News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solid Snake said:
Because despite what the anti-PC people on this forum thinks, the silent majority approves of the cuts and knows that it won't cause a recession. Hudak knows it. There's no point getting defensive over it and appearing weak over it, that's why he's brushing it off and keep his cool to give the impression that he's in control and knows what he's doing
Click to expand...
Possibly....but in this soundbite world we live in you run the risk that people just hear "the cuts will put us in recession" and since it is not refuted they may think ...that must be true....ah well, we find out how it goes in a week.
 
TOareaFan said:
Two things that strike me as bizarre from the Hudak campaign are both related to lack of aggressiveness.

The only person I have heard say that the PS job cuts will push Ontario to recession is Kathleen Wynne....yet he let her repeat it over and over again last night without once saying "do any economists support that opinon?"

The other one relates to the whole 1 job = 1 person year of employment.....he has taken a whole lot of heat/mocking on that but whether you or I agree with that "logic" is irrelevant it is a fairly widely used "count method" for employment and job creation and I would wonder why he has never once asked the Liberal government why they are mocking it now but were very comfortable using it in their 2009 budget (they may have used it other times too but it is has been pointed out in some media and twitter feeds that the chart on this page uses it in that budget.....

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2009/chpt1.html#chart7

Anyway, there must be a reason why he is just absorbing these two particular punches.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Hudak is using the million jobs thing as the centrepiece of his campaign. They even called it the "million jobs plan". All their ads revolve around it. It may be technically correct when you consider the way the Finance ministry counts jobs, but it's misleading advertising.

No to mention that when you break it down it's not exactly impressive. A million person years of work over 8 years is only 125,000 actual people working. And when you consider that he wants to lay off 100,000 public service jobs, what you're left with is a small fraction of what the ads claim.

Solid Snake said:
Because despite what the anti-PC people on this forum thinks, the silent majority approves of the cuts and knows that it won't cause a recession. Hudak knows it. There's no point getting defensive over it and appearing weak over it, that's why he's brushing it off and keep his cool to give the impression that he's in control and knows what he's doing
Click to expand...
Which cuts does the silent majority approve of? The majority most certainly don't approve of the 100,000 job cuts. In fact, only 26% of the population does. The majority is clearly against Hudak's cuts.
 
Last edited:
MisterF said:
The difference is that Hudak is using the million jobs thing as the centrepiece of his campaign. They even called it the "million jobs plan". All their ads revolve around it. It may be technically correct when you consider the way the Finance ministry counts jobs, but it's misleading advertising.
Click to expand...

Ok....i get it....misleading avertising bad....misleading document submitted to and approved by the legislature good. Got it ;)
 
MisterF said:
And when you consider that he wants to lay off 100,000 public service jobs, what you're left with is a small fraction of what the ads claim.
Click to expand...

He will cut 100 000 public service jobs, not layoff 100 000 employees...HUGE Difference

MisterF said:
Which cuts does the silent majority approve of? The majority most certainly don't approve of the 100,000 job cuts. In fact, only 26% of the population does. The majority is clearly against Hudak's cuts.
Click to expand...

A poll is not the majority
 
TOareaFan said:
Ok....i get it....misleading avertising bad....misleading document submitted to and approved by the legislature good. Got it ;)
Click to expand...
Come on, you must see that Hudak is using figures from a technical document out of context to mislead the public. A "job" means one thing in government reports, but it means another thing entirely in general conversation. It's the same thing as people saying that evolution is "just a theory". Those kinds of subtleties are common in all professions.

Solid Snake said:
He will cut 100 000 public service jobs, not layoff 100 000 employees...HUGE Difference
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I said. Public service jobs.

Solid Snake said:
election day
Click to expand...
So you have a crystal ball to see the election results that makes you so confident that the "silent majority" supports Hudak's cuts? I'd love to borrow it, I have some Stanley Cup bets to make. :D
 
MisterF said:
Come on, you must see that Hudak is using figures from a technical document out of context to mislead the public.
Click to expand...

Look I don't agree with the usage....but it is exactly the same way the government of the day used it when they presented that budget in 2009 (and likely in other documents as other governments have). When Mr. Duncan stood in the house to present that budget do you think he was misleading the public when he said the government programs had created "X number of jobs"?
 
nfitz said:
No different at all. In 5 years there'll still be 100,000 less teachers, health workers, and over government employees.
Click to expand...

There is a difference....laying off 100,000 employees requires you to go to people currently employed and give them lay off notices. Not replacing them upon them leaving for other work or retiring does not require that at all. Will there be layoffs....I bet you there will be.....is it anywhere close to 100k....not likely.

For an election campaign that has ground down and been bogged down in technical definitions it is right for Mr. Hudak to resist any lies that he will "lay off" or (worse) "fire" 100,000 people......it is simply not true.
 
MisterF said:
Yes, that's what I said. Public service jobs.
Click to expand...

cut 100 000 positions (including those that are already vacant, not replacing those who are retiring and not renewing contractual employees, casual employees and temporary employees) not 100 000 employees and certainly not permanent employees
 
nfitz said:
No different at all. In 5 years there'll still be 100,000 less teachers, health workers, and over government employees.
Click to expand...

Office clerks, receptionists, couriers, cleaners and position that only requires a high school diploma will be cut way ahead of teachers and health workers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top