News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

I guess the best I can hope for is a minority PC government. I will probably hold my nose and vote liberal, unless the NDP is leading in my riding, in which case I’ll vote for them. If the PC’s had nominated Elliot or Mulroney I’d have given them a try but no way I’m voting for greasy Doug. What a mess!
 
I am hoping for a minority something. I don't think any of them deserve a majority. I am probably going to ignore the leaders and vote for my local candidate, because she has done a good job so far. Of course, if she were PC, then I wouldn't be able to ignore her leader because I will never ever cast a vote that supports a Ford.
 
I guess the best I can hope for is a minority PC government. I will probably hold my nose and vote liberal, unless the NDP is leading in my riding, in which case I’ll vote for them. If the PC’s had nominated Elliot or Mulroney I’d have given them a try but no way I’m voting for greasy Doug. What a mess!
Don't forget, as many seem to, that the present Government, on losing the majority of seats in the legislature, still has first choice of forming a new government, whether that be a slim minority but acceptable to the Crown, or the forming of a coalition government.
[...]
  • If no party wins a majority of the 107 seats — 54 being the key number — things get a bit more complicated. Despite what Wynne herself declared, "if the results are fairly close and if there's any sense that the premier may be able to cobble together a way of staying in power, then it's unlikely that she'd offer her resignation," said Graham White, politics professor at the University of Toronto. A party winning a plurality of seats but falling short of a majority must still ask the lieutenant-governor to form a government. As always, it's up to the viceregal to make that decision, based on whether the lieutenant-governor believes they can command the confidence of the legislature.
  • Governments open a new legislative session with a speech from the throne, read by the lieutenant-governor, which outlines their agenda. It is considered a confidence vote. So in a minority government, if the throne speech doesn't pass, it can trigger an election. But if the other two parties form an alliance, they could convince the lieutenant-governor that they can win the confidence of the legislature and he could allow them to form a government.
The latter happened in 1985, when the Progressive Conservatives under Frank Miller won the most seats, but didn't have a majority. The Liberals, with four fewer seats than the Tories, worked out an accord with the New Democrats, who agreed to support them for two years if they introduced certain NDP policies. Miller recalled the legislature June 4 and introduced a throne speech two weeks later. An amendment was added — a motion of non-confidence — and it passed. The house was adjourned.

Aware of the Liberal-NDP accord, Lt.-Gov. John Aird invited the Liberals to form a government. It was not a formal coalition government, as the New Democrats did not have ministers in cabinet.

When the house returned on July 2, the session continued, but with the Liberals in charge.
[...]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-the-day-after-the-ontario-election-1.2668963

I see that as likely to happen. Thankfully the number of previous Lib voters attracted to vote PC has been spiked by the PC's choice of someone many could/would never vote for. Most of the disaffected Libs will vote NDP or Greens, helped by the thought of a coalition meaning they wouldn't be wasting their vote.

What the PC's have done is akin to a madman taking himself hostage, and threatening to blow his own head off if you don't do as he tells you to.

I'd suggest to the gunman that he allow me to help him pull the trigger. "Let's drain the swamp together....".
 
Don't forget, as many seem to, that the present Government, on losing the majority of seats in the legislature, still has first choice of forming a new government, whether that be a slim minority but acceptable to the Crown, or the forming of a coalition government.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-the-day-after-the-ontario-election-1.2668963

I see that as likely to happen. Thankfully the number of previous Lib voters attracted to vote PC has been spiked by the PC's choice of someone many could/would never vote for. Most of the disaffected Libs will vote NDP or Greens, helped by the thought of a coalition meaning they wouldn't be wasting their vote.

What the PC's have done is akin to a madman taking himself hostage, and threatening to blow his own head off if you don't do as he tells you to.

I'd suggest to the gunman that he allow me to help him pull the trigger. "Let's drain the swamp together....".
The important thing here is wynne is the current premier. If she gets 2nd most seats in a minority situation she can attempt an NDP coalition without resigning or offering the PCs a chance to run.
 
As I constantly repeat, program spending per capita in Ontario is the second lowest in Canada and is forecast to remain so for the next few years. Successive governments (including the current one) have let the debt increase irresponsibly by maintaining an unsustainably low taxation level - second lowest in the country. Conservatives are not that interested in reducing debt. After Rae was defeated, Harris continued to increase it. They will make budget cuts and reduce taxes, and the debt will continue to go up. This is what they are about.

Yeah, I know what they are about. It's two sides to the same fiscally incompetent coin with the Liberals and PCs.

One wants to go into debt to pay for services the other wants to cut revenue to pay for services resulting in going into debt to pay for services. They're both incompetent.
One is trying to buy votes while the other is trying to finance votes.

It doesn't matter what program spending per capita is if your revenues can't cover it.

I don't go into debt to pay rent, bills, and buy food. That's just irresponsible and, frankly idiotic.
I might go into debt at 4% p.a. to invest in something with a return of 9% p.a. because that makes mathematical sense.
I wouldn't go into debt at 4% to buy more salmon (I loooove salmon) in the hopes that it increases my willingness to work an extra hour a month giving me some sort of shitty 0.1% return on investment.
I also wouldn't work less hours at work in the hopes that the freed up time will allow me to pursue a hypothetical side hustle that may or may not materialise.

If I can't afford my carrying costs (rent, food, bills) then I either increase my revenue or lessen my expenditure.

Rae, Harris, McGuinty (shit, I forgot Eves, the slick bastard), Wynne, blah, blah.....it doesn't matter what the name behind the fiscal mismanagement is.
Red, blue, orange....it doesn't matter what the flavour of the year is.

Paying for services with debt is stupid. Period. Full stop. Fin.

You want services? Increase revenues.
Can't increase revenues because you're scared of losing power? Then gtfo.

I blame this situation on people's self-interest and short-sightedness. Everyone wants mad services without paying for them.
Oh, hi, Alberta called...they want their fiscal shell game back.

You could have people walking around wiping people's arses as a public service and people would still moan about taxes.
Lots of people want everything without doing anything for it. It's a psychological defect of the human condition.
This isn't a question of political partisanship but of psychology.
 
This Twitter account makes a good point

Screen Shot 2018-03-23 at 10.45.28 PM.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-03-23 at 10.45.28 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-03-23 at 10.45.28 PM.jpg
    71.6 KB · Views: 258
It never ceases to amaze me that people actually think Canadian politicians are that desperate to get reelected when most could easily get a better-paying job in the private sector, with none of the daily scrutiny they are subjected to.
.

It's hard to set up as many friends for good times when you're in the private sector.
 
Hahaha. Sell it, blue-collar Joe.

Harvard-educated globalist Joe Oliver -- former MP for Forest Hill when he was federal finance minister in Stephen Harper's neocon cabinet and now chair of Echelon Wealth Partners -- rails against "undemocratic elitism" in this blue-collar tribute to@fordnation.

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/oliver-in-support-of-populism-and-doug-ford

Oh man, Joe, shut up.

From his article:

"City progressives believe in Keynes, revere Pierre Trudeau, read the Toronto Star (for non-partisan coverage) and can’t decide if they prefer Jagmeet Singh’s turban to Justin Trudeau’s hair."

Ok, I don't really know what a "progressive" is because it's a stupid generalising and ambiguous term, but I'm afraid I may be one of them as Joe's writing seems to imply I am. This leaves me wondering though. I can't be.
I don't really think Keynes is any sort of magician. I'm too young for P.E. Trudeau. I can't read the Star and I dislike both Singh and Trudeau, never mind caring about what's on their nuts.

See, Joe doesn't really know what he's on about. He speaks for working class people even though he wouldn't know what that is if I hit him over the head with any one of my tools and took him to work for a day so he could see what a real working life looks like.

Joe, sit down, your input is of questionable credibility and value.
 
I am hoping for a minority something.

Please! I swear I'll stop being a jaded old soul if we get a minority government. I'll never say anything honest about our politicians again. (I'm totally crossing my fingers like those poor kids at the Hong Kong Legco last year)
 

Back
Top