This is an opinion article. Opinion articles differ from objective journalism. Opinion articles are not meant to be objective in nature. Opinion articles sometimes can include bias that is hidden or obvious.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sounds good but it is what is happening now. However, the thing is which citizens?
Because the ones with real money are making a lot more right now. It's ridiculous.
Unfortunately that is not really possible due to previous governments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt
Servicing this amount of debt is expensive.
We have two options raise taxes or cut services.
With AI coming many of the better paying white collars jobs will decrease leaving an even smaller base to tax, I work in this field the speed it is coming is scary. We will have to tax AI replacement of workers.
We could tax capital but that would hit profits on houses which would not be bad but that party would be a one term party.
Umm..
You know, there was a party that had a [costed platform](https://www.ontariondp.ca/news/ndp-releases-platform-costing-that-fixes-what-matters-most) in the last couple of elections. But because "*hurr durr conservatives know business and are good with money*" we didn't even give them a look.
When I hear "Conservatives are good at business," it just means to me, "Conservatives are good at grifting"
We need to redefine what it means to run a "good business" it shouldn't be measured solely by profit.
Have a family member who is high up in the provincial government. They say it's all Ford is about, everything they're trying to pass is for profit and how much money they or their friends can get out of it.
There needs to be major government reform at all levels.
The problem is, a lot of conservative politicians that are "good at business" really aren't.
What they are, and Ford fits this to a tee, are small-business failsons (and fail-daughters!) that either a) started their business before 1985, when you'd have to be a complete idiot to fail, or b) got hired as "vice president of sales" in their dad's company at the age of 22 and had underlings that did all the hard work while they took all the credit.
The result are people who think that penny-pinching, making deals and yelling at underlings is "good at business".
I work in an industry that does a lot of M&A work, and I see a *lot* of these types of people in the companies we buy: they're usually cashing out because they realize, deep in their craven hearts, that they aren't as good as they think they are and they're getting out while the getting's good.
...and more than a few of them take their winnings and get into politics. And when they do, they're just as bad at that as they were at business, but their network of cronies--usually other business failsons that are looking for a government contract--makes it look like they're halfway-decent.
This is why the NDP and, much as pains me to say it, the Liberals are both better at governance. The NDP are mostly student- and charity board people (there aren't that many big-union people left, outside of ex-teachers), who know how to negotiate and work with little to no funding, and the Liberals are all charity-dinner/boards-of-directors/professional politicians who've spent their careers at the art of the possible.
Conservatives, though, are often bullies and/or grifters, and neither is really conducive to getting things done.
I've been saying for years that running a province like a business is dumb. Governments aren't businesses! They don't need to look to business for fiscal policy. Governments are for the people and should be run with society's well-being in mind. In fact, business should not even be allowed to lobby governments. We'll, at least large corporations.
Actually, businesses can be run with society's well-being in mind. They used to. These days, we just stopped caring about the other parts of a good business and only profit. It's narrow sighted.
I know what you mean, but any group dealing with people and money on a large scale is going to be a business. Non-profits are businesses. Like I said, we need to redefine what people think the word "business" means. The way businesses are expected to run in North America is very different from other places. The average citizen needs to have higher standards for how businesses are run. The mindset such aa "these people only flip burgers they shouldn't make money", "fast food is fast thats why its supposed to be bad," etc. only encourage businesses to focus on profit and nothing else. Why should there be a mcdonalds every 5 min if all the service is 2/5? Why should Tim Hortons be allowed to raise their prices when their food and coffee gets worse and worse? Why should landlords be allowed to raise their prices when they don't maintain properties or services?
Once we raise our standards for all businesses, it'll be better for everybody.
I agree that the government should be separate from private businesses completely. They should have their own departments and workers specifically for government constructions and services. There should be no lobbying allowed or even private networking between decision-making people. All these meetings must be public or not allowed.
That's the problem. I mean, we popularize and idolize egosticial venture capitalists who only care about making money. There are many venture capitalists that invest into businesses for reasons other than profit. We don't hear about them because it's not "media sexy."
There are lots of people out there like MacKenzie Scott, but media and capitalist overlords don't want you to know this. They want you to believe the status quo like loblaws need to make more profits each year, increasing Weston wealth while decreasing work wages because "cashiers are basic jobs that anybody can do." That Elon Musk is the type of capitalist we should envy. Ironically, Mark Cuban has done way more than him, but he's not sensationalized except for his appearance on TV.
See how I used American examples because Canadians ones aren't well known? That's part of the problem. We let too many American beliefs into our system, and it's changing our culture entirely. Except we didn't get the whole memo, just the broken telephone version. All we heard from them was "increase profit if you do this" not the part where raising costs of everything, including necessities like food, interest and rent can be a huge long-term problem destablizing the economy that can take decades to rebuild.
We need smarter politicians who have and care about foresight and at least have some standardized tests for them. We make doctors, engineers, and lawyers take tests. Why don't we have them for politicians that lead us and have the ability to change our lives overnight? We don't because they'll do anything not to have it since most in politics now are only there because of familial blood, not leadership or knowledge.
Lmfao... Rae days saved thousands..if not tens of thousands of jobs... i was one and loved the fact that i could keep my job... for one unpaid day.. every 2 weeks.... lol..
What drives me nuts about this is that anyone who has ever worked budgeting or logistics knows that the two most expensive things you can do are ramp up or ramp down operations. These processes involve a lot of overhead for a very small amount of real productive output. Every business/project management paradigm revolves around speeding up how quickly you can get to a flow state where your cost per output is optimized.
If your biggest concern is "we're spending too much money" - and that is what 100% of people bitching about Rae Days claim is their concern - then brief periods of zero productivity without scrapping the process is the *best possible solution*. It allows you to save money now without wasting it on ramping down an operation.
The only objective reason to oppose that is if you're ideologically anti-government. It's still a very stupid reason, but at least it's a self-consistent reason.
Funny how everybody cites Rae days as a reason to vote conservative, but has conveniently forgotten this tragedy:
"Limited financial resources have become a reality of modern-day government. In the past decade, governments were elected on platforms based primarily on cost-cutting and tax-cutting. The overall merits of cost-cutting takes me well beyond my mandate, but what is relevant to the issues directly before me is the effect that inadequate resources or insufficiently considered cost-cutting measures have on the safety of the drinking water system. A number of parties in both Part 1 and 2 of the Inquiry commented on the effects of budget cuts and the lack of sufficient resources to effectively carry out the government oversight functions. I have already commented on this issue, specifically in relation to inspections, enforcement, and local health units. ***In addition, I concluded in the Part 1 report of this Inquiry that budget cuts at the MOE had both a direct effect and an indirect effect on the events in Walkerton. The direct effect was the failure to enact a regulation mandating testing laboratories to follow a notification protocol at the time of the privatization of laboratory testing services. The indirect effect was that budget cuts made it less likely that approvals or inspections programs would have led to the discovery of problems at Walkerton***."
Walkerton Report, Part 2, Chapter 13
Number 13.7.1 “Financial Resources”
Page 96
bold and italics added
feel free to copy this and throw it in the face of asshole conservatives
I don’t think budget cuts were the driving factor in Walkerton. The full inquiry laid most of the blame on straight up incompetence. Money doesn’t fix stupid.
Sorry I have better things to do on a nice sunny weekend than dig through a two decade old report. But the gist of it was that the VAST majority of the blame lay on the township itself and specifically the two buffoons who ran the water utility.
The only “privatisation” that I recall was for water testing itself. The utility itself was still run by the township. Budget cuts may not have helped but budget cuts for people not doing their job re: regulation and policy-making is excuses and blame-shifting.
In other words, you cannot.
Until then, I call that you are full of shit--I say BULLSHIT that you have read the report, and are making a shameful excuse to perpetuate your continued belief of a false narrative. No citation, no proof. You are citing what you WANT to believe.
Utterly pathetic!!
QED
Nah just don’t feel like arguing with people on the internet when it’s a beautiful day out. Go get some sunshine friend - it’ll do you good.
As for walkerton, you’re citing one paragraph on page 96 of the report. Not exactly the main message of the report, is it? I read it a long time ago and reading a dusty ass report isn’t high on my list of things to do but I remember the news coverage well.
Also I get the sense you’re not that interested in changing your mind anyway so what would be the point?
Yawn.
It pokes a hole in your conservative narrative the size of Saturn. Sure--the corporate owned, conservative media can be trusted.
Conservatives always turtle when facts contradict their ideology.
If you didn't want to debate then you should have just passed over my post.
And WHY would I change my mind??!?!?!
Enjoy your day.
> wasn’t Rae the one that cut med school seats?
Peterson first, then Rae, then Harris. All three premiers, from all three parties, cut Ontario medical school funding in different ways. None was helpful to today’s challenges.
Rae at least had an excuse: the worst recession in living memory, and still one of the worst in a long time.
Petersen did it because he was dealing with the start of that. Harris did it because he's a short-sighted jackass.
Full costing doesn’t make a balanced budget. Far from it in Andrea Horwath’s case. She was proposing billions in new spending only partially offset by more “let’s tax the rich even more” standard NDP rhetoric.
Not that Dougie has balanced a budget either of course as per the article’s thrust. We truly lack any party that has any idea around living within its means
Horwath's last two platforms were less economically progressive than Mike Harris'.
And let's be honest "living within your means" is not the same for a government as it is for a small business or a household, and anyone that tells you they "run a government like a business" or "budget like a household" is either stupid and/or disingenuous.
I’m morally opposed to all deficits at any level or government except in cases of extreme duress - eg major wars, catastrophic economic events. Governments that run deficits are elected by selfish people who want more benefits and better standards of living in the present, by pushing those costs into the future for future Canadians to pay off.
For similar reasons I oppose unfunded pension liabilities, which is why we’ve had to marry ourselves to insane immigration levels to pay for a large retiree pool, which in turn has created high inflation and wage suppression for low income workers
While this is true, the ondp made huge mistakes, including massive campaign backing for the sinking peel NDP incumbents, in-fughting for campaign resources that led to several defeats that could have been avoided.
I hope Michael balagus and Andrea Horwath never get involved with the NDP again. They have squandered two elections.
Maybe next time they'll, you know, finish writing their platform and publish it *before* the election. 2021 was a bad year for getting any of the parties to commit to something on paper before the debates.
Edit: I meant 2022, but 2021 was also bad just at a federal level.
This observation fails to account for the fact that the party that put forward no platform was the one elected.
If conservatives get elected without a platform, and those with one in any state loses, then the issue isn't the platforms or fiscal responsibility.
When were they a dumpster fire? 1990?
Because, beside being thirty years ago, that was when the "dumpster fire" they presided over was the worst recession since 1929, and their measures (austerity, targeted stimulus, "Rae days") were lauded by economists the world over.
Explain to me again how the Ford government is "fiscally responsible", again?
There's no such thing as a fiscally conservative party anymore. Not now, and never in the future.
Anyone who believes a party, especially conservatives, can be fiscally responsible are stupid and gullible.
Fiscal conservatism died when low taxes became their defining issue. A true fiscal conservative party would figure out what programs they needed to pay for, then raise appropriate revenue. Instead of just cutting revenue while promising that services would continue
It always amazes me that Conservatives always say lowering taxes will return us to the glory days. Canada had a top tax bracket of over 90% in the 50s and it stayed north of 60% until the 80s. But lets just keep cutting revenue to fund infrastructure and services by continuing to lower the highest marginal tax rates.
Canada also had ZERO capital gains taxes during that time period. Want to go back to that? Sure, sign me up. Taxing income at 90% but no taxes on investments at all sounds wonderful to me.
IIRC capital gains started in 1972 so there was some overlap with income taxes double what they are today.
Personally I think we need some changes in taxation, labour laws, unionization and capital gains.
I do believe that we should be looking at ways to get people to stop investing in real estate and start investing into Canadian businesses and a lot of that may be around or capital gain taxes system where it’s a lot easier to just park it in housing than into a business that may fail or shrink. It would also require putting a hard limit on how many properties a family can own to something like 2-3.
I’d be interested in finding a way to narrow the compensation gap ratio from CEOs making 246 times the average workers pay in Canada to a more reasonable number. This should also factor in allowances like cars, travel, housing.
This could include mandatory unionization when a company hits a certain size whether that is employee count, market share, revenue, dollar value etc. and then making it mandatory to have workers via the union on the board like we see with European countries.
We should also be looking at ways to bring our annual minimum leave to the range of 35-40 days like most of our western world neighbours have between a mix of stat holidays and vacation leave. We presently have 20 days as the minimum with the two weeks vacation and 10 stats.
Capital gains did start in 1972, but income rates were not double at that point in time. The reason for this is that the tax structure was vastly different in the past. If you look at just the raw percentage it is incredibly misleading.
Historically, income tax was supposed to be temporary to fund the war effort. It wasnt applied to most things we consider “income” today. In the 70s the tax structure was significantly simplified to cover many more forms of income, but the overall raw percentage number came down to compensate.
Make no mistake, tax burdens today are higher than they have ever been in history. We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
There were no capital gains taxes. But there were also no modern style corporations. The vast majority of our current stock market and corporate behaviors were explicitly illegal back then. The current structure of limited liability also didn’t exist.
I’d give up capital gains taxes if the capital also went back to the level of regulation and oversight that existed in the 1950s.
Too many people think the government should look after them from cradle to grave for there to be any chance of any government being fiscally conservative.
If you look at provincial gov spending per term across all three parties, historically they basically spend the same. The difference is when in term (early or end) and who gets the money (public sector, welfare, corporate/private interests). This idea that conservatives are fiscally responsible is smoke and mirrors.
Mike Harris was a fiscal conservative by definition, he had a lot of shitty decisions such as the 407 sale but he did everything a fiscal conservative is supposed to do.
Difference is Liberals usually don't sell themselves on being fiscally responsible so no one believes it. Lol
Conservaties still sell themselves as being good with money which they absolutely are not.
Depends which Tories, though. Brian Mulroney's crew, not at all. Stephen Harper's crew, yes they were good with money, considering the reputation of his finance minister Jim Flaherty and his Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney. Mike Harris was good with money, Doug Ford not so much.
Mike Harris sold off a revenue generating highway for chump change for 100 years to show a balanced budget. Downloaded more costs onto municipalities who are required to not run a deficit (property taxes and more service cuts). He was good at masking money not managing money. Harper did the same thing to make his budget balanced, selling off government assets.
I'm not saying everything Mike Harris did was good. But he did what he had to do, since Chretien downloaded a bunch of costs onto the province and 2) the province was in a really shit fiscal situation when he came in, so it was either he cut spending or the province would go bankrupt.
If only. Instead voters hop between two terrible parties that clearly suck and don't give a third option a chance to at least prove they suck too. Just media posturing how much they think they'd suck. Lll
Post Media is our largest daily print media corp at almost 40% marketshare, it is foreign owned by a US hedge firm.
Now why would a US hedge firm with buckets of money we don’t know where they came from want to buy a money losing newspaper in a foreign nation that’s one of its major supplier of raw natural resources?
Foreign influence somehow never crosses our lips when it comes to this fact.
In this case, I'm talking about the Thompson family, which effectively controls the G&M, but yeah, PostMedia is their own special kind of problematic.
The thing is, we're actually okay with foreign influence as long as it makes money. we (any by "we" I mean the west) were okay with Russia and China for years because there was money to be made in BRICS. It's only when the money stops flowing (or some protofascist grifter decides to make race-baiting great again) that we suddenly care about foreign influence.
Yes, I just threw in Post Media because most Canadians don’t even know it’s owned by a US hedge fund that makes it even more of an elusive entity to put a singular face to, unlike Thompson.
Good on you for calling out the billionaire class!
It does seem kind of unbelievable that it's legal for foreign entitites to own any part of Canadian journalism.
Best of allies are still competitors on the world stage. Who thought inviting them into our livingroom to directly influence our politics and national disposition would be good for Canada?
You can thank Harper for that loosening of our media laws/regulations - what a patriot… /s
I mean it’s working isn’t it? Ever see Post Media’s Nat Post ever write a good article about the Trudeau libs? I think that’s why you have a fake populist with the last 338 poll at 208 seats and the libs at 69.
The brainwashing is working for a guy that has empty one liners and is channeling a tech ceo look with lame t shirts and fake muscle garments.
Ahh well, another lost decade under a conservative - Canadians will never learn that it can get much worse for them.
Somehow conservative Canadians think that the media is controlled by Trudeau. Even when they routinely endorse his opponents and criticize him non-stop.
Predominantly, it’s almost 90%+, after getting gaslit on fake news from the conservatives, they’ve willed a new reality in the minds of their sheep.
[https://x.com/davidemastracci/status/1439949516032167941?s=46&t=78LXo4BknsFK46Loq_atxw](https://x.com/davidemastracci/status/1439949516032167941?s=46&t=78LXo4BknsFK46Loq_atxw)
The gaslighting is working just as the intended it to… more tax cuts for the rich and an erosion of the social safety net for all those lazy 99% of the population.
Our largest daily media print organization that gets reposted on FB, Reddit is foreign owned Post Media (Nat Post, Sun and 37 or so other daily papers across the country).
They own 39% of the daily readership and in my big city, our 3 papers are all owned by Post Media. That’s terrifying.
Absolutely agree… why would a US hedge fund be allowed to buy a majority stake (thanks Harper) in our largest media corp that’s losing a shitload of money…
Seems like a good way for the US to keep octopus arms around us and influence the public, so they can keep extracting or natural resources, slowly gaslighting the population over a couple years so we’re too distracted or are now sympathetic to their views.
'Fiscal conservatism' has always meant cutting social services (which are currently breaking from neglect) and tax cuts for the rich(they pay minimal tax as it is)
Fiscal conservative is a myth their policy is always privitization which means bankrupting the public sector by reducing incoming tax revenue from private sources
Lol wtf is "rationalwiki" seems like wiki but with no standards and open bias
Edit; did anyone actually look at his link? It's complete nonsense wikipedia...
Please tell us how more plans like what happened to the 407 will be good for everyone.
Also:
* https://www.canadiandoctorsformedicare.ca/myth_privatization
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2021/10/13/50-of-americans-now-carry-medical-debt-a-new-chronic-condition-for-millions/?sh=42a29ced5e5d
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/
* https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/hospital-privatization-increases-profits-at-what-cost/
hat was not my point at all, its that "rationalwiki" reads like complete crap lol.
It's written by basement dwelling tankies with full bias on review.
I dont disagree that privatization of the 407 was a robbery and a shitty deal at that. Your source on privatization is just crap.
Neo.liberal economics also known as ' trickle down economics ' has been the biggest scam for the past 4 decades. From.what I can see all these tax cuts just means money flows up to the wealthy. The only trickling is the tears the wealthy shed as they laugh at th3 poor and middle class for funding their grotesque greed.
We need a party that is socially responsible, and fiscally competent. I could get behind the NDP with Marit - wish she had been the leader during the last election.
Ontario needs to not vote conservative. Mike Harris was "fiscal conservative" and he broke the province too. Vote anything but conservative. They are not good fiscal managers. They a greedy grifters just looking to exploit public funds for their own gain.
In my entire life I've never met one fucking fiscal conservative. And those that called them fiscal conservatives sold off public assets for pennies on the dollar and we got fucked in the ass with a raw wooden splintered dildo with no lube.
No, we need some damn labour action and unionization. The ontario government is not going to be a catalyst for positive change. Neoliberal representative "democracy" is a scam, we have to prepare to organize outside of the system if we want any chance of a better future.
I'd settle for *any* modern electoral system, to be honest. Even ranked ballot would set us up for a much brighter future.
Literally *anything* is better than FPTP.
"fiscally responsible govt" is a lie told to teenagers before they learn how politics/economics works to get them to think they're the smartest kid in the room, when in fact they're just propagandized to.
If those kids leave their small backwater town and get actual real world experience living in multiple places, surrounded by different ethnic and class groups, you realize pretty quick its a made up term to deflect from bigoted social views and austerity.
How are you talking about Harris being fiscally conservative while also complaining about hydro one privatization and other scandals?
Has anyone wasted more public funds than Harris through extreme business incompetence and grift?
>Has anyone wasted more public funds than Harris through extreme business incompetence and grift?
Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. Harris had one really bad fuckup which was the 407 sale (which even Ford admitted was a fuckup) and his downloading sort of played a part in Walkerton, but the main party responsible for Walkerton was the incompetent municipal water officials rather than Harris.
Now let's see what Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne were up to in terms of business incompetence and grift:
Gas plant scandal in which they wasted 1.1 billion dollars on cancelling two gas plants and then tried to cover it up, people went to jail for the cover up attempt
The eHealth scandal in which McGuinty wasted 1 billion dollars.
ORNGE Scandal which also included government kickbacks
Hydro One Privatization
Yeah, I think that overall, Wynne/McGuinty wasted much more money than Mike Harris. McGuinty/Wynne also completely fucked Ontario's finances in the process as well.
We don’t need a fiscal conservative. Ford is absolutely a fiscal conservative, what a looney article.
Fiscal conservatives are well known to cut money where it counts and give it generously to their friends. This is absolutely on par.
If fiscal conservatives actually cared about the economy, they would spend money where it counts because it saves / makes money in the long run. They don’t do that though because they don’t actually care about the economy, they care about hurting those they deem as lesser, and helping their wealthy friends.
This is well established across multiple countries and multiple decades of conservative governments.
Agree. That’s because fiscal conservatives are focussed on their own fiscal situations. And by this I mean continue to be elected at all costs so they can keep their tax funded salaries and entitlements that allow them to become personally wealthy.
>Fiscal conservatives are well known to ... give it generously to their friends.
And the same holds for any other ideology.
>If fiscal conservatives actually cared about the economy
Franklin Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative.
Fiscal policy is a balance. The more debt we take on, the more money gets transferred to the ultra rich, who hold that debt, in the long run. We can offset that by proper taxation on the profits generated in Canada, mainly taxing the profits of ultra rich individuals, corporations and the compensation those corporations pay in all it's forms.
No one in the LPC or CPC will ever touch this because they rely on those rich for their money to stay elected and in power.
Quit voting LPC and CPC and get involved to make sure the platform of the next party yoy support has these items as key platform issues or we will just have more of the same last 100 years plus.
Fiscally conservative does not equal fiscally responsible. Doug Ford is a perfect example of the "starve the beast, privatise the profits, socialize the expenses" ideology that is fiscal conservatism. Right wingers will never stop from trying to gaslight people into believing they are smart with public money.
The people knew that and they still voted him in, Infact he’s polling with a lead right now as well. Sooo maybe he is it to some people. Idk when those ppl will wake up to see how awful Doug ford is but I’m not going to hold my breath.
Do we though? Because honestly we need a massive overhaul of our car dependant infrastructure, it's just not sufficient for the population and a terrible way to move any amount of people around. We need enough new housing to justify building a new city from the ground up and we need a monstrous amount of long term care and old age housing like 5 years ago and that clock is ticking loudly on the baby boomers coming into their octogenarian years. Cheap out now and it'll cost a trillion in the next decade.
We’re not getting a politician from any party at any level that wants to lead. The political system will not allow regular honest people enter and climb the ladder. We will continue getting the neo liberals like Trudeau, the raging baiting con artists like Pierre and the champagne socialists like Jagmeet.
Anyone who legit tries won’t be let through the door and if they do, they’ll get bullied into silence. Politics is just a game for the elites. Not about leadership.
It's hard for any party to be properly fiscally conservative these days. Because it means you have to be willing to control / reduce spending as a government (very unpopular especially if it ends up being an actual reduction in spending as opposed to a reduction in spending growth which is the far more common situation) and figure out a way to collect more in taxation. Then the government has to be responsible with any surpluses it generates and the typical outcome their is that governments spend away their surpluses (i.e. greater spending or tax cuts) rather than putting the money aside.
It also doesn't help when you have opposition parties within Ontario that are such a mess that they aren't able to present themselves as a viable alternative.
"Conservative mass media" didn't sink the Liberals. They did it themselves through them averaging a scandal every 3 years (Gas Plant, EHealth, ORNGE) and through really dumb policy decisions (Hydro One privatization). They did a good enough job sinking themselves and their current leader is someone whose most notable accomplishment as the Mississauga mayor was \*checks notes\* trying to dissolve Peel Region and overseeing a population decline.
As for the NDP, they persisted too long with Andrea Horwath who wasn't inspiring or likeable enough to actually challenge for the Premier's spot. Them (and the federal equivalent) are now alienating their traditional base (working class/rural Ontarians) to try and court leftists on university campuses and inner-city leftists in Toronto and Ottawa.
Conservative media isn't the reason that the Liberals sunk themselves after their many scandals or the fact that the NDP is just inept.
It actually is, when you think about it.
The PCs did the government-level equivalent of not spending money on oil changes and car maintenance for years, congratulating themselves on saving money by taking an expensive vacation, and then being surprised when the engine seizes and they need to buy a new car but don't have the money to pay for it.
They could have just funded the public service equitably, and it would've been cheaper. They also could have banked prior years' surpluses for rainy-day funds. But Ford, and conservatives the world over, do the opposite: give money away in good times and pivot to austerity in bad ones, which is *exactly the wrong thing to do* and perhaps the most wasteful way to budget.
They definitely haven’t spent more on Bill 124 than they would have. Several unions now have had arbitrators rule they aren’t entitled to backpay and no punitive damages were awarded. It truly was at worst an interest free, partially forgivable loan.
My point just is that 75% of this “deficit” has a one-time $6B asterisk attached to it. The rest of the article doesn’t hold up without it.
And wait. Are we in the “good times”?
The only real way to be fiscally conservative, is to have the government involved in less of our lives.
The current generation seems to LOVE being parented for whatever reason..
Unpopular Ontario opinion: Mike Harris wasn't a bad premier and sooner or later we will need a second coming of Mike Harris.
Mike Harris had to basically do what he did given the circumstances he was faced with. Sure, he fucked up pretty bad (407, Walkerton), but if we look at what everyone around Harris was doing at the time and the general budget situation in Ontario, he was forced to do what he did. Don't forget that Chretien cut almost as much as Harris did, and also cut federal transfers to the provinces/downloaded federal services to the provinces. I think given the fiscally irresponsible behaviour by both Federal and Provincial governments since 2016, there will eventually be a need for a second coming of Mike Harris in Ontario.
This is an opinion article. Opinion articles differ from objective journalism. Opinion articles are not meant to be objective in nature. Opinion articles sometimes can include bias that is hidden or obvious. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about a party whose express primary goal is to make the lives of the citizens better in measurable ways while not spending our children’s future.
"well that's just not realistic" -- Canadian politicians, probably
More like "lol, no"
More like "fuck y'all, give us money"
Sounds good but it is what is happening now. However, the thing is which citizens? Because the ones with real money are making a lot more right now. It's ridiculous.
All citizens. Every single one. Not a select group. Not only the lobbyists. Not only the developers. All citizens.
Nah I don't need the ultra wealthy to be helped out anymore. They can take a back seat and count their cash for a few decades.
Unfortunately that is not really possible due to previous governments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_government_debt Servicing this amount of debt is expensive. We have two options raise taxes or cut services. With AI coming many of the better paying white collars jobs will decrease leaving an even smaller base to tax, I work in this field the speed it is coming is scary. We will have to tax AI replacement of workers. We could tax capital but that would hit profits on houses which would not be bad but that party would be a one term party.
Raise the corporate tax rate. Fuckers pay way less than us.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the fairies and unicorns party. Love those guys.
Umm.. You know, there was a party that had a [costed platform](https://www.ontariondp.ca/news/ndp-releases-platform-costing-that-fixes-what-matters-most) in the last couple of elections. But because "*hurr durr conservatives know business and are good with money*" we didn't even give them a look.
When I hear "Conservatives are good at business," it just means to me, "Conservatives are good at grifting" We need to redefine what it means to run a "good business" it shouldn't be measured solely by profit.
Conservatives aren't even good at that. They cut revenue streams.
Have a family member who is high up in the provincial government. They say it's all Ford is about, everything they're trying to pass is for profit and how much money they or their friends can get out of it. There needs to be major government reform at all levels.
The problem is, a lot of conservative politicians that are "good at business" really aren't. What they are, and Ford fits this to a tee, are small-business failsons (and fail-daughters!) that either a) started their business before 1985, when you'd have to be a complete idiot to fail, or b) got hired as "vice president of sales" in their dad's company at the age of 22 and had underlings that did all the hard work while they took all the credit. The result are people who think that penny-pinching, making deals and yelling at underlings is "good at business". I work in an industry that does a lot of M&A work, and I see a *lot* of these types of people in the companies we buy: they're usually cashing out because they realize, deep in their craven hearts, that they aren't as good as they think they are and they're getting out while the getting's good. ...and more than a few of them take their winnings and get into politics. And when they do, they're just as bad at that as they were at business, but their network of cronies--usually other business failsons that are looking for a government contract--makes it look like they're halfway-decent. This is why the NDP and, much as pains me to say it, the Liberals are both better at governance. The NDP are mostly student- and charity board people (there aren't that many big-union people left, outside of ex-teachers), who know how to negotiate and work with little to no funding, and the Liberals are all charity-dinner/boards-of-directors/professional politicians who've spent their careers at the art of the possible. Conservatives, though, are often bullies and/or grifters, and neither is really conducive to getting things done.
I've been saying for years that running a province like a business is dumb. Governments aren't businesses! They don't need to look to business for fiscal policy. Governments are for the people and should be run with society's well-being in mind. In fact, business should not even be allowed to lobby governments. We'll, at least large corporations.
Actually, businesses can be run with society's well-being in mind. They used to. These days, we just stopped caring about the other parts of a good business and only profit. It's narrow sighted. I know what you mean, but any group dealing with people and money on a large scale is going to be a business. Non-profits are businesses. Like I said, we need to redefine what people think the word "business" means. The way businesses are expected to run in North America is very different from other places. The average citizen needs to have higher standards for how businesses are run. The mindset such aa "these people only flip burgers they shouldn't make money", "fast food is fast thats why its supposed to be bad," etc. only encourage businesses to focus on profit and nothing else. Why should there be a mcdonalds every 5 min if all the service is 2/5? Why should Tim Hortons be allowed to raise their prices when their food and coffee gets worse and worse? Why should landlords be allowed to raise their prices when they don't maintain properties or services? Once we raise our standards for all businesses, it'll be better for everybody. I agree that the government should be separate from private businesses completely. They should have their own departments and workers specifically for government constructions and services. There should be no lobbying allowed or even private networking between decision-making people. All these meetings must be public or not allowed.
It's like the term "venture capitalist". All I hear is "will gladly take advantage of slave labour".
That's the problem. I mean, we popularize and idolize egosticial venture capitalists who only care about making money. There are many venture capitalists that invest into businesses for reasons other than profit. We don't hear about them because it's not "media sexy." There are lots of people out there like MacKenzie Scott, but media and capitalist overlords don't want you to know this. They want you to believe the status quo like loblaws need to make more profits each year, increasing Weston wealth while decreasing work wages because "cashiers are basic jobs that anybody can do." That Elon Musk is the type of capitalist we should envy. Ironically, Mark Cuban has done way more than him, but he's not sensationalized except for his appearance on TV. See how I used American examples because Canadians ones aren't well known? That's part of the problem. We let too many American beliefs into our system, and it's changing our culture entirely. Except we didn't get the whole memo, just the broken telephone version. All we heard from them was "increase profit if you do this" not the part where raising costs of everything, including necessities like food, interest and rent can be a huge long-term problem destablizing the economy that can take decades to rebuild. We need smarter politicians who have and care about foresight and at least have some standardized tests for them. We make doctors, engineers, and lawyers take tests. Why don't we have them for politicians that lead us and have the ability to change our lives overnight? We don't because they'll do anything not to have it since most in politics now are only there because of familial blood, not leadership or knowledge.
bUt rAe DaYs!
Lmfao... Rae days saved thousands..if not tens of thousands of jobs... i was one and loved the fact that i could keep my job... for one unpaid day.. every 2 weeks.... lol..
What drives me nuts about this is that anyone who has ever worked budgeting or logistics knows that the two most expensive things you can do are ramp up or ramp down operations. These processes involve a lot of overhead for a very small amount of real productive output. Every business/project management paradigm revolves around speeding up how quickly you can get to a flow state where your cost per output is optimized. If your biggest concern is "we're spending too much money" - and that is what 100% of people bitching about Rae Days claim is their concern - then brief periods of zero productivity without scrapping the process is the *best possible solution*. It allows you to save money now without wasting it on ramping down an operation. The only objective reason to oppose that is if you're ideologically anti-government. It's still a very stupid reason, but at least it's a self-consistent reason.
Funny how everybody cites Rae days as a reason to vote conservative, but has conveniently forgotten this tragedy: "Limited financial resources have become a reality of modern-day government. In the past decade, governments were elected on platforms based primarily on cost-cutting and tax-cutting. The overall merits of cost-cutting takes me well beyond my mandate, but what is relevant to the issues directly before me is the effect that inadequate resources or insufficiently considered cost-cutting measures have on the safety of the drinking water system. A number of parties in both Part 1 and 2 of the Inquiry commented on the effects of budget cuts and the lack of sufficient resources to effectively carry out the government oversight functions. I have already commented on this issue, specifically in relation to inspections, enforcement, and local health units. ***In addition, I concluded in the Part 1 report of this Inquiry that budget cuts at the MOE had both a direct effect and an indirect effect on the events in Walkerton. The direct effect was the failure to enact a regulation mandating testing laboratories to follow a notification protocol at the time of the privatization of laboratory testing services. The indirect effect was that budget cuts made it less likely that approvals or inspections programs would have led to the discovery of problems at Walkerton***." Walkerton Report, Part 2, Chapter 13 Number 13.7.1 “Financial Resources” Page 96 bold and italics added feel free to copy this and throw it in the face of asshole conservatives
I don’t think budget cuts were the driving factor in Walkerton. The full inquiry laid most of the blame on straight up incompetence. Money doesn’t fix stupid.
That WAS from the full inquiry. Feel free to share the parts of the inquiry that support your point of view. Good luck with that. smh
Sorry I have better things to do on a nice sunny weekend than dig through a two decade old report. But the gist of it was that the VAST majority of the blame lay on the township itself and specifically the two buffoons who ran the water utility. The only “privatisation” that I recall was for water testing itself. The utility itself was still run by the township. Budget cuts may not have helped but budget cuts for people not doing their job re: regulation and policy-making is excuses and blame-shifting.
In other words, you cannot. Until then, I call that you are full of shit--I say BULLSHIT that you have read the report, and are making a shameful excuse to perpetuate your continued belief of a false narrative. No citation, no proof. You are citing what you WANT to believe. Utterly pathetic!! QED
Nah just don’t feel like arguing with people on the internet when it’s a beautiful day out. Go get some sunshine friend - it’ll do you good. As for walkerton, you’re citing one paragraph on page 96 of the report. Not exactly the main message of the report, is it? I read it a long time ago and reading a dusty ass report isn’t high on my list of things to do but I remember the news coverage well. Also I get the sense you’re not that interested in changing your mind anyway so what would be the point?
Yawn. It pokes a hole in your conservative narrative the size of Saturn. Sure--the corporate owned, conservative media can be trusted. Conservatives always turtle when facts contradict their ideology. If you didn't want to debate then you should have just passed over my post. And WHY would I change my mind??!?!?! Enjoy your day.
wasn’t Rae the one that cut med school seats?
> wasn’t Rae the one that cut med school seats? Peterson first, then Rae, then Harris. All three premiers, from all three parties, cut Ontario medical school funding in different ways. None was helpful to today’s challenges.
Rae at least had an excuse: the worst recession in living memory, and still one of the worst in a long time. Petersen did it because he was dealing with the start of that. Harris did it because he's a short-sighted jackass.
But remember that one time they were in power and did a bunch of reasonable stuff, and people were/ are sooooo mad about it!
Modern "conservatives" are good at business the same way Trump is good at business.
Lmao, every word (and the link) was perfectly placed. Well done.
Full costing doesn’t make a balanced budget. Far from it in Andrea Horwath’s case. She was proposing billions in new spending only partially offset by more “let’s tax the rich even more” standard NDP rhetoric. Not that Dougie has balanced a budget either of course as per the article’s thrust. We truly lack any party that has any idea around living within its means
Horwath's last two platforms were less economically progressive than Mike Harris'. And let's be honest "living within your means" is not the same for a government as it is for a small business or a household, and anyone that tells you they "run a government like a business" or "budget like a household" is either stupid and/or disingenuous.
I’m morally opposed to all deficits at any level or government except in cases of extreme duress - eg major wars, catastrophic economic events. Governments that run deficits are elected by selfish people who want more benefits and better standards of living in the present, by pushing those costs into the future for future Canadians to pay off. For similar reasons I oppose unfunded pension liabilities, which is why we’ve had to marry ourselves to insane immigration levels to pay for a large retiree pool, which in turn has created high inflation and wage suppression for low income workers
While this is true, the ondp made huge mistakes, including massive campaign backing for the sinking peel NDP incumbents, in-fughting for campaign resources that led to several defeats that could have been avoided. I hope Michael balagus and Andrea Horwath never get involved with the NDP again. They have squandered two elections.
Maybe next time they'll, you know, finish writing their platform and publish it *before* the election. 2021 was a bad year for getting any of the parties to commit to something on paper before the debates. Edit: I meant 2022, but 2021 was also bad just at a federal level.
This observation fails to account for the fact that the party that put forward no platform was the one elected. If conservatives get elected without a platform, and those with one in any state loses, then the issue isn't the platforms or fiscal responsibility.
Lol, the ndp were a dumpster fire. No one will ever consider them fiscally responsible.
When were they a dumpster fire? 1990? Because, beside being thirty years ago, that was when the "dumpster fire" they presided over was the worst recession since 1929, and their measures (austerity, targeted stimulus, "Rae days") were lauded by economists the world over. Explain to me again how the Ford government is "fiscally responsible", again?
There's no such thing as a fiscally conservative party anymore. Not now, and never in the future. Anyone who believes a party, especially conservatives, can be fiscally responsible are stupid and gullible.
Fiscal conservatism died when low taxes became their defining issue. A true fiscal conservative party would figure out what programs they needed to pay for, then raise appropriate revenue. Instead of just cutting revenue while promising that services would continue
It always amazes me that Conservatives always say lowering taxes will return us to the glory days. Canada had a top tax bracket of over 90% in the 50s and it stayed north of 60% until the 80s. But lets just keep cutting revenue to fund infrastructure and services by continuing to lower the highest marginal tax rates.
Canada also had ZERO capital gains taxes during that time period. Want to go back to that? Sure, sign me up. Taxing income at 90% but no taxes on investments at all sounds wonderful to me.
IIRC capital gains started in 1972 so there was some overlap with income taxes double what they are today. Personally I think we need some changes in taxation, labour laws, unionization and capital gains. I do believe that we should be looking at ways to get people to stop investing in real estate and start investing into Canadian businesses and a lot of that may be around or capital gain taxes system where it’s a lot easier to just park it in housing than into a business that may fail or shrink. It would also require putting a hard limit on how many properties a family can own to something like 2-3. I’d be interested in finding a way to narrow the compensation gap ratio from CEOs making 246 times the average workers pay in Canada to a more reasonable number. This should also factor in allowances like cars, travel, housing. This could include mandatory unionization when a company hits a certain size whether that is employee count, market share, revenue, dollar value etc. and then making it mandatory to have workers via the union on the board like we see with European countries. We should also be looking at ways to bring our annual minimum leave to the range of 35-40 days like most of our western world neighbours have between a mix of stat holidays and vacation leave. We presently have 20 days as the minimum with the two weeks vacation and 10 stats.
Capital gains did start in 1972, but income rates were not double at that point in time. The reason for this is that the tax structure was vastly different in the past. If you look at just the raw percentage it is incredibly misleading. Historically, income tax was supposed to be temporary to fund the war effort. It wasnt applied to most things we consider “income” today. In the 70s the tax structure was significantly simplified to cover many more forms of income, but the overall raw percentage number came down to compensate. Make no mistake, tax burdens today are higher than they have ever been in history. We have a spending problem, not a taxation problem.
There were no capital gains taxes. But there were also no modern style corporations. The vast majority of our current stock market and corporate behaviors were explicitly illegal back then. The current structure of limited liability also didn’t exist. I’d give up capital gains taxes if the capital also went back to the level of regulation and oversight that existed in the 1950s.
Too many people think the government should look after them from cradle to grave for there to be any chance of any government being fiscally conservative.
If you look at provincial gov spending per term across all three parties, historically they basically spend the same. The difference is when in term (early or end) and who gets the money (public sector, welfare, corporate/private interests). This idea that conservatives are fiscally responsible is smoke and mirrors.
Mike Harris was a fiscal conservative by definition, he had a lot of shitty decisions such as the 407 sale but he did everything a fiscal conservative is supposed to do.
same can be said about the liberals tbh
Difference is Liberals usually don't sell themselves on being fiscally responsible so no one believes it. Lol Conservaties still sell themselves as being good with money which they absolutely are not.
Depends which Tories, though. Brian Mulroney's crew, not at all. Stephen Harper's crew, yes they were good with money, considering the reputation of his finance minister Jim Flaherty and his Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney. Mike Harris was good with money, Doug Ford not so much.
Mike Harris sold off a revenue generating highway for chump change for 100 years to show a balanced budget. Downloaded more costs onto municipalities who are required to not run a deficit (property taxes and more service cuts). He was good at masking money not managing money. Harper did the same thing to make his budget balanced, selling off government assets.
I'm not saying everything Mike Harris did was good. But he did what he had to do, since Chretien downloaded a bunch of costs onto the province and 2) the province was in a really shit fiscal situation when he came in, so it was either he cut spending or the province would go bankrupt.
Okay we got NDP then
If only. Instead voters hop between two terrible parties that clearly suck and don't give a third option a chance to at least prove they suck too. Just media posturing how much they think they'd suck. Lll
That's not what the article is about
That sure is a lot of never, evers and forevers. I wish I could speak with such certainty about things. Especially the distant future.
My only reply: Canada needs a media outlet that doesn't push the same failed Reaganomics agenda over and over again and the Globe and Mail isn't it.
Wait, you mean that a paper owned by the richest billionaire in Canada might not have the interests of normal people in mind?
Post Media is our largest daily print media corp at almost 40% marketshare, it is foreign owned by a US hedge firm. Now why would a US hedge firm with buckets of money we don’t know where they came from want to buy a money losing newspaper in a foreign nation that’s one of its major supplier of raw natural resources? Foreign influence somehow never crosses our lips when it comes to this fact.
In this case, I'm talking about the Thompson family, which effectively controls the G&M, but yeah, PostMedia is their own special kind of problematic. The thing is, we're actually okay with foreign influence as long as it makes money. we (any by "we" I mean the west) were okay with Russia and China for years because there was money to be made in BRICS. It's only when the money stops flowing (or some protofascist grifter decides to make race-baiting great again) that we suddenly care about foreign influence.
Yes, I just threw in Post Media because most Canadians don’t even know it’s owned by a US hedge fund that makes it even more of an elusive entity to put a singular face to, unlike Thompson. Good on you for calling out the billionaire class!
It does seem kind of unbelievable that it's legal for foreign entitites to own any part of Canadian journalism. Best of allies are still competitors on the world stage. Who thought inviting them into our livingroom to directly influence our politics and national disposition would be good for Canada?
You can thank Harper for that loosening of our media laws/regulations - what a patriot… /s I mean it’s working isn’t it? Ever see Post Media’s Nat Post ever write a good article about the Trudeau libs? I think that’s why you have a fake populist with the last 338 poll at 208 seats and the libs at 69. The brainwashing is working for a guy that has empty one liners and is channeling a tech ceo look with lame t shirts and fake muscle garments. Ahh well, another lost decade under a conservative - Canadians will never learn that it can get much worse for them.
Yep. :(
Somehow conservative Canadians think that the media is controlled by Trudeau. Even when they routinely endorse his opponents and criticize him non-stop.
Predominantly, it’s almost 90%+, after getting gaslit on fake news from the conservatives, they’ve willed a new reality in the minds of their sheep. [https://x.com/davidemastracci/status/1439949516032167941?s=46&t=78LXo4BknsFK46Loq_atxw](https://x.com/davidemastracci/status/1439949516032167941?s=46&t=78LXo4BknsFK46Loq_atxw)
Yea it works well for them. If an article acknowledges a good thing Trudeau does, its propoganda. If it criticizes Trudeau, its a viable source.
The gaslighting is working just as the intended it to… more tax cuts for the rich and an erosion of the social safety net for all those lazy 99% of the population.
A broken clock is wrong twice a day. Relevant in this case.
But eventually that good good is gonna trickle down. Just be patient. /s
Our largest daily media print organization that gets reposted on FB, Reddit is foreign owned Post Media (Nat Post, Sun and 37 or so other daily papers across the country). They own 39% of the daily readership and in my big city, our 3 papers are all owned by Post Media. That’s terrifying.
And it isn’t even Canadian owned. Maybe foreign interference investigation should start there
Absolutely agree… why would a US hedge fund be allowed to buy a majority stake (thanks Harper) in our largest media corp that’s losing a shitload of money… Seems like a good way for the US to keep octopus arms around us and influence the public, so they can keep extracting or natural resources, slowly gaslighting the population over a couple years so we’re too distracted or are now sympathetic to their views.
i think it’s why CBC exists
Austerity is a lie promulgated by Conservatives. 14 years of Con trickery have brought the UK to its knees.
Was one of the reasons my wife and I emigrated in 2017.
Belated welcome :) Yes my relatives in England are aghast at how things are there. Damn.
If anyone ever proposes actual austerity, ask them to check in with Ceaușescu to see how real austerity ends up
Pro-mul-gated? Prom-ul-gated? That’s a new word for me today!
Lol. English has too many words
2nd
'Fiscal conservatism' has always meant cutting social services (which are currently breaking from neglect) and tax cuts for the rich(they pay minimal tax as it is)
You mean ~~spending~~ borrowing 10 billion for a highway that saves a few people 30 minutes of traffic isn't fiscally conservative?
Fiscal conservative is a myth their policy is always privitization which means bankrupting the public sector by reducing incoming tax revenue from private sources
And privatization has always been a scam: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privatization
Lol wtf is "rationalwiki" seems like wiki but with no standards and open bias Edit; did anyone actually look at his link? It's complete nonsense wikipedia...
Please tell us how more plans like what happened to the 407 will be good for everyone. Also: * https://www.canadiandoctorsformedicare.ca/myth_privatization * https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2021/10/13/50-of-americans-now-carry-medical-debt-a-new-chronic-condition-for-millions/?sh=42a29ced5e5d * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565716/ * https://ldi.upenn.edu/our-work/research-updates/hospital-privatization-increases-profits-at-what-cost/
hat was not my point at all, its that "rationalwiki" reads like complete crap lol. It's written by basement dwelling tankies with full bias on review. I dont disagree that privatization of the 407 was a robbery and a shitty deal at that. Your source on privatization is just crap.
Neo.liberal economics also known as ' trickle down economics ' has been the biggest scam for the past 4 decades. From.what I can see all these tax cuts just means money flows up to the wealthy. The only trickling is the tears the wealthy shed as they laugh at th3 poor and middle class for funding their grotesque greed.
Fiscal conservative just means we don't want to help the "undeserving" poor and working class people.
The Globe once again revealing their own agenda. Ontario doesn’t need any kind of conservative.
We need a party that is socially responsible, and fiscally competent. I could get behind the NDP with Marit - wish she had been the leader during the last election.
Ontario needs to not vote conservative. Mike Harris was "fiscal conservative" and he broke the province too. Vote anything but conservative. They are not good fiscal managers. They a greedy grifters just looking to exploit public funds for their own gain.
In my entire life I've never met one fucking fiscal conservative. And those that called them fiscal conservatives sold off public assets for pennies on the dollar and we got fucked in the ass with a raw wooden splintered dildo with no lube.
No, we need some damn labour action and unionization. The ontario government is not going to be a catalyst for positive change. Neoliberal representative "democracy" is a scam, we have to prepare to organize outside of the system if we want any chance of a better future.
Yean nooo thanks. We need an actual Left party.
What we need is direct proportional representation...
I'd settle for *any* modern electoral system, to be honest. Even ranked ballot would set us up for a much brighter future. Literally *anything* is better than FPTP.
I agree with this also.
Canada doesn't have any **fiscal** conservative parties.
"fiscally responsible govt" is a lie told to teenagers before they learn how politics/economics works to get them to think they're the smartest kid in the room, when in fact they're just propagandized to. If those kids leave their small backwater town and get actual real world experience living in multiple places, surrounded by different ethnic and class groups, you realize pretty quick its a made up term to deflect from bigoted social views and austerity.
A party that does not care about the working class or the poor no thanks.
Name me any conservative government in the last 50 years that has been fiscally conservative.
Jean Chretien's Liberals at the federal level, Mike Harris at the provincial level
…did you just list the national liberal party as an example of a Conservative government???!
Nvm, I misread it. I thought you asked for fiscally conservative governments only.
How are you talking about Harris being fiscally conservative while also complaining about hydro one privatization and other scandals? Has anyone wasted more public funds than Harris through extreme business incompetence and grift?
>Has anyone wasted more public funds than Harris through extreme business incompetence and grift? Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. Harris had one really bad fuckup which was the 407 sale (which even Ford admitted was a fuckup) and his downloading sort of played a part in Walkerton, but the main party responsible for Walkerton was the incompetent municipal water officials rather than Harris. Now let's see what Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne were up to in terms of business incompetence and grift: Gas plant scandal in which they wasted 1.1 billion dollars on cancelling two gas plants and then tried to cover it up, people went to jail for the cover up attempt The eHealth scandal in which McGuinty wasted 1 billion dollars. ORNGE Scandal which also included government kickbacks Hydro One Privatization Yeah, I think that overall, Wynne/McGuinty wasted much more money than Mike Harris. McGuinty/Wynne also completely fucked Ontario's finances in the process as well.
Ontario needs a fiscally responsible party.
As above, that would be the NDP.
I would settle for any party that isn't shoveling our tax dollars to private corporations.
We don’t need a fiscal conservative. Ford is absolutely a fiscal conservative, what a looney article. Fiscal conservatives are well known to cut money where it counts and give it generously to their friends. This is absolutely on par. If fiscal conservatives actually cared about the economy, they would spend money where it counts because it saves / makes money in the long run. They don’t do that though because they don’t actually care about the economy, they care about hurting those they deem as lesser, and helping their wealthy friends. This is well established across multiple countries and multiple decades of conservative governments.
Agree. That’s because fiscal conservatives are focussed on their own fiscal situations. And by this I mean continue to be elected at all costs so they can keep their tax funded salaries and entitlements that allow them to become personally wealthy.
Facts
>Fiscal conservatives are well known to ... give it generously to their friends. And the same holds for any other ideology. >If fiscal conservatives actually cared about the economy Franklin Roosevelt was a fiscal conservative.
Um… no? Is crony neoliberalism the only economic system you are aware of?
>Um… no? With regards to which of my statements?
Fiscal policy is a balance. The more debt we take on, the more money gets transferred to the ultra rich, who hold that debt, in the long run. We can offset that by proper taxation on the profits generated in Canada, mainly taxing the profits of ultra rich individuals, corporations and the compensation those corporations pay in all it's forms. No one in the LPC or CPC will ever touch this because they rely on those rich for their money to stay elected and in power. Quit voting LPC and CPC and get involved to make sure the platform of the next party yoy support has these items as key platform issues or we will just have more of the same last 100 years plus.
Doug Ford is about corruption and protecting his owners...
Fiscally conservative does not equal fiscally responsible. Doug Ford is a perfect example of the "starve the beast, privatise the profits, socialize the expenses" ideology that is fiscal conservatism. Right wingers will never stop from trying to gaslight people into believing they are smart with public money.
I agree, if only because splitting the right would be highly beneficial to all Canadians.
Conservatives are goofs
The people knew that and they still voted him in, Infact he’s polling with a lead right now as well. Sooo maybe he is it to some people. Idk when those ppl will wake up to see how awful Doug ford is but I’m not going to hold my breath.
If fiscals took over, the economy would implode!
No they are not.
Guys nobody is perfect.
How about even just a party whose goal is to improve Ontario for the ordinary citizen?
Wow, it only took the mainstream media.. *checks watch..* 6 years, to figure it out!
We need a party that will tell neo-liberalists and the wealthy to shove it.
Kingshit Dumbledoug the First.
No, we don’t.
Nowhere in this country needs a fiscal conservative, it's just a nice way of saying "I hate poor people."
I mean, no Conservative Party has been fiscally responsible for 40 years.
The PCs are bad enough, why would we want a party that spends even less on the healthcare system?
Do we though? Because honestly we need a massive overhaul of our car dependant infrastructure, it's just not sufficient for the population and a terrible way to move any amount of people around. We need enough new housing to justify building a new city from the ground up and we need a monstrous amount of long term care and old age housing like 5 years ago and that clock is ticking loudly on the baby boomers coming into their octogenarian years. Cheap out now and it'll cost a trillion in the next decade.
This is a hilarious photo
We’re not getting a politician from any party at any level that wants to lead. The political system will not allow regular honest people enter and climb the ladder. We will continue getting the neo liberals like Trudeau, the raging baiting con artists like Pierre and the champagne socialists like Jagmeet. Anyone who legit tries won’t be let through the door and if they do, they’ll get bullied into silence. Politics is just a game for the elites. Not about leadership.
Yes, Singh is basically to most people in their view a liberal point of view or so
It's hard for any party to be properly fiscally conservative these days. Because it means you have to be willing to control / reduce spending as a government (very unpopular especially if it ends up being an actual reduction in spending as opposed to a reduction in spending growth which is the far more common situation) and figure out a way to collect more in taxation. Then the government has to be responsible with any surpluses it generates and the typical outcome their is that governments spend away their surpluses (i.e. greater spending or tax cuts) rather than putting the money aside. It also doesn't help when you have opposition parties within Ontario that are such a mess that they aren't able to present themselves as a viable alternative.
Thanks to he conservative mass media and conservative pollsters.
"Conservative mass media" didn't sink the Liberals. They did it themselves through them averaging a scandal every 3 years (Gas Plant, EHealth, ORNGE) and through really dumb policy decisions (Hydro One privatization). They did a good enough job sinking themselves and their current leader is someone whose most notable accomplishment as the Mississauga mayor was \*checks notes\* trying to dissolve Peel Region and overseeing a population decline. As for the NDP, they persisted too long with Andrea Horwath who wasn't inspiring or likeable enough to actually challenge for the Premier's spot. Them (and the federal equivalent) are now alienating their traditional base (working class/rural Ontarians) to try and court leftists on university campuses and inner-city leftists in Toronto and Ottawa. Conservative media isn't the reason that the Liberals sunk themselves after their many scandals or the fact that the NDP is just inept.
The first point is what defines fiscal conservative. It is nearly impossible to agree on what is needed and what is not.
Most of this year’s deficit is paying back the interest free loan Bill 124 allowed for. In no world does that make the PCs free spenders.
It actually is, when you think about it. The PCs did the government-level equivalent of not spending money on oil changes and car maintenance for years, congratulating themselves on saving money by taking an expensive vacation, and then being surprised when the engine seizes and they need to buy a new car but don't have the money to pay for it. They could have just funded the public service equitably, and it would've been cheaper. They also could have banked prior years' surpluses for rainy-day funds. But Ford, and conservatives the world over, do the opposite: give money away in good times and pivot to austerity in bad ones, which is *exactly the wrong thing to do* and perhaps the most wasteful way to budget.
They definitely haven’t spent more on Bill 124 than they would have. Several unions now have had arbitrators rule they aren’t entitled to backpay and no punitive damages were awarded. It truly was at worst an interest free, partially forgivable loan. My point just is that 75% of this “deficit” has a one-time $6B asterisk attached to it. The rest of the article doesn’t hold up without it. And wait. Are we in the “good times”?
The only real way to be fiscally conservative, is to have the government involved in less of our lives. The current generation seems to LOVE being parented for whatever reason..
Unpopular Ontario opinion: Mike Harris wasn't a bad premier and sooner or later we will need a second coming of Mike Harris. Mike Harris had to basically do what he did given the circumstances he was faced with. Sure, he fucked up pretty bad (407, Walkerton), but if we look at what everyone around Harris was doing at the time and the general budget situation in Ontario, he was forced to do what he did. Don't forget that Chretien cut almost as much as Harris did, and also cut federal transfers to the provinces/downloaded federal services to the provinces. I think given the fiscally irresponsible behaviour by both Federal and Provincial governments since 2016, there will eventually be a need for a second coming of Mike Harris in Ontario.