Ontario provincial elections....pfft....

[Cranky]

What a choice.....

Leave in the proven lier and a "do-nothing-as-the-best-course-of-action" party, vote for the Conservatives and watch my tax dollar finance institutionalized segregation or vote for the NDP and watch our economy shattered like the last time the NDP was in power.

If Ontario is lucky, we will get a minority Liberal government with the NDP holding the Sword of Damocles. That way, we can have the worst of both worlds. If there is a God, he sure has a wicked sense of sadistic humour.

Anyone have anything good to say about this Ontario election because frankly, I'm hoping for an asteriod hit on Octomber 10th.

[Skilly]

Newfoundland provincial election is October 9th.

It is a foregone conclusion that Danny Williams will win about 40-45 of the 48 seats. He currently has an 78% approval rating and it is only climbing.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I have no idea how to vote in the election. Believe it or not we have military guys here in the office thinking of throwing their vote to the NDP only because they can't hurt the military at a provincial level.

I think this has to be the worst, as far as choices are concerned, than we've seen in many years.

Cheers.

[Gogie]

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the referendum. Anyone have any opinions, one way or the other? I haven't developed a position yet - although I'm leaning towards the status quo.

[franko]

gogie said:

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the referendum. Anyone have any opinions, one way or the other?

Bah . . .

Poorly promoted and quite confusing.

Let's have a straightforward referendum question for once:

Should Ontario change it's voting system to proportional representation?

Instead, no matter what the outcome there will be a huge outcry becasue people don't understand what is being voted on.

I'm leaning towards the status quo

Me too.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

I think this has to be the worst, as far as choices are concerned, than we've seen in many years.

Choices? There are choices?

Time to waste my vote again

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

I have no idea how to vote in the election. Believe it or not we have military guys here in the office thinking of throwing their vote to the NDP only because they can't hurt the military at a provincial level.

I think this has to be the worst, as far as choices are concerned, than we've seen in many years.

Cheers.

Dis, have you seen the NDP platform? Do you remember what happened last time the NDP was in power? Do you remember how much money they poured into welfare that to the point where it was bettter to collect welfare then work? Do you want them to have to be power brokers with the economic situation in the US worsening by the minute? Our US sales based economy can change within a matter of a month, our dollar is getting so high it's killing industry and we absolutely do NOT need a self absorbed blind party screwing us over in taxes and utility rates.

Things to love about the NDP....

We have two "assisted housing" projects pop up near us thanks to the NDP when they were ijhn power and ever since then, we had to have a police station move into the area. More of the same its to follow.

Learn to read by candlelight. The NDP is intent on flattening both nuclear and coal power and forcing "conservation" down your throat and up your butt. Figure out how you are going to live on 25% ofthe power you now use....and paying 4 times more for it.

How much are you paying for your gas? Not high enough? Wait until you get the "carbon tax" added and you bettter not complain unless you are a carbon wasting, climate change criminal. Do you have a bike? If not, get one.

I rather vote for Rhinocerous then the NDP. Sadly, I am going to hold my nose, take three shots of hard ligour and vote Conservatives. Then hope like hell they get a minority government and their stupid faith based funding dies a horrible death of convinience.

[Cranky]

gogie said:

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the referendum. Anyone have any opinions, one way or the other? I haven't developed a position yet - although I'm leaning towards the status quo.

Status quo all the way gogie. The very last thing we need is to have fringe parties becoming power brokers. Politicians only reason for breathing oxygen is to get in and stay in power so a minority government will sign any deal with any party, no matter how much it goes against it's core pricnciple justs to hold on. I am using the word "core principles" very loosly here because there is no such thing in politics. So wit that in mind, imagine the potential deals between the Green party and the Liberals, or the Liberals and the NDP or between the new, right wing and far right parties that will spring up and the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Secondly.....

We will be fed their political crap 24/7 by all sides. It's bad enough that we have to listen to them on occasion but to have their bickering and infighting invade our lives is over the top.

Think Israel, think Italy.....and then vote for sanity.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

I have no idea how to vote in the election. Believe it or not we have military guys here in the office thinking of throwing their vote to the NDP only because they can't hurt the military at a provincial level.

I think this has to be the worst, as far as choices are concerned, than we've seen in many years.

Cheers.

Dis, have you seen the NDP platform? Do you remember what happened last time the NDP was in power? Do you want the NDP to be anywhere near any ability to be the power broker with the economic situation in the US worsening by the minute? Our US slaes based economy can change within a matter of a month and we absolutely do not need a self absorbed blind party screwing us over in taxes and utility rates.

I rather vote for the Rhinocerous party then the NDP.

I know HA, I know ... I think the lads here in the office were venting. But, at the same time their frustration over the lack of choices is clear. It's going to be a very hard vote this time around and I'm not looking forward to it.

Honestly, I don't even know whose leading in the poles and that's unusual for me because I tend to treat elections seriously.

I think Franko might have hit on something without knowing it. I think there might be a Grit or Tory minority government coming. But I think the parties with the most gains could be the Greens and the NDP.

BTW, one of the early Rhino candidates in Ottawa around 79/80 was David Langille. He was a couple of years ahead of me so I never knew him all that well. But his brother, Greg, became a clergyman and his sister, Joanne, remains a very good friend of mine today. Greg was on the "get-pot-legalized-yesterday" lobby back then. And it wasn't like he was a stoner who had better things to do than high school; he was an honours student.

Anyway, one of the things that helped me in the last federal election was a CBC web page that detailed every party platform. I haven't seen one yet but as soon as one does appear someone might want to post it here.

Cheers.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

Anyway, one of the things that helped me in the last federal election was a CBC web page that detailed every party platform. I haven't seen one yet but as soon as one does appear someone might want to post it here.

Since when do platforms make a difference, Dis? We all know it's "Elect me and I'll do what I want . . . hoping that in four years you'll forget everything I said during the campaign and re-elect me".

Honestly, I don't even know whose leading in the poles and that's unusual for me because I tend to treat elections seriously.

John Tory shot himself in the foot already with his faith-based school promise, but so many people don't like Mcguinty that they don't know what to do. Early on I predict that the polls won't say much, that there'll be a large "undecided" contingent, but that when people walk in to vote they'll forget all of the borken promises of the last election, remember that Dalton promised lots of money for lots of things, and come out with a majority.

But I think the parties with the most gains could be the Greens and the NDP.

De Jong just isn't credible. The Greens are going nowhere, which is why they are pushing for proportional representation. Hampton isn't charismatic enough, and that's what being elected is all about.

We're going to have the same fun during the next federal election as well. Steve, Steve, or Snake-oil Jack . . . what a choice!

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Anyway, one of the things that helped me in the last federal election was a CBC web page that detailed every party platform. I haven't seen one yet but as soon as one does appear someone might want to post it here.

Since when do platforms make a difference, Dis? We all know it's "Elect me and I'll do what I want . . . hoping that in four years you'll forget everything I said during the campaign and re-elect me".

True, very true ... and worse many want to be lied to.

John Tory shot himself in the foot already with his faith-based school promise, but so many people don't like Mcguinty that they don't know what to do. Early on I predict that the polls won't say much, that there'll be a large "undecided" contingent, but that when people walk in to vote they'll forget all of the borken promises of the last election, remember that Dalton promised lots of money for lots of things, and come out with a majority.

Dalton deferred all of his broken election promises onto John Tory. That was his out ... his crutch ... his security blanket. And he kept doing it.

But I think the parties with the most gains could be the Greens and the NDP.

De Jong just isn't credible. The Greens are going nowhere, which is why they are pushing for proportional representation. Hampton isn't charismatic enough, and that's what being elected is all about.[/quote]
Young people don't think with their head, Franko. They think with their hearts. The Greens did extemely well in BC and there's a growing number of young voters taking notice.

We're going to have the same fun during the next federal election as well. Steve, Steve, or Snake-oil Jack . . . what a choice!

Again, true ... very true ...

See you at the poles

[Cranky]

franko said:

We're going to have the same fun during the next federal election as well. Steve, Steve, or Snake-oil Jack . . . what a choice!

That one is easier. Harper will have to start eating babies for me not to vote for him. Dion? A really small man with really big ambitions. Way too much like that other little guy from Shawiningan.

[Deleted]

Vote for me. I'll blow up Toronto.

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

We're going to have the same fun during the next federal election as well. Steve, Steve, or Snake-oil Jack . . . what a choice!

That one is easier. Harper will have to start eating babies for me not to vote for him. Dion? A really small man with really big ambitions. Way too much like that other little guy from Shawiningan.

I'll be shocked if 28 of the 32 seats in the East are not red.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

skilly said:

habsaddict said:

That one is easier. Harper will have to start eating babies for me not to vote for him. Dion? A really small man with really big ambitions. Way too much like that other little guy from Shawiningan.

I'll be shocked if 28 of the 32 seats in the East are not red.

Unfortunately nothing surprises me from this province any longer, Skilly.

I'm not even surprised the federal Liberals did as well as they did last time around. I thought the voters would have taught them a lesson over ADSCAM but this province has very short memories. To many here in Ontario it doesn't matter how much money went missing or how much is still unaccounted for; it's Grit all the way.

But, every party has their staunch, blind supporters. I think a lot of people are influenced by the region in which they live. They take their stand, dig in their heals and it doesn't matter what mistakes, lies or outright thefts have occurred.

This provincial election is going to be tough. I was saying above that we might see a minority government. Well, maybe things will get done in a collaborative sort of way. It's turned out to be a good thing in the past as well as a bad thing.

Still don't know which way I'm going to vote actually. I'm pretty sure it won't be Liberal though; provincially OR federally.

Cheers.

[princelh]

I am trying to get excited over the Ontario Election, but I just can't do it. First: Dalton McGuinty is a certified liar, with video evidence, during the last election. Promised no new taxes, and before the ink was dry on the signed document to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, he brings in a gigantic health tax premium. Locally, one of his cabinet ministers, Leona Dombrowski changes ridings, to avoid being summarily dismissed. There were people driving around with deer heads on their trucks with her name around the neck, something like a deer in the headlights, because of her wishy, washy record. She has the nerve to call herself the incumbent, when she's not from the riding of Prince Edward Hastings. The previous MLA was Ernie Parsons, who decided not to run. Both Parsons and Dombrowski were elected with money from the Ontario Teachers Union. Nice endorsement. They deserve to be given the Kim Campbell treatment and decimated.

That brings us to the alternative and most likely to defeat McGuinty, John Tory. Ran for Mayor of Toronto, during the previous Municipal election. Lost to the Socialist David Miller. He seems to be a nice guy, but seems boring and has little charisma. When the Natives, up near Hamilton, almost beat a contractor to death, Tory said, if he was Premiere, he would sue those responsible. Instead, he should have said, "I'll arrest them, and send them to Prison, if convicted. Kind of a stupid quote, if you want to be seen as a strong leader. As for their platform, I wish that they hadn't brought up faith based education and stayed on cruise control. It gives McGuinty the opportunity to shift the election discussion away from his record on vote buying, corruption and lies, to education and health-care. The Conservatives need to stay on message, if they want to win.

Howard Hampton is the face of the NDP. He seems to have the charisma to make the NDP credible, but their constant railing against everything and everybody, makes them unelectable. Many, in Ontario, remember the NDP's terrible four years in power, when they destroyed the treasury, as well as much of the infrastructure. Many in the province will never forgive them. Too bad for Mr. Hampton, because he may be the most ethical of all of the leaders.

[CentreHice]

Every party in power makes promises they don't keep...mainly because they blame the government before them for not disclosing how much of a "deficit" there was.

Broken record.

McGuinty certainly broke a lot of promises...and early in his term to boot....it was laughable.

His latest campaign ad is also laughable. "Know what I like about Ontario's public education system? It's public." Then he goes on to argue about taking a half-billion dollars away from it to fund faith-based schools.

In arguing against funding such schools, he makes it sound as if we have none....when clearly that's not the case. I taught in the separate system for 12 years.

I know he doesn't want to get into the Catholic school rights outlined in the BNA Act during a campaign ad...but he's making an argument that isn't based in reality.



I can actually see the day when there is just one system...offering separate, various religious courses, if that.

Faith instruction should be a family, church, temple, mosque, synagogue, etc. responsibility....independent of public funding. IMO.

[franko]

centrehice said:

His latest campaign ad is also laughable. "Know what I like about Ontario's public education system? It's public." Then he goes on to argue about taking a half-billion dollars away from it to fund faith-based schools.

And what's more laughable? That he grew up in the Catholic school system. And to beat that? That his wife teaches in the Catholic school system!

I say . . . bring the faith based schools into the public system. Make sure that the teachers have the same credentials as those in the presently funded system. Give them the curriculum to follow. Allow some small deviations from the dogma taught but make sure that the end result is learning, not indoctrination (that goes for all schools).

Or, if Mcguinty really thought that everyone should be in the public system, outlaw the private schools. Bring the masses into the one system. Of course, be prepared for larger class sizes and for even more money going into the education system because more teachers (and buildings) would be needed,

but he's making an argument that isn't based in reality.

Since when do politics and reality have anything in common?

I can actually see the day when there is just one system...offering separate, various religious courses, if that.

That might be a bit of a mess -- there are many differences even within the ranks of common religious beliefs.

Faith instruction should be a family, church, temple, mosque, synagogue, etc. responsibility....independent of public funding. IMO.

This is where Mcguinty has done a good job clouding the waters. Faith based schooling does not mean faith instruction -- it means teaching from a different point of view. And it ain't all "seven day creationism" either. It is often not teaching from a secularist leftist point of view.

I agree wholeheartedly, though, that faith instruction/indoctrination is a "a family, church, temple, mosque, synagogue, etc. responsibility". otoh, an anti-faith bias resides in our public system and that needs to disappear.

==> This discussion shows us how good a job McGuinty is doing -- faith based education is just a small part of the politics of Ontario, yet it has taken the prime focus. what ab out health care? Taxes? Coal fired plants? Etc?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I know Tory has softened his stand WRT faith-based schools but he hasn't gotten rid of it completely. Too bad really ... I think he's going to lose a lot by not getting rid of it. I know he's losing me.

Sat, September 29, 2007

Best beware of this elephant



By SALIM MANSUR

Provincial elections in English Canada rarely have any national implication.

But as Ontarians prepare to vote Oct. 10, their decisions on public funding of faith-based private schools in the province and the referendum on adopting a modified proportional representation for electing members to the legislature in the future might well reverberate across the country.

It is John Tory and his Progressive Conservative party's policy to provide full public funding of faith-based private schools that has emerged as a hot, divisive issue and it might well decide the outcome of the upcoming election.

Ahead of Tory's mid-summer announcement of his party's education policy there was not much evidence of any demand being made openly by interested groups for faith-based private schools to receive public funding, and that such a demand needed to be adopted by a party hoping to form the next government in the province.

Those who have favoured such demand in the past were given a hearing on the matter going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The SCC ruling of November 1996 -- on hearing appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the case known as Adler vs. Ontario -- was the authoritative settling of any dispute or misgiving arising from the claim of interested parties that since the Roman Catholic schools in the province received public funding, fairness demanded that other faith-based schools be equally treated.

CONSTITUTIONAL

The SCC ruled that the "distinction made between the Roman Catholic schools and other religious schools is constitutionally mandated and cannot be the subject of a Charter attack." The majority of justices also observed that not extending public funds to faith-based private schools Ontario was not in violation of the freedom clause of section 2(a), nor the equality clause of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Moreover, the SCC ruling declared that for parents "the cost of sending their children to private religious schools is a natural cost of the appellants' religion and does not, therefore, constitute an infringement of their freedom of religion protected by s. 2(a) of the Charter."

And yet John Tory has come back a decade later to push his policy on the basis of "fairness" when "fairness" cannot be an issue given the grounds of the SCC ruling, and claims of "fairness" cannot mask the deeply flawed nature of the policy itself with consequences for the society that many might well imagine but none would want to discuss in public.

The elephant in the room that gets deliberately ignored in media discussions of Tory's policy is public funds that would be made available to Muslim schools supervised mostly by people of fundamentalist persuasion or those tilting towards religious extremism. It is instructive to note most mosques in North America, as elsewhere, are controlled and administered by Muslims variously connected with Saudi Arabia or some other Gulf country from where funds are readily acquired.

These Muslim faith-based schools will grow in numbers if Tory's policy gets adopted, and children will be exposed to the sort of education soaked in bigotry that is a grave malady for the Arab-Muslim world.

Ours is post-9/11 world requiring of Ontarians, and Canadians, to ask themselves if they can afford to adopt public policies whose unintended consequences could bring much social unpleasantness and strife in the future.

www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2007/09/29/4536050-sun.php

[Cranky]

Dis, I said it before and I will say it again, there is absolutely no limit to what politicians will do for votes. NONE.

Tory handed McLiar a majority. As far as I am concerned, after this election, I don't ever want to hear about John Tory and faith based schools. Never, ever again.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

Dis, I said it before and I will say it again, there is absolutely no limit to what politicians will do for votes. NONE.

Tory handed McLiar a majority. As far as I am concerned, after this election, I don't ever want to hear about John Tory and faith based schools. Never, ever again.

Seconded ... motion carried!

[CrocRob]

gogie said:

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the referendum. Anyone have any opinions, one way or the other? I haven't developed a position yet - although I'm leaning towards the status quo.

As am I. I actually work for Elections Ontario, so I get to hear the issues that some people have with it.
My issue with it is that I'm not happy with it exactly the way it is, and once it's approved it will be much harder to change it than if we reject it, and bring it to the table next election.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

redscull said:

gogie said:

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the referendum. Anyone have any opinions, one way or the other? I haven't developed a position yet - although I'm leaning towards the status quo.

As am I. I actually work for Elections Ontario, so I get to hear the issues that some people have with it.
My issue with it is that I'm not happy with it exactly the way it is, and once it's approved it will be much harder to change it than if we reject it, and bring it to the table next election.

I'll start it off then. I don't think it's all that bad a system actually. At first, I couldn't understand the concept; I mean, how can you vote for the guy or gal you think will do the best for your riding, but separately vote for the party you think will best run the province.

I was talking with Dis The Elder only a few nights ago. He's from a pretty conservative (not so much Tory all the time mind you) generation and he thinks he's going to "go for it." We talked about it for about 20 minutes or so and it doesn't look like all that bad a system.

Here's an explanation of it from CBC. Ontario Referendum. And a cut and paste:

The two systems

In both electoral systems that voters can choose, each candidate usually represents a political party.

Under the First-past-the-post system, each voter casts a vote for a candidate in his or her own electoral district. The candidate with the most votes wins. Each party receives one seat in the legislature for each winning candidate from their party, and the party with the most seats forms the government. The percentage of overall votes cast for the party is not relevant.

Under the Mixed member proportional system, each voter casts two votes:

* One for a local candidate to represent their electoral district.

* One for a party to represent their interests.

Each party receives a number of seats that is proportional to the percentage of party votes (unless they receive less than three per cent of the total). These will include the local seats won by members of their party in specific ridings. The rest will be given to legislators who will not represent specific ridings but rather the party as a whole. These legislators will be drawn from the top of a ranked list of candidates chosen by each party. The parties are required to make the lists public and explain how they came up with them.

For example, suppose the Poodle Party gets 10 per cent of party votes. That means it will get 10 seats in a 100-seat legislature. If its local candidates win in eight electoral districts, it will get those eight seats as well as two extra seats for the top two candidates on the Poodle Party list.

I don't fully see the pros and cons just yet. I'm looking at this very, very closely guys.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

As soon as someone convinces me that the Green Party and the NDP will not have enough power to ram their endless crap down our throats then I will vote for it. Let's face it, majorities will be a thing of the past and the fringe parties will have dispoportianate influence based on the normal GREED of the main parties to stay in power.

Guaranteed, it will create more left wing "solutions" then ever before.

Guaranteed, we will have ethnic based parties. The Mulsim Unity Party is not more then a year away. Sharia Law and faith based schools? You can BET on it.

Guaranteed we will have far right parties. Worse still, those far right parties will get protest votes from people seeing the left get so much power. Will black shirts be optional?

Guaranteed, our political system will look like a WWF bordello on crack.

And once we open the voting system form hell, forget about EVER putting a lid on it again. EVER.

Bo thank you. It's better to live with imperfaction then create hell to "solve" it.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

As soon as someone convinces me that the Green Party and the NDP will not have enough power to ram their endless crap down our throats then I will vote for it. Let's face it, majorities will be a thing of the past and the fringe parties will have dispoportianate influence based on the normal GREED of the main parties to stay in power.

Guaranteed, it will create more left wing "solutions" then ever before.

Guaranteed, we will have ethnic based parties. The Mulsim Unity Party is not more then a year away. Sharia Law and faith based schools? You can BET on it.

Guaranteed we will have far right parties. Worse still, those far right parties will get protest votes from people seeing the left get so much power. Will black shirts be optional?

Guaranteed, our political system will look like a WWF bordello on crack.

And once we open the voting system form hell, forget about EVER putting a lid on it again. EVER.

Bo thank you. It's better to live with imperfaction then create hell to "solve" it.

This concern came up at work earlier today, HA. We know that the faith-based schooling issue is killing the Torys right now. However, will the new referendum make it easier for faith-based political parties to take office?

Interesting debate here don't you think?

Cheers.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

will the new referendum make it easier for faith-based political parties to take office?

No. There are parties (Family Coalition and other fringe parties) that will just not garner enough of the popular vote. The FCP thinks that a theocracy is the way to go (an elected democracy under the direction of God). If that were the ultimate it would happen now, don't you think? But God does not intervene in things like elections or hockey games. The free will thing, you know. ;D

The National Post has had a good debate going the past few days -- a couple of thier editorial writers going back and forth at it over the issue. Good thoughts on both sides, and will help firm up your already decided view on the matter, or muddy it even more. (another editorial talks of how Tory flamed out because he hung on to this one non-important issue).

imo, not enough has gone into explaining the pros and cons of the MPP and FPTP systems. Lots of web sites:

No MPP

Pro MPP

debate


[oh, and fwiw, I'm voting fptp, and . . . well . . . you can tell. No to Dalton, whose riding I'm in, no to John, who proved he isn't leadership material, no to Howard, whose policies I disagree with . . . so who is left? Not much other than my protest vote.]

[franko]

[Doc Holliday]

[Disgruntled70sHab]

docholliday said:

That's about the way I feel, Doc. Franko's Green suggestion isn't all that far out there. There's talk that they may even usurp the NDP in Ontario. It wouldn't surprise me given the lack of leadership in the NDP, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Cheers.

[franko]

Dis, the Greens have even worse leadership than the NDP! De Jong is a joke -- as long as he is the leader the Greens will continue to be a fringe/protest vote party.