[Filip]

I live in Thornhill where 35-storey towers are going up on Yonge while wait for a subway (and those towers are going up because of a new 2dary plan that anticipated a now-in-limbo subway) so that's not hard to think about at all Yonge north of Finch right now is kind of ground zero for "smart growth without rapid transit." It's scary, the lack of coordination.

I'd say Park Lawn/Lake Shore cluster of 30,40,50, and now 60 storey condos takes the cake as too much residential with no transit.

 

[WislaHD]

I'd say Park Lawn/Lake Shore cluster of 30,40,50, and now 60 storey condos takes the cake as too much residential with no transit.

How Waterfront West is not an election issue in either province or municipality is astounding....

 

[sixrings]

yes - he said he would resign after 8 years in power if he didn't create 1 million jobs

What is the average years a Premier lasts? Is 8 years not a long time? He could be voted out before then or a number of other issues could come up. Did Dalton make 8 years? What about david miller? Whats Harper at? Ford isnt going to last that long. All Im saying is its a great promise because it makes it look like you are putting your job at risk creating faith in the person but the truth is that even he knows he will statistically speaking not last that long or be on the way out anyway.

 

[nfitz]

What is the average years a Premier lasts? Is 8 years not a long time? He could be voted out before then or a number of other issues could come up. Did Dalton make 8 years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Ontario

With 24 premiers in the 146 years from 1867 to 2013, the average premier has lasted about 6 years - however if you take the 24 years that Mowat served out of the count, then the rest only averaged about 5 years. McGuinty lasted about 9.5 years. Harris lasted about 7 years.

 

[ksun]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premiers_of_Ontario

With 24 premiers in the 146 years from 1867 to 2013, the average premier has lasted about 6 years - however if you take the 24 years that Mowat served out of the count, then the rest only averaged about 5 years. McGuinty lasted about 9.5 years. Harris lasted about 7 years.

if McGuinty can last 10 years, everyone can.

 

[salsa]

How Waterfront West is not an election issue in either province or municipality is astounding....

No subways are planned for Waterfront West, so that's why.

 

[muller877]

Hudak won the debate overall I think, but not decisively. Preliminary polling from last night still shows a significant 7 point lead by the liberals, so it doesn't seem to have affected much.

The PC and NDP's goal for the debate is about momentum, voter turnout and targeted voter messages. Not about policy but about personality (people that care about policies have already decided who to vote for). There has only been two debates with knockout blows that I can remember (Regan and Mulroney) which would have an immediate impact on voter intentions. The others are effective but have longer-term impacts.

Hudak was very good at communicating his messages. Kept it on topic and was less robotic than normal. He sounded sincere (whether you agree with his position is a seperate discussion). He also used real-life examples from his family and Howarth's family. I guess they took this from Obama.

Horwath was OK. Had some good punch lines but felt a bit contrived (sounded like she was on script and fumbled when she forgot it in her closing statement). She was very good at attacking Wynne but I found her platform did not get pushed enough. I think they prepared for the attack but did not prepare how to transition the attack to move to why she is different. A bit to negative for me. But I think the voters that are sitting on the fence (the ones right now leaning towards Liberals) it gives them a real alternative. She was also very successful in differentiating herself from Rae (which still haunts her party in SWO and the 905).

Wynne was attacked from both sides. I almost felt sorry for her. But her advisors should have been ready for this. Unlike Hudak who had a retort ready for the math (I'll resign in 2 or 8 years and my cabinet members will be fired), she did not have a retort for the corruption other than I'm sorry.

I think people have been ingoring gas plants, Orange, Mars, etc because they assumed all politicians are the same. Will Horwath/Hudak's conviction during the debate change this? Not sure. (again...they are not targeting the people on this site but the undecided voters in the 905 who are swing voters...mainly low-middle class voters with a family)

For transportation, Wynne sounded like she had a province-wide plan. Horwath focused on the North (where she has most of the votes guaranteed so I was confused with this). Hudak targeted the grass-is-always-greener crowd with the allocation of money to each township (or county). Again, a non-416 target where they think Toronto/Ottawa/anywhere but their own riding gets funding and they are shortchanged.

I was interested in hearing Howarth's and Hudak's plans for transit as I haven't heard it as detailed before. For the next 4 years, they sound the same....it's just what will be in planning after the 4 years are up.

My decision who to vote for will come down to (1) who can deliver transit improvements in the next 4 years (GO, DRL), (2) how much of this will go to corruption and (3) general pocketbook issues. From the debate I've ruled out one (Wynne). Still debating on the other 2. For the NDP I'm worried that the caucus will revolt and go back to the old NDP once the election is won including a big deficit. But I think longer-term was a great debate for the NDP (i.e. for the next election). Moving towards a Prarie version of the NDP which will be electable.

The PC's...I wish there was clearer communication where the 100,000 jobs will come from. I know there is waste and mismanagement in government, it's just hard to weed out the bad and keep the good. Worried that the bad will stay and the good that is needed will disappear. But doing nothing is also not an answer.

 

[Solid Snake]

The PC's...I wish there was clearer communication where the 100,000 jobs will come from. I know there is waste and mismanagement in government, it's just hard to weed out the bad and keep the good. Worried that the bad will stay and the good that is needed will disappear. But doing nothing is also not an answer.

Attrition, early retirement and temporary staff being cut.

I work for the Feds and when they cut 20 000 jobs, 20 000 employees didn't get fired. They abolished vacant positions, did not replace every jobs that were left vacant due to retirement and non essential jobs performed by contracted and temporary/casual part time employees were cut. Permanent employees were not fired. On top of that, those same contracted and temporary employees get a priority for future vacant jobs to be filled internally.

cutting 100 000 jobs/positions not 100 000 employees is totally doable. It's too bad it never gets explained this way.

Furthermore, I'm in property management for Public Works and whenever we decided to give the maintenance to the private sector like SNC Lavalin to manage our government buildings, those government employees got job offers from SNC Lavalin to work for them. It makes total sense for the private company to hire the workers who already have the most experience at what they do. No SNC Lavalin is not an employer who doesn't give any benefits and that works their employees to death at 10$/hour. They are well paid and have benefits too. It's the same principal here. If Service Ontario was to be given to the private sector, whoever wins the bid to get Service Ontario would have it in their best interest to hire the temporary or contracted government employees who were let go.

Contracting out public service is always done gradually due to the fact that firing permanent employees is very hard to do and rarely done. They could choose to contract out Service Ontario to the private sector but still retain a government side of service Ontario by employing those who are permanent. They would just not make any future hiring in that department until they're all gone while a bigger % is given to the private sector gradually over the years. You save money by not having to be liable for pension and benefits of future employees and by not having to rent or build an office and hire more staff to maintain the department (IT, managers etc). All that costs gets off the government's books, therefore, the taxpayer saves money

That's what we did at Public Works and there was no controversy or end of the world doomsday scenarios and no recession like Wynne and Horwath are trying to make people believe. It's a lie that 100 000 people will get fire tomorrow if Hudak is elected. It's not true that cutting 100 000 positions=100 000 loss of net jobs. Like I said earlier, out of the 20 000 jobs Harper cut, only a small fraction truly lost their jobs and they weren't permanent employees. Usually the casual part-time employee is the one to go or those who are on a limited contract are simply let go and not renewed.

And by the way, those who are government employees with the status "casual, contract and part-time" are fully aware that they don't have the same job security as permanent employees and they accept the risk by still choosing to work for the government.

 

[jje1000]

My decision who to vote for will come down to (1) who can deliver transit improvements in the next 4 years (GO, DRL)

One thing I'm concerned about is that if the PCs win without any seats in Toronto, they may simply give us the metaphorical middle finger and refuse to fund the DRL. This may become a possibility especially if Olivia Chow comes into power this coming fall (clashing political views).

It cynically makes sense, politically they will have no vested interests in this city and they can 'stand up' to the big city liberals while appealing to the rural base.

But it's bad for everyone in the end.

 

[nfitz]

Attrition, early retirement and temporary staff being cut.

I work for the Feds and when they cut 20 000 jobs, 20 000 employees didn't get fired. They abolished vacant positions, did not replace every jobs that were left vacant due to retirement and non essential jobs performed by contracted and temporary/casual part time employees were cut. Permanent employees were not fired. On top of that, those same contracted and temporary employees get a priority for future vacant jobs to be filled internally.

cutting 100 000 jobs/positions not 100 000 employees is totally doable. It's too bad it never gets explained this way.

I fail to see how you do this without having 100,000 less teachers, health-care workers, and other government workers. With about 140,000 employees in the ministries and Ontario agencies; 240,000 in health care, and 400,000 in edcuation ... it's clear to see where the bulk of the cuts are.

Increased class sizes and no improvement to the currently unacceptable wait times - at best.

The issue isn't whether individuals get termination notices. The issue is we have less people working in our communities, worse education, and worse healthcare.

 

[salsa]

cutting 100 000 jobs/positions not 100 000 employees is totally doable. It's too bad it never gets explained this way.

Then is it fair to say that creating 1 million jobs =/= 1 million employees?

 

[Solid Snake]

Then is it fair to say that creating 1 million jobs =/= 1 million employees?

True. It's BS to put a number on how many jobs will be created. Will he create jobs by creating the right fiscal environment? Yes. 1 million? That's more than optimistic, it's wishful thinking.

 

[Solid Snake]

I fail to see how you do this without having 100,000 less teachers, health-care workers, and other government workers. With about 140,000 employees in the ministries and Ontario agencies; 240,000 in health care, and 400,000 in edcuation ... it's clear to see where the bulk of the cuts are.

Increased class sizes and no improvement to the currently unacceptable wait times - at best.

The issue isn't whether individuals get termination notices. The issue is we have less people working in our communities, worse education, and worse healthcare.

Keep drinking that Wynne cool aid...

 

[TOareaFan]

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.

 

[Solid Snake]

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.

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