[299 bloor call control.]

If the Liberals were able to keep John Tory from office because of something like the religious schools issue, Tim Hudak's a goner, with quotes and being on record of wanting to abolish the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Christine Elliot was right during this campaign - the very fact they even brought up this issue handed the next election to McGuinty.

 

[kEiThZ]

I hope they loose huge with Hudak at the helm. That'll vindicate all those criticisms that John Tory wasn't enough to the right to win. I find it unbelievable that the Conservatives can't understand that it was not so much as John Tory's policies, in so much as his delivery that cost him the election. Prior to the schools issue, he was doing performing decently.

All the Liberals have to do is repeatedly remind the public that Hudak is related to Mike Harris in more ways than one and that should send him down in flames pretty quick.

 

[Whoaccio]

Hudak really isn't such a radioactive person. Its hardly preordained that he will win the next election, but he does have a sporting chance if he runs a decent campaign. Its totally possible that if Ontario's fiscal situation declines at a rate worse than current forecasts (already 12.2b for '10-11), voters might resonate with a kind of mini CSR. Harris himself was in large part a reaction to the Floyd Laughren days, and center-right parties seem to be doing quite well in Europe at the moment.

As much as I would have preferred Elliot, there is something to be said for the idealogical certainty Hudak has. It goes without saying that the religous schools thing hurt Tory, but he was hamstrung from the begining by his refusal to really differentiate his fiscal policy from McGuinty's. If Hudak can make the point that, in a nutshell, taxes=McGuinty=bad, it would probably resonate fairly well.

I really doubt the HRC thing would hurt Hudak either. I couldn't care less about getting rid of that amateur body. All Hudak would have to do is make an add showing the ridiculous cases which make it to the HRC, like the transvestite suing over which washroom she/he could use, and most people would figure out that HRCs are at best irrelevant to human rights.

 

[Brian69]

Apart from the fact the provincial Tories might be headed for more wilderness years my biggest problem with this is that the Liberals will feel even more comfortable at the helm and less bothered by criticism or policy input from outside the party. Even with a majority in power a strong and respected opposition keeps the government honest.

Not that McGuinty hasn't been doing a reasonable job (he has) but having ineffective opposition parties can lead to complacency and entitlement as the federal Liberals taught us a number of years ago.

 

[unimaginative2]

This makes me very nervous. People vote against governments, not for them. If people decide they've had enough of McGuinty and the Liberals, they'll vote for the alternative no matter how wingnutty or how badly the policies he supports turned out last time they were tried.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

This makes me very nervous. People vote against governments, not for them. If people decide they've had enough of McGuinty and the Liberals, they'll vote for the alternative no matter how wingnutty or how badly the policies he supports turned out last time they were tried.

he's already trying to appeal to those who are effected by the garbage strike. it's a single issue like that that could gain him more support in toronto.

 

[salvius]

Hudak really isn't such a radioactive person. Its hardly preordained that he will win the next election, but he does have a sporting chance if he runs a decent campaign. Its totally possible that if Ontario's fiscal situation declines at a rate worse than current forecasts (already 12.2b for '10-11), voters might resonate with a kind of mini CSR. Harris himself was in large part a reaction to the Floyd Laughren days, and center-right parties seem to be doing quite well in Europe at the moment.

As much as I would have preferred Elliot, there is something to be said for the idealogical certainty Hudak has. It goes without saying that the religous schools thing hurt Tory, but he was hamstrung from the begining by his refusal to really differentiate his fiscal policy from McGuinty's. If Hudak can make the point that, in a nutshell, taxes=McGuinty=bad, it would probably resonate fairly well.

I really doubt the HRC thing would hurt Hudak either. I couldn't care less about getting rid of that amateur body. All Hudak would have to do is make an add showing the ridiculous cases which make it to the HRC, like the transvestite suing over which washroom she/he could use, and most people would figure out that HRCs are at best irrelevant to human rights.

He's so radioactive that he's positively glowing.

I think as long as he keeps selling himself as a Harris protege (you know, that guy who couldn't balance the budget at the best of times and resorted to selling public assets -- until it was hard to sell more -- to hide the red ink), the Liberal camp should have an easy campaign.

 

[Whoaccio]

He's so radioactive that he's positively glowing.

I think as long as he keeps selling himself as a Harris protege (you know, that guy who couldn't balance the budget at the best of times and resorted to selling public assets -- until it was hard to sell more -- to hide the red ink), the Liberal camp should have an easy campaign.

1.) Harris did balance the budget. Its a matter of public record. You are getting Harris confused with Eves.

2.) Hudak isn't selling himself as the 'Harris protege,' he is selling himself as what he is: a right of center PC. The only people selling Hudak as a Mike Harris protege are the Toronto Star.

None of this is to say I would vote for the guy, but lets keep things in perspective. He isn't some kind of abortion clinic bombing barbarian. As far as I know he doesn't hate minorities. Yet that doesn't stop Haroon Siddiqui from claiming he is trying to channel a "sort of bigotry by demonizing minorities and those on social assistance." Hudak hasn't released any major platforms of yet so its hard to judge, but jumping to conclusions isn't helpful.

 

[unimaginative2]

I don't really know. Harper has said things far, far more outrageous than Hudak ever has, but people voted for him because they were tired of Martin and the Liberals. I think McGuinty has run an excellent government and has campaigned well since 1999, but voters tire of even a good government, especially in an economic downturn.

The area that will decide the next election is the 905. I honestly don't believe that a lot of the swing voters in that area really dislike Harris as much as we think they do. The transit and city service cuts didn't really affect them, and if they really cared about the cuts to education, they wouldn't have voted for him in 1999. I really think that the defeat in 2003 had to do with a campaign in disarray, the perceived weakness of Eves as a leader, and the much improved Liberal campaign.

I mean, this is clearly oversimplifying and many people certainly changed their votes after events like Walkerton, but voters have astoundingly short memories. If you look at the polls, people actually say that the Tories are better at dealing with debt and deficit than the Liberals, even though the last time they were in power they ran up a $42 billion deficit and ran a deficit in every year. The Liberals cleaned it up and ran a large surplus for every subsequent year they were in power, and the Tories had us on the verge of deficit even before the recent downturn, with its ever-inflating (now $50 billion) deficit.

As far as I know he doesn't hate minorities. Yet that doesn't stop Haroon Siddiqui from claiming he is trying to channel a "sort of bigotry by demonizing minorities and those on social assistance." Hudak hasn't released any major platforms of yet so its hard to judge, but jumping to conclusions isn't helpful.

To be fair, the centrepiece of his platform is abolishing human rights commissions in the wake of several complaints brought by Muslim Ontarians. Whether you agree with HRCs or not, it's pretty clear he's going for the Mark Steyn/Ezra Levant vote with that, and you can hardly call them tolerant of minorities.

 

[Whoaccio]

To be fair, the centrepiece of his platform is abolishing human rights commissions in the wake of several complaints brought by Muslim Ontarians. Whether you agree with HRCs or not, it's pretty clear he's going for the Mark Steyn/Ezra Levant vote with that, and you can hardly call them tolerant of minorities.

Isn't that guilt by association? Obviously Steyn/Levant dislike the HRCs and have questionable tolerance of muslims, but quite a few other people are against HRCs for other reasons as well. Even the HRC commissioned report on HRCs recommended we repeal wide swaths of the current system. As much as most (all?) Ontarians recognize that human rights are fundamental to our society, I think a wide majority would also agree that much of what the HRCs currently deal with has no impact on human rights.

Regardless, I don't see how it is fair to claim that Hudak is dealing in bigotry for his current proposals. He isn't. Even if he was the world's biggest bigot, moving human rights complaints from the current tribunals to a court is not particularly bigoted.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's not the substance, it's the motivation. A cursory examination of news articles leading up to the announcement of this policy shows that its motivation was Steyn/Levant.

 

[afransen]

Hudak really isn't such a radioactive person. Its hardly preordained that he will win the next election, but he does have a sporting chance if he runs a decent campaign. Its totally possible that if Ontario's fiscal situation declines at a rate worse than current forecasts (already 12.2b for '10-11), voters might resonate with a kind of mini CSR. Harris himself was in large part a reaction to the Floyd Laughren days, and center-right parties seem to be doing quite well in Europe at the moment.

As much as I would have preferred Elliot, there is something to be said for the idealogical certainty Hudak has. It goes without saying that the religous schools thing hurt Tory, but he was hamstrung from the begining by his refusal to really differentiate his fiscal policy from McGuinty's. If Hudak can make the point that, in a nutshell, taxes=McGuinty=bad, it would probably resonate fairly well.

I really doubt the HRC thing would hurt Hudak either. I couldn't care less about getting rid of that amateur body. All Hudak would have to do is make an add showing the ridiculous cases which make it to the HRC, like the transvestite suing over which washroom she/he could use, and most people would figure out that HRCs are at best irrelevant to human rights.

I suppose we should throw out all of tort law because there is anecdotal evidence of silly cases/rulings.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's not the substance, it's the motivation. A cursory examination of news articles leading up to the announcement of this policy shows that its motivation was Steyn/Levant.

Are you serious? I am no fan of Hudak, but I'd say that's a rather unfair statement to apply to any stripe of government. Other than that you (U2) and Whoaccio both make some excellent points.

He's not Harris, though I do think he's far too right of centre for the Tories to win (let's just say Hudak is no Bill Davis that's for sure). It's a pity for the PCs, the nanny state laws and various taxes are finally being felt throughout Ontario, and they could have had the potential to make those issues. I think Elliott was right about the issue being toxic. And how far the tories get with this we'll see. I do think U2 is correct that voters by and large tend to throw out governments when they get sick of them. It's pretty rare that there is significant public clamouring for one particular party's platform (that's really probably more common among partisans anyway).

As for The Star's view on Hudak...well they would not be satisfied unless a closet Dipper won the helm of the Tories, so I think we can all take their views with a grain of salt. I am looking to see if we might finally see the rise of a more urban (or at least sub-urban) Tory. That would be a refreshing change. Being a tory should not have to mean that one is automatically against transit, urban densification, etc. Conservative parties all around the world have shown that. For once, I'd like to see that hear in Canada. Heck, for many of his nutty views, even Randy Hillier has a subway network expansion plan. I'd like to see more of that.

 

[kEiThZ]

I suppose we should throw out all of tort law because there is anecdotal evidence of silly cases/rulings.

Are you suggesting that anybody who proposes any reform of the HRCs is not automatically a closet bigot?

 

[adma]

Frankly, I agree that this scaremongering over Hudak is overblown--it's a little like overelevating him and overcondemning him at the same time. He's the new Tory leader; and, we know where the Tories are at these days. And it isn't like those doing the scaremongering would vote for that party in any event. So, why dwell and dwell and dwell on Hudak's so-called "scariness"? For all anyone knows, he might be more pragmatic in power than critics might expect--and hey, even the NDP's left-wing stalwart (and Hudak's political neighbour) Peter Kormos gets along personally fine with him.

I wouldn't be crying uncle until/unless Hudak triggers a mass exodus of "Arlen Specter" moderates. In the meantime, I'm wait-and-see.