Ontario Turns Hard Left??

[Király]

Archbishops and bishops are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister, who considers the names selected by a Church Commission

Complete bunk.

Unless you are talking about the UK where this is true, but we were talking about Canada, not the UK.

None of what you wrote about the relationship between the Monarchy of Canada and the Anglican Church in any way makes the Anglican Church the state church of Canada. There is no state church in Canada and there has not been since colonial times.

[davewindsor]

Complete bunk.

Unless you are talking about the UK where this is true, but we were talking about Canada, not the UK.

None of what you wrote about the relationship between the Monarchy of Canada and the Anglican Church in any way makes the Anglican Church the state church of Canada. There is no state church in Canada and there has not been since colonial times.

Are you trying to be a Monty Python skit?

Are you an Anglican? Every Anglican I know calls the Queen the Supreme Head of the Anglican Church in Canada just like every Roman Catholic calls the Pope in Rome the Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada.

Why is the Monarch the Supreme Head? Because in 1534, King Henry VIII passed a Supremacy Act of Parliament making the Church of England a state church removing the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as head of the Church of England and replacing himself and subsequent monarchs as head, creating a new non-Roman Catholic Christian denomination.

In 1544, English parliament conferred the title of “Defender of the Faith” to Henry VIII and all his successors on the English throne. Moving up to modern times, the Canadian parliament passed the Royal Style and Titles Act calling the Queen "Defender of the Faith". Do you see the relationship yet?

In 1611, King James created a new translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek for his state Anglican Church called the King James Bible, which is accepted by many religious organizations such as the Gideons who put those free King James bibles in the hotel nightstand.

If you study different bible translations and compare the King James bible with other modern Christian bibles, you'll know that there are a lot of deleted verses from the King James bible because they don't agree with the King James translation. Is this state Church propaganda? That's up for you to decide.

The Anglican Church is premised on being a state church with the Monarch as head, just like the Pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Royal Style and Titles Act in Canada says the Queen is the "Defender of the Faith", a title originally granted to the monarch in the Royal Supremacy Act in England. The Queen in Canada is technically the state. If the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, it is technically a state Church, even though the Canadian Anglican Church is self-governing.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
Perhaps you would care to know that Canada had a national Commission on Truth and Reconciliation with respect to its relationship to aboriginal peoples. The mandate was as you suggest about going forward w/healing, not laying criminal charges.

I'm aware of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

PM Trudeau has 'called for' an apology from the Pope on Residential Schools [[within one year). Making demands does not further either the pursuit of justice, nor reconciliation. It is divisive rather than inclusive.

The Church regrets the methods and the way their priests behaved. Demanding apologies is a mistake, even if you accept that it was 'most' children rather than 'some' children. Everyone agrees it was unacceptable -- the Church seems to want to move to Reconciliation -- while the TRC and PM Trudeau seem to prefer posturing.

The TRC is about as useful as the MMIW Inquiry.

[Király]

If the Queen is head of the Anglican Church, it is technically a state Church, even though the Canadian Anglican Church is self-governing.

Your premise is flawed. Yes the Queen is the head of state of Canada, and the Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church of Canada. But those two facts do not combine to make the Anglican Church of Canada the state church of Canada.

And besides, The title "Defender of the Faith" in the Canadian style of the monarch does NOT refer to the Anglican Church of Canada. Prime Minister St. Laurent had this to say about it when the royal title and style was established in 1953:

The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words, "Defender of the Faith". In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise providence, and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.

That's from the Wikipedia article you linked in your own post. There is no state church of Canada, period, the end.

[davewindsor]

Your premise is flawed. Yes the Queen is the head of state of Canada, and the Queen is also the head of the Anglican Church of Canada. But those two facts do not combine to make the Anglican Church of Canada the state church of Canada.

Are you an Atheist or Roman Catholic?

The Queen is not only head of state, but the Queen is the state in the formal sense in Canada.

If you commit a crime in Canada, you are prosecuted, not by a District Attorney like in the US, but a "Crown" Attorney because you are committing a crime against the Queen, not against The People.

The case would be called Regina [[Regina from latin meaning the Queen or Rex if there's a King) vs. Kiraly, not The Public vs. Kiraly as in the US.

Public land is called "Crown" land.

Public corporations are called "Crown" corporations.

Institutions like the Federal Government and Provincial Government have a Governor General and Lieutenant Governor who are representatives of the Queen in the formal sense.

The Queen's face is on all Canadian currency--nickels, dimes, quarters, etc.

Even though Canada is self-governing, the Queen is the state. The Queen's ancestors founded the Anglican church as a new Christian denomination and made it a state Church. It is a state made denomination. Through the Queen, it is a "state" church in Canada, technically.

This is reaffirmed in Canada by the title that the Queen is "Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act of Canada, which I've already showed you historically where it came from and what it means.

That wikipedia quote is referring to the Queen as Defender of the Anglican Christian faith in Canada. Period. The end.

[Canadian Visitor]

Are you an Atheist or Roman Catholic?

The Queen is not only head of state, but the Queen is the state in the formal sense in Canada.

If you commit a crime in Canada, you are prosecuted, not by a District Attorney like in the US, but a "Crown" Attorney because you are committing a crime against the Queen, not against The People.

The case would be called Regina [[Regina from latin meaning the Queen or Rex if there's a King) vs. Kiraly, not The Public vs. Kiraly as in the US.

Public land is called "Crown" land.

Public corporations are called "Crown" corporations.

Institutions like the Federal Government and Provincial Government have a Governor General and Lieutenant Governor who are representatives of the Queen in the formal sense.

The Queen's face is on all Canadian currency--nickels, dimes, quarters, etc.

Even though Canada is self-governing, the Queen is the state. The Queen's ancestors founded the Anglican church as a new Christian denomination and made it a state Church. It is a state made denomination. Through the Queen, it is a "state" church in Canada, technically.

This is reaffirmed in Canada by the title that the Queen is "Defender of the Faith" in the Royal Styles and Titles Act of Canada, which I've already showed you historically where it came from and what it means.

That wikipedia quote is referring to the Queen as Defender of the Anglican Christian faith in Canada. Period. The end.

Two things.

One, this is my thread, this sub-thread is WAY off topic and has nothing to do w/my original post or the thread title in anyway, shape or form.

It was a tangent started by you, as an attempt to correct an inconsequential statement made in reply to someone else.

Two, Kiraly is right.

But that doesn't really matter, if you wish to argue the point further, kindly start your own thread on the subject.

TY

[davewindsor]

Two things.

One, this is my thread, this sub-thread is WAY off topic and has nothing to do w/my original post or the thread title in anyway, shape or form.

It was a tangent started by you, as an attempt to correct an inconsequential statement made in reply to someone else.

Two, Kiraly is right.

But that doesn't really matter, if you wish to argue the point further, kindly start your own thread on the subject.

TY

One, you're not the moderator, so you cannot dictate to me who replies to this thread or not. You're going to make comments about a country I was born in, I'm going to reply to it.

Two, you're both wrong. If you didn't say such things, I wouldn't have responded. Explain the Royal Styles and Titles Act of Canada or you leave.

[Zacha341]

Here are more details/ info-graphics on the pending 2018 Ontario budget:

http://budget.ontario.ca/2018/index.html

[Wesley Mouch]

Here are more details/ info-graphics on the pending 2018 Ontario budget:

http://budget.ontario.ca/2018/index.html

Thanks for posting.

Are provincial budgets usually such marketing documents? Its hard to find the budget information, but headings like

Stronger Hospitals, Better Care

... are falling off the page. Oh, here's another one ...

The newly redesigned online Ontario Student Assistance Program [[OSAP) application and calculator made it easier for students to see how much financial support is available to them, putting higher education within reach for thousands of Ontarians.

... so a calculator on a webpage 'puts higher ed within reach'? Well kinda, I guess, see the point.

I suppose this kind of political theatre is par for the course, so why not.

The criticisms I've heard are that the province has moved some debt 'off books'. Anyone have insight?

So back to the thread title... if Ford gets elected, the thread will need to be re-titled.

Digging through Chapter III, which seems to have some real information in it. Is this in Billions? Deficit spending till 2025? Or to your their terminology, investment spending.

Chart 3.5: Ontario’s Fiscal Recovery Plan

This bar chart shows Ontario’s medium-term fiscal plan to 2020–21 and recovery plan to 2025–26, with balance projected in 2024–25, and a surplus projected in 2025–26. Each year, the government has set projections for fiscal targets that it will aim to meet, as follows:

Year	Surplus/[[Deficit) Target
2017–18	0.6
2018–19	-6.7
2019–20	-6.6
2020–21	-6.5
2021–22	-5.6
2022–23	-4
2023–24	-2.5
2024–25	0
2025–26	2.6

Haven't yet found the tax rate projections.

Apparently taxation is being eliminated for residents. Here's the results of the link to Chapter V [[ http://budget.ontario.ca/2018/chapter-5.html ):

Server Error


404 - File or directory not found.

The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Chapter V was available by another link in the TOC, so I found this on rates for those curious:

5.05 per cent for taxable income below $42,960, 9.15 per cent for taxable income between $42,960 and $71,500, 11 per cent for taxable income between $71,500 and $82,000, 13.5 per cent for taxable income between $82,000 and $92,000, 17.5 per cent for taxable income between $92,000 and $150,000, 19 per cent for taxable income between $150,000 and $220,000, and 20.53 per cent for taxable income greater than $220,000, which integrates the maximum impact of the Ontario surtax.

So a taxpayer at $60,000 US [[roughly $70k CAD) would pay around 7% [[blend of 5.05% and 9.15%). I suggest you avert your eyes before reading the marginal provincial tax rate over $220k. Combined with the federal rates of 33% over $200k, the total tax rate crosses that magic line 50% line and gives the government more than half of your income at 53%. But you get free health care!

[Canadian Visitor]

Thanks for posting.

Are provincial budgets usually such marketing documents?

In a word...Yes.

Irrespective of party, budgets both provincial and federal are highly political documents. Never more so than elections years, but every year.

They are essentially the one big speech each year from government that gets free, live, unedited TV time.

Think "State of the Union" or "State of the State" for comparison.

The key differences being that they are read by the respective Minister[[s) of Finance, as opposed to party leaders, and that they are generally tangible commitments [[for the current year) as executive and legislative are one unit here, and so governments can and indeed must pass their budgets each year [[if a budget were defeated it would trigger an election).

The criticisms I've heard are that the province has moved some debt 'off books'. Anyone have insight?

That is a criticism and it occurs a couple of different ways.

The first and most notable is the debt associated with Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation. These are both incorporated entities and can legitimately hold debt on their books as oppose to those of the province. While there is no healthcare, education or roads debt on the books of these utilities there are debts tied to renewable energy investments and 'more affordable' utility rates. Some of the decisions around this file have not been fiscally prudent.

The second area is broader infrastructure spending. Spending on rapid transit, new hospitals, many university related projects and the like is often done here via P3 [[Private-Public-Partnership).

The typical structure for those here is DBF [[design-build-finance). Under which the government is the owner and operates the services w/in the building, but it effectively leases back the building over 20-25 year period from the partnership, who carry the construction debt on their books.

Sometimes this is also done as DBFO [[add Operate) with the consortium responsible for custodial, utiity and maintenance matters, and of course this cost is recovered via the lease back.

So a taxpayer at $60,000 US [[roughly $70k CAD) would pay around 7% [[blend of 5.05% and 9.15%). I suggest you avert your eyes before reading the marginal provincial tax rate over $220k. Combined with the federal rates of 33% over $200k, the total tax rate crosses that magic line 50% line and gives the government more than half of your income at 53%. But you get free health care!

Somewhat accurate.

Just as with the US, the fine print is important.

So start with a basic exemption, the amount of income that isn't taxable.

Federally $11,635
Provincially $10,354

Then add various add-on exemptions such as 'age amount' [[for seniors)[[this adds up to $7,200 to your exempt income) and the like.

Then consider that capital gains are only 50% taxable and not at all on your primary residence.

Then consider that any money you put in a TFSA [[Tax-Free Savings Account, which in fact may include mutual funds, stocks or bonds like any other investment holding) is tax-free income thereafter.

Then consider RRSP [[Registered Retirement Savings Plans) deductions [[think IRA) which remove income from taxes in the current year and shield future returns.

RESPs [[Registed Education Savings Plans) likewise shield income from taxation.

Then add back the cash transfer of the National Child Benefit if you have children. Up to $6,400 per child per year, available on a sliding scale to earners well into six figures.

Earn less than 40k? Your Federal sales tax is refunded in full, and if you have dependent children that income number rises substantially.

Low income earners in Ontario also get breaks on their utilities.

Rent expenses are a credit etc.

Very few people pay the sticker rates.

The rich also shield much of their personal wealth inside small businesses. [[most doctors are incorporated).

Small business tax rate is 9% federally and 2.5% provincially or 11.5% all-in.

So you do need to consider that.

Also consider not only do you save on health insurance, but for core services [[hospital/doctor) there are no deductibles or co-pays.

[Canadian Visitor]

The NDP [[socialist) platform is out.

They are typically the 3rd party in Ontario politics, but are polling in the mid 20s on average this time, which might be striking distance [[long shot) but interesting to see what they've put up in their platform for the coming election.

They are running to the left of the Liberal Party [[current government) as might be expected, albeit with a lower deficit.

Its a 97 page platform. So I'll summarize the colourful bits.

- Daycare free to households w/less than $40,000 in income [[toddler to age 10 or so); average daily rate of $12 [[varies by income) for everyone else.

- All employers must provide prescription and dental benefits; the province will cover youth/retirees, the unemployed and freelance/contract workers.

- The province will cover the cost for everyone of 125 'essential drugs' plus take-home oral chemo drugs.

- Raise social assistance rates.

- Build more co-ops and other supportive housing regimes.

- 3 weeks paid vacation by law for every worker, from year 1 of employment.

And a couple of 'cute' political moves that might be appreciated by a Detroit audience.

- Outlawing the pricing of car insurance by where you live.

- Also, improving protection [[reinsurance) of private pension plans, and making this retro-active to cover the workers of Sears Canada.

[[retroactive public policy is almost always a bad idea for all the obvious reasons, but I admire the political chutzpah.)

For the full platform:

https://www.ontariondp.ca/sites/defa...the-better.pdf

[Wesley Mouch]

The NDP [[socialist) platform is out. ...

So CV... will you tell us how you'll vote?

Conservative? Ford Nation can Out Trump Trump?

Liberal? Queen of Hydro?

NDP? Viva Venezuela and Fond Farewell Raul?

???

I'm sure it wouldn't

[Canadian Visitor]

So CV... will you tell us how you'll vote?

Conservative? Ford Nation can Out Trump Trump?

Liberal? Queen of Hydro?

NDP? Viva Venezuela and Fond Farewell Raul?

???

I'm sure it wouldn't

The only definitive determination I've made is 'not Ford'. I would have gladly considered the Conservatives, their previous platform for this election [[pre-Ford) was quite reasonable. But I could not bring myself to elect such a...ahem...person.

Aside from which they also have said that they won't have a platform now, just 5 'ideas' from Doug Ford w/no 3rd party costing/verification. Not supportable.

That Leaves the Liberals, NDP and Greens.

In my riding the Conservatives are non-factor anyway, [[as are the Greens) but I'm not above casting a non-winning vote in support of a great platform/leader if that doesn't result in accidentally electing someone I would be profoundly irked at seeing in office.

The Green 'vision' is out, I've read it and the NDP platform. The Liberal platform will closely mirror their budget, but they have yet to actually put a platform out, so I'll wait to read it.

I also have to see what local polling data suggests about my riding.

I have issues w/choices the Liberals have made. Most particularly I'm not a fan of deficit spending. At the moment, I don't think a single party is going to campaign on no deficits.

Sigh.

I happen to agree w/many of the 'progressive' ideas championed by both the Liberals and the NDP [[and the Greens) but I would like to see them fully paid for in a responsible way.

Despite having some issues w/some of the platform, the NDP is proposing 1/2 the level of deficit/debt as the Liberals; largely on the back of raising large corporate income tax, as well as some income tax hikes on high income earners.

I would have preferred a sales tax hike and a smaller corporate tax hike for now; and/or both but balance the bloody budget already.

We'll see, I'm torn.

[Wesley Mouch]

The only definitive determination I've made is 'not Ford'. I would have gladly considered the Conservatives, their previous platform for this election [[pre-Ford) was quite reasonable. But I could not bring myself to elect such a...ahem...person.

That was the real problem for this American with Trump. Could I justify voting for such a...ahem...person?

I came close to abstaining. In the end, I was able to 'pull the level'. I disagree with much of Trumpism. But I decided that while it would be painful [[and it has been), it would at least provide moderation to the misguided pursuit of 'all things progressive'. Gorsuch alone was worth the pain of voting for Trump.

For you, Dear Canadian, I think the Conservatives are the only choice. They won't really destroy progressive thought -- but they'll keep it at an only modestly unreasonable level.

Ford is odious. But just how much 'progress' can Ontario stand right now? Wynn's promises are heavy, and will harm everyone there. Sure, it'll be nice to enjoy some of the goodies like a few hundred dollars of dental a year, but at what point are taxes too much? How far over 50% marginal rate can you go before capital and jobs leave? Or is Toronto as secure as Montreal thought they were once as the centre of much Canadian finance?

Aside from which they also have said that they won't have a platform now, just 5 'ideas' from Doug Ford w/no 3rd party costing/verification. Not supportable.

That Leaves the Liberals, NDP and Greens.

I forgot the Greens in my note. My mistake. But easy to forget them as a serious party.

In my riding the Conservatives are non-factor anyway...

Visions of legislators on horses always amuses me.

I would have preferred a sales tax hike and a smaller corporate tax hike for now; and/or both but balance the bloody budget already.

I think no soup, I mean balanced budget for you.

We'll see, I'm torn.

So if you can't call that one yet, do tell what you think about the Horgan, Notley, Trudeau dance? [[Pipeline fight in B.C. for the uninitiated.)

Your politics over there are a joy to watch [[from a distance) too... as much as ours must be. But at least for us we have the luxury of not caring so much.

[Canadian Visitor]

For you, Dear Canadian, I think the Conservatives are the only choice. They won't really destroy progressive thought -- but they'll keep it at an only modestly unreasonable level.

The absence of a platform leaves nothing to hold them to account on. No costs, no projections.

I can't give a fair evaluation to nothingness.

The tradition in Canadian politics is detailed, costed, platforms from all parties.

I really can't give a blank cheque to anyone.

Ford is odious.

He is, and remember, our system doesn't have a legislative check on the executive.

They are one.

In order for Ford to be Premier he would have to control the legislature.

I can't sponsor that, and rather hope it doesn't happen.

But just how much 'progress' can Ontario stand right now? Wynn's promises are heavy, and will harm everyone there. Sure, it'll be nice to enjoy some of the goodies like a few hundred dollars of dental a year, but at what point are taxes too much? How far over 50% marginal rate can you go before capital and jobs leave? Or is Toronto as secure as Montreal thought they were once as the centre of much Canadian finance?

As someone well off enough to be concerned w/marginal tax rates, this doesn't overly phase me.

We come from different places on this.

Now, I would prefer a higher sales tax; as I would also prefer a streamlined income tax, relative to new high bracket.

But blue-skying to one side, let's remember, I don't pay anywhere near 50% income tax, nor will I. Most well off folks make their a good chunk of their income off investments. Beyond the portion that's tax-sheltered, capital gains are taxed at only 50% [[of regular income).

This lowers the typical, as-paid tax bill, even for someone at $300,000 per annum to something closer to 30% than 50%.

The narrow range of people who face marginal rates is well shy of 1% of the population.

That increase also leaves Ontario w/income tax rates lower than 5/10 provinces.

***

Quebec did not lose its status as Canada's financial center due to taxes. It lost it because of the threat of Quebec separation, and new language laws. Canada's banks, even when HQ'd in Montreal were not particularly francophone at the top of executive ranks, and shifted offices to Toronto when politics got volatile in the 1970s.

I forgot the Greens in my note. My mistake. But easy to forget them as a serious party.

If one is discussion liklihood of election that is still very remote for the Greens, I am thinking 1-2 seats out of 124 seem plausible.

If one is discussing their platform, its worth noting our Greens are not Your Greens.

If one had to peg them, they would probably be to the political right of the Liberals, to the left of the Conservatives.

They are very pro small business and free market, and very pro Libertarian in many respects. They have an eco-lense, a and an inclination that business should make jobs sufficiently well paid, and F/T that government doesn't need to support people. [[self-reliance is a big thing w/them).

They are the only Ontario party in favour of merging the Catholic School System [[publicly funded) with the Public system to save money and end religious preference [[no other faiths receive school funding)

They also favour a carbon tax, but want to use that money to vastly raise the basic personal exemption and significantly lower personal income tax.

So if you can't call that one yet, do tell what you think about the Horgan, Notley, Trudeau dance? [[Pipeline fight in B.C. for the uninitiated.)

Your politics over there are a joy to watch [[from a distance) too... as much as ours must be. But at least for us we have the luxury of not caring so much.

Horgan is in an awkward spot. His government is a minority supported by the Greens in BC whose 4 seats given Horgan [[NDP) the majority of the legislature and the premiership.

He already let a major and very controversial hydro project go ahead in northern BC called 'Site C' which the Greens held their nose and allowed. He doesn't want to risk the Greens pulling the plug on his government and triggering an election.

Notley is the unlikely NDP premier of Canada's most right-wing province, Alberta, having come to power by defeating a Conservative party that had reigned for 4 decades, and was seen as increasingly aloof and entitled.

She gained power at the same time oil prices crashed, and chose to run large deficits [[Alberta had been debt-free) in order to avoid draconian cuts to services.

Her popularity has suffered.

She faces an election next year.

Appearing tough vs BC is in her political interest.

Trudeau also faces an election next year. But his power base is in Eastern Canada and BC, not Alberta.

On the other hand, his an affluent, corporate-friendly globalist who has tried to stake his reputation on being middle-of-the-road.

He canned a more controversial pipeline [[Northern Gateway) and allowed another [[Energy East) that had to pass through a very hostile Quebec to languish, and put his energy into this one, the least controversial of the bunch.

He doesn't want to be seen an ineffectual or unfriendly to business, but bulldozing one of the provinces w/heavy federal power may not only play poorly in BC but much of Canada.

All the while, the economics of the line itself are in question, and really depend on where oil prices go.

At $80 per barrel or higher WTI this pipeline makes pretty decent economic sense.

At $68, only barely.

At $55 it would likely bleed red ink.

Which leaves one wondering what Kinder Morgan really wants to do here.

****

What I think should happen, is that there should be no corporate welfare to Kinder Morgan [[something being teased by both Notley and Trudeau).

I'd rather seen none at all.

But if there must be, I think they would be much wise to incent construction of a refinery in AB.

Refining the bitumen into Light Sweet Crude and/or gasoline would reduce the environmental controversy associated w/potential spills [[bitumen sinks, crude floats for a while, gas floats) while also providing for selling a higher-priced, value-added product and adding some extra employment benefit.

Alternatively, they should consider requiring double-hulling of the pipeline to shh people about spills risk, but only if that buys political peace.

Ultimately, if Kinder Morgan wants this to go ahead, there is a path to make it happen.

But I don't see a ton of upside here for anyone. Feels like political posturing run amok.

An SCC decision this week may also be seen as empowering BC's ability to frustrate the pipeline. So we'll have to see how that unfolds.

My instinct is that the pipeline goes ahead; but probably w/deals attached that wipe out much of the economic value.

[Király]

I forgot the Greens in my note. My mistake. But easy to forget them as a serious party.

The Greens are holding the balance of power in my province.

Liberals: 42 seats
NDP: 41 seats
Green: 3 seats
Independent: 1 seat

The NDP were able to convince the lieutenant governor that they can maintain the confidence of the legislature with the support of the Greens, so they formed government. But if the NDP can't keep the Greens happy and lose a confidence vote, that's the end of the NDP government and we have another election. So the Greens have a lot of power.

British Columbia politics is politics on steroids.

[Canadian Visitor]

Update:

Election is next week, June 7th.

Current polling has the race as neck and neck between the NDP [[socialists) and the PC [[Conservatives).

The Liberals [[governing party) have virtually fallen off the radar.

Polls look something like [[fluctuates daily)

NDP 39
PC 37
LIB 19
Green 5

However, this type of result, in a First-Past-The-Post system of ridings, may result in the PCs winning a majority government even if the NDP wins the popular vote.

Pins and Needles to see what the electorate comes up with in 7 days.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
NDP 39
PC 37
LIB 19
Green 5

However, this type of result, in a First-Past-The-Post system of ridings, may result in the PCs winning a majority government even if the NDP wins the popular vote.

Pins and Needles to see what the electorate comes up with in 7 days.

FPTP is under a lot of attack these days, but it does seem to be a good balancing that gives minorities a voice. [[In this case, the minority is non-Torontonians, I think.)

Can you tell us a little more about Doug Ford? Does he have much political experience? Seems like he's the outsider to me. Horvath has been around for years. Wynn is a lifer. Don't know about the Greens.

Is Ford a professional politician? Where'd he come from.

[Lowell]

Ford is the brother of the infamous former mayor of Toronto Rob Ford.

It appears he is not too tainted by his colorful coke-snorting late brother.

[Canadian Visitor]

Is Ford a professional politician? Where'd he come from.

Ford is the son of a man who was a backbencher [[MPP, elected to the legislature, but not in cabinet) during the Mike Harris years in Ontario. That was 1995-2002

Doug was elected to Toronto City council in his brother's former ward during the term Rob served as Mayor.

He was sometimes seen as the more sober Ford, literally and figuratively. But like Rob did not play well with others, even other Conservatives.

He was somewhat notorious on Council for having proposed to scrap long established plans for the waterfront in favour of a shopping mall and a giant ferris wheel [[the scheme went nowhere).

During all the reporting on former Mayor Rob Ford's troubles, the Globe and Mail ran a piece alleging brother Doug was a hash dealer in the 1980s. Ford threatened to sue, but never did.

The Ford family writ large have not had a big list of electoral achievements, but owing to Rob's one-time popularity as a man of the people, they have a collective following they bill as 'Ford Nation'.

It has a very Trumpian feel in many ways, except that they aren't anti-immigrant; you may hurl other insults their way, but that is not one of their flaws.

They have an annual BBQ at the Ford Matriarch's home [[dad is deceased as is Rob) and invite the public for free burgers and to say 'hi' to them. Its been a mandatory stop for any Conservative politician for years.

He has been heavily criticized in this campaign, including by Conservative media for not putting out a costed platform as all of the other parties have, its the first time the Conservatives have not done so in more than 2 decades.

He's also been fairly open in his media hostility, choosing not to have a campaign bus for the media, which is normal course-of-action for every party in Ontario so that reporters follow you to every whistle-stop stump speech.

He has made several billion in promises, including tax cuts, both corporate and personal, while we have a deficit of 6.5B this year, and has not presented a plan for any new revenue, claiming simply he will find 'efficiencies'.

Beyond that he bills himself as a business man, as he, his surviving brother [[and maybe Rob's wife) benefit from an inherited label-making business. He is sufficiently affluent not to require a day job. Though I believe he nominally has one w/the company, I could stand to be corrected on this point.

[Wesley Mouch]

Thanks, CV.

Read today that Wynn has effectively 'conceded' that the Liberals won't win, and have switched to a defensive voting recommendation -- don't let the NDP nor Prog Conservatives have a majority gov't.

Either way, its gonna be a fun ride for Ontario. A "hard left", free-spending party who's announced that they'll never introduce back-to-work legislation. You can imagine how that'll work out. Or a populist gov't antagonistic to 'big government'. Will be as loved by the government workers as Trump is here.

Good times.

[Canadian Visitor]

Speaking of Doug Ford, the NY Times has seen fit to do a piece on Ontario's would-be premier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/w...T.nav=top-news

[Bham1982]

Those are some pretty terrible choices. I guess I go with the left candidate, even though I generally don't agree with any of the platform. Sounds like Canadians are catching the extreme idiocy from their southern neighbor.

Populism, whether right or left, is a disease and has killed many of my relatives. I'll never vote for a populist over a technocrat. At least Ford, while a jerk, seems to speak in complete sentences and isn't fond of calling foreigners rapists. He probably isn't an existential threat to Canada like our Orange Dotard is to the U.S.

[oladub]

Update:

Election is next week, June 7th.

Current polling has the race as neck and neck between the NDP [[socialists) and the PC [[Conservatives).

The Liberals [[governing party) have virtually fallen off the radar.

Polls look something like [[fluctuates daily)

NDP 39
PC 37
LIB 19
Green 5

However, this type of result, in a First-Past-The-Post system of ridings, may result in the PCs winning a majority government even if the NDP wins the popular vote.

Why wouldn't liberals and greens vote NDP knowing it was a horserace between the NDP and conservtives and assuming that the NDP more closely reflected their views than conservatives?

Also, where would you position Canadian greens, liberals, and the NDP relative to the Hillary and Bernie factions of the Democratic party?

[Canadian Visitor]

Why wouldn't liberals and greens vote NDP knowing it was a horserace between the NDP and conservtives and assuming that the NDP more closely reflected their views than conservatives?

Also, where would you position Canadian greens, liberals, and the NDP relative to the Hillary and Bernie factions of the Democratic party?

On the first question, there will certainly be some strategic voting.

But its important to remember how the parliamentary system works.

We don't vote for Premier, we vote for our local candidate, as you would for your local member of congress.

The party that wins the largest number of local races [[124 of them in Ontario's case) is generally asked to form the government. Doing so requires that you have 'the confidence of the house' or in simple parlance the ability to get your agenda passed, most particularly a budget.

In theory, minority parties can coalesce to form a government, in one way or another, but this is fairly rare in Canadian politics.

So, you have 124 local elections to win. But the poll numbers you see for the various parties are not the same throughout Ontario.

Example, near downtown Toronto, their is functionally a zero chance of electing a Conservative. In fact if one finished second that would be an achievement for them. Fourth is not out of the question.

By contrast, in large parts of rural cottage country and eastern Ontario, the Conservatives have a lock on lets say 2 dozen seats where they will easily get 50% or more of the vote.

So in these types of seats strategic voting is of no value.

That only works in seats that are 'in play'. This would be particularly true in suburban Toronto.

But in a four party race in the burbs, you can win a seat with a little as 30% of the vote. Sure you can say to would-be Liberal voters they should go NDP and many will.

But depending on the race, the spread might be 42 Cons, 25 NDP, 25 LIB, 8 Green/Other. The problem becomes how many people are shiftable. Liberals are roughly split between 'blue and red' Liberals as the Big Tent party of the centre. The former might not be able to stomach a Doug Ford, but neither could they ever vote NDP. The latter might.

*note* we have reverse colours of yours, Cons. Blue Liberal Red, while NDP are Orange and shockingly, Greens are Green.

If you shift 1/2 the Liberal vote to the NDP in that race, you still get 42% Cons, 37.5 % NDP.

You also have die-hard party loyalists who won't switch.

Its very tough to see how this goes right now.

I have a seat range that shows a Cons. advantage but the NDP a competitive second. Shift the polls 4 points, the NDP wins, Shift them 2 points, [[in the NDPs favour) and it could go either way.

If they have only a 2 point lead on the Cons. in popular vote, I think they lose.....but I can't be sure.

****

Liberals as I noted are 'Big Tent' so they have lefties and righties.

In terms of where the current provincial government is positioned. Probably similar to HRC Dems though with the asterisk that you're starting from a position of having core healthcare in the single-user-pay system.

They would be thought of as business-friendly progressives for the most part. Though the suddeness of this year's minimum wage hike did not ingratiate them to many business owners. Including those who supported the hike, as many would have liked more notice and another year or two to deal w/the increase.

The NDP would be Bernie-type overall. Bigger spenders, maybe not anti-business, but certainly not cozy with it, esp. big business.

Though their promises still aren't quite as far left as what Bernie has run on.

The Greens here are an odd duck.

They are closest to my own politics in many ways.

They are anti-deficit, pro-small business, have a notable libertarian streak, but they are also dedicated to the eco-side of things, and do believe in compassionate social programs.

The notable points for them would be that they are pro ending government funded catholic schools [[merging them in to the public system) they are also in favour of universal basic income phased in over time, but they do so in order to abolish all other income-based supports [[no more welfare).

They don't peg neatly on the right-left spectrum. They're difficult to place here, I wouldn't even know how to place them in your system, they are certainly to the left of Republicans and mostly to the left of Conservatives here, but they are to the right of Liberals/Dems on some issues and to the left on others.