

It was not a 1% v 99% issue....it was a public purse issue. There was a concerted effort in place to reign in and eliminate the deficit....and since a lot of public expenditure is in the form of human resources compensation it was bound to be an antagonistic situation.

The opposite is what we have seen during this current government. Virtually no confrontation and full on labour peace (up to the bill 115 minor kerfuffle last year). There has been a huge cost to the province for this labour peace....a financial cost.

Even if the odd thing Harris did wasn't terrible, the atmosphere around here was a horroshow. For all the recent Lib scandals, can anyone imagine going back to riots at QP? No, it was a one-of-a-kind government....and one in which Hudak sat.

Yep tough times.....but people never like it when austerity measures are introduced to curtail deficits. People don't like to give things up....it is a lot easier to crewe a good atmosphere if you keep spending money.....even if you don't have it. Since this is transit board I may as well say it.....I think the Liberals have the best transit plan.....but I don't think I can support them when they are not willing to make any tough decisions elsewhere that will actually pay for it......what we got in the budget was a bunch of spending all over the place and, unbelievably, a higher deficit than current is proposed and no plan to curtail the deficit in the future....sure that creates a better "atmosphere" than cutting services or rationalizing services or laying people off....but it should in no way be mistaken for a sustainable plan.

I don't think the all-day KG issue is going to be settled here. I will say that the idea of rolling it out for 1/2 of KG and seeing how it worked would be pointless. Firstly, because it's already been implemented and studied elsewhere and second because there are split grades (especially w/ JK/SK) all over the place. It's definitely a "feel good" policy but it's also a partial solution to huge daycare costs. We could attempt to debate the academic fine points about its academic effects and value but overall I think it's more good than bad. Anyway, when McGuinty did it, he'd already made a massive transit investment so it's not like he was choosing one or the other. If Hudak wants to cut one to do the other, that's his call.

It isn't (at least in my mind) that McGuinty somehow picked day care over transit....it is that with a massive deficit already in place....and acknowledging a bunch of other priority spending issues he still put forward the ADK as a very expensive program even though there is little (being fair there 'cause I have seen none) research that actually shows ADK has a lasting benefit.....as I said before, the last two reports indicate any benefit has faded by the 2nd or 3rd grade.

ADK might be a cool social benefit to introduce when you are awash with cash....but if you view the $1B borrowed this year for it as the last part of this year's $11.5B defect the marginal costs far outweigh the benefits. (IMO).

Definitely. I agree and I don't trust the PCs to do that for a second there. Metrolinx is in place; once they have funding, all you have to do is tweak the existing legislation. We're really most of the way there - creating them and passing Places to Grow and developing the Big Move were the tough parts. Now you just need the stones to make it happen.

Since transit plans seem to be in a constant state of flux in this region for a very long time....I have a hard time saying that you can actually "trust" any of the parties to deliver what they have said they would deliver.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was young still during the Harris days but I remember the poisonous atmosphere of politics in the province back then - and the way that his cuts affected my family. People are crazy to remember those days fondly.

Nobody remembers them fondly......but sometimes hard work and tough times are necessary. Sure you can keep people happy for a while by continually spending more money you don't have....but sooner or later the music stops and not everyone has a chair.

 

[BurlOak]

I was young still during the Harris days but I remember the poisonous atmosphere of politics in the province back then - and the way that his cuts affected my family. People are crazy to remember those days fondly.

There was a real battle as to who should run the government - either the democratically elected government or the civil servants.

For years earlier I recall one (1) rally against the NDP. The statement was - "we are too busy working, but we will keep an eye on you. If you screw up, we will vote you out". They did and we did. The contrast with the constant protests against Harris was really telling.

 

[diminutive]

I was young still during the Harris days but I remember the poisonous atmosphere of politics in the province back then - and the way that his cuts affected my family. People are crazy to remember those days fondly.

People interpret and remember the past through their own present.

It's amazing how many people have nothing but vitriol for the Mike Harris years and his heartless cuts, but have nothing but admiration for Chretien and his 'fiscal restraint.' And vice versa, incredibly. Same exact cuts, but people just see them differently.

The past isn't really a thing. People just pluck facts and narratives from it to support their own prejudices and life choices.

 

[Palma]

The PC did rule Ontario for I think 42 years before the Liberals came to power I think in 1985 or 1987 (not sure about exact dates). I think my understanding was they ruled from the central. The last time the TTC actually received funding for 50% of their operational cost was under Bill Davis. So, my point is the PC under Hudack do not need to rule like Harris but like Bill Davis. He cancelled the Spadina expressway and was also good to education.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

The PC did rule Ontario for I think 42 years before the Liberals came to power I think in 1985 or 1987 (not sure about exact dates). I think my understanding was they ruled from the central. The last time the TTC actually received funding for 50% of their operational cost was under Bill Davis. So, my point is the PC under Hudack do not need to rule like Harris but like Bill Davis. He cancelled the Spadina expressway and was also good to education.

A PC leader who was more moderate and measured, like Bill Davis, whom I can respect, could easily capture far more votes. Hudak is Harrisite through and through - that means he will only pander to the PC base.

 

[junctionist]

People interpret and remember the past through their own present.

It's amazing how many people have nothing but vitriol for the Mike Harris years and his heartless cuts, but have nothing but admiration for Chretien and his 'fiscal restraint.' And vice versa, incredibly. Same exact cuts, but people just see them differently.

The past isn't really a thing. People just pluck facts and narratives from it to support their own prejudices and life choices.

History is real, though it's shaped by the people who piece it together. People who didn't like Harris still liked Chretien because they saw the federal government as a socially liberal government in a tight fiscal position, while Harris endeavored to bring US-style neoliberalism to Ontario.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

People interpret and remember the past through their own present.

It's amazing how many people have nothing but vitriol for the Mike Harris years and his heartless cuts, but have nothing but admiration for Chretien and his 'fiscal restraint.' And vice versa, incredibly. Same exact cuts, but people just see them differently.

There were differences but you're right in that it was a buck-passing from the feds down the province, down to the cities. Everyone discovered that balanced budgets were just the absolute most important things ever.

The PC did rule Ontario for I think 42 years before the Liberals came to power I think in 1985 or 1987 (not sure about exact
dates). I think my understanding was they ruled from the central. The last time the TTC actually received funding for 50% of their operational cost was under Bill Davis. So, my point is the PC under Hudack do not need to rule like Harris but like Bill Davis. He cancelled the Spadina expressway and was also good to education.

Yes, the funding arrangement Harris killed with TTC was a Bill Davis invention. Hudak doesn't have to rule like Harris, but he's made it clear he will. I don't think Tory would have, FWIW, but that's part of why he got ousted.

It was not a 1% v 99% issue....it was a public purse issue. There was a concerted effort in place to reign in and eliminate the deficit....and since a lot of public expenditure is in the form of human resources compensation it was bound to be an antagonistic situation.

It was spun as a public purse issue but the people he went at were the poor, the powerless etc. "The public purse," argument doesn't explain how MOE was gutted and how Walkerton happened or how public transit got snipped. Let's not even start on amalgamation.

The opposite is what we have seen during this current government. Virtually no confrontation and full on labour peace (up to the bill 115 minor kerfuffle last year). There has been a huge cost to the province for this labour peace....a financial cost.

Obviously. but it's also easier to destroy than to build and some COSTS are investment (like, say, public transit). Did Mike Harris really SAVE $1B by cancelling the subway we're building now anyway on Eglinton? How much lost revenue is there to Toronto from things not built because the project was killed? But Harris had a very narrow concept of "investment," if any.

Since this is transit board I may as well say it.....I think the Liberals have the best transit plan.....but I don't think I can support them when they are not willing to make any tough decisions elsewhere that will actually pay for it......what we got in the budget was a bunch of spending all over the place and, unbelievably, a higher deficit than current is proposed and no plan to curtail the deficit in the future....sure that creates a better "atmosphere" than cutting services or rationalizing services or laying people off....but it should in no way be mistaken for a sustainable plan.

That's all fair enough. That's the trick. But every other transit program is paid for with gas taxes, payroll taxes etc. The Libs played it safe, rolling out the plan, throwing some seed money and hoping people would come around to revenue tools. They waited too long - especially with the scandals that hit - and wasted their political capital. Now we've got a decent plan and a good start and no follow-through; very frustrating.

And I don't disagree about how you can create a better atmosphere by spending but that cuts both ways. The easiest thing in the world is to campaign on the notion (ahem) that there's gravy to be cut and I'm going to GIVE YOU MONEY if I'm elected. Remember when Harris and Eves gave everyone a $200 cheque because they were just being so awesome with their cutting? IMHO, that kind of vote-buying is the lowest form of politics.

There's no "right #" of how big a government (or deficit) should be. I believe in the general rule that people are willing to pay more when they see results but that's really been put to the test with the transit issue the last few years, even as those same people complain about how bad traffic is getting.

 

[kEiThZ]

The PC did rule Ontario for I think 42 years before the Liberals came to power I think in 1985 or 1987 (not sure about exact dates). I think my understanding was they ruled from the central. The last time the TTC actually received funding for 50% of their operational cost was under Bill Davis. So, my point is the PC under Hudack do not need to rule like Harris but like Bill Davis. He cancelled the Spadina expressway and was also good to education.

This. Honestly, if today's conservatives were anything like the Bill Davis PC or European/UK conservatives, they'd have my vote locked.

Instead, Tim is more focused on tax cuts than transport (not just transit, there's issues like the Gardiner as well).