Wynne down to 11% rating/popularity. Lowest ever. Can she get into single digits?

[PrivatePilot]

I would prefer a politician that rights himself when he's wrong to one who stubbornly digs in his heels and won't change his mind. I really don't care if someone calls it a flop-flop or a change of opinion. If it's for the better, then that's okay.

What's "Better" often depends wildly amongst the electorate.

So if you voted for someone based on a fundamental viewpoint that you strongly agreed with (whilst vehemently hating the alternative), and then 24 hours after getting elected said politician flip flopped on their promise and swung over to that viewpoint you hated with a passion or strongly disagreed with, you'd be ok with that?

If you look at the electoral disaster of John Tory when he ran for Premier you'll recall he dug in his heels on public funding for religious based schools. It was extremely unpopular and he lost because of it. He was being stupid. He should have flip-flopped as soon as it became apparent public opinion was against it. A smart politician knows when to change direction.

So long as he had a strong opponent I'd have been LESS likely to vote for him in that scenario as I would feel the way I feel above - what else is he going to flipflop on in the future when something that I elected him for suddenly becomes unpopular amongst some?

 

[Roadghost]

What's "Better" often depends wildly amongst the electorate.

So if you voted for someone based on a fundamental viewpoint that you strongly agreed with (whilst vehemently hating the alternative), and then 24 hours after getting elected said politician flip flopped on their promise and swung over to that viewpoint you hated with a passion or strongly disagreed with, you'd be ok with that?



So long as he had a strong opponent I'd have been LESS likely to vote for him in that scenario as I would feel the way I feel above - what else is he going to flipflop on in the future when something that I elected him for suddenly becomes unpopular amongst some?

There will always be people who are disappointed when a politician changes his mind, and for sure many have. Dalton McGuinty's "no new taxes" was quickly followed up by...new taxes. Do you remember Jean Chretien's "I will haxe da tax?" about the GST? At least Brown is changing his mind before the election.

 

[crankcall]

I feel completely screwed when the party I vote for throws the platform they got elected on out the window. And it happens all the time, election promises ......

 

[Evoex]

I feel completely screwed when the party I vote for throws the platform they got elected on out the window. And it happens all the time, election promises ......

Stop voting on promises, vote on what matters to you and your family.

Do you care about new/higher taxes or service cuts? It doesn't matter whose running the show the Liberals and Conservatives always fall back to basics.

The money has to come from somewhere (i.e. YOU), just decide how you`re willing to fork it over.

 

[fastar1]

Stop voting on promises, vote on what matters to you and your family.

Do you care about new/higher taxes or service cuts? It doesn't matter whose running the show the Liberals and Conservatives always fall back to basics.

The money has to come from somewhere (i.e. YOU), just decide how you`re willing to fork it over.

Basically, this. Last federal election my top issue was electoral reform, and three parties promised it. But one of them was the Liberals, who have always benefited from the status quo and had no real incentive to change. So I went NDP for the first time ever, and as I guessed, Trudeau went back on his word. No shocker.

Point is you have to run their promises through a filter to sift out the party's immediate electoral interests from their long term self interest. Then you have a much better idea what to expect.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Stop voting on promises

Then what exactly SHOULD one vote for? The guy with the nicest tie? The nicest hair? The shiniest shoes? The fanciest car? The slickest speech?

Or is it all irrelevant so long as you vote for the party, not the person?

Sorry, but just voting for a party hoping that the new leader (whoever he/she might be, since it's irrelevant?) isn't my idea of making a wise choice.

 

[Brian P]

In the next provincial election, I just hope the PCs don't shoot themselves in the foot, as they have done in the past (on multiple occasions) by either taking a stand on an issue that I absolutely could not go along with, or by having someone as a candidate who I absolutely detest.

 

[PrivatePilot]

In the next provincial election, I just hope the PCs don't shoot themselves in the foot, as they have done in the past (on multiple occasions) by either taking a stand on an issue that I absolutely could not go along with, or by having someone as a candidate who I absolutely detest.

Given Wynne's track record, and the foul taste of McGuinty still stinking up the room in his absence, it would have to be one heck of a terrible set of options before I'd ever vote Liberal again in this election.

Actually, I'd refuse my ballot in such a scenario. I refuse to let any political party operate the way Mcguinty/Wynne have run Ontario and then be rewarded for it.

 

[nobbie48]

If you look at the electoral disaster of John Tory when he ran for Premier you'll recall he dug in his heels on public funding for religious based schools. It was extremely unpopular and he lost because of it. He was being stupid. He should have flip-flopped as soon as it became apparent public opinion was against it. A smart politician knows when to change direction.

Or Tory didn't have enough skill or wisdom to convince the public that his ideas were the wise choices.

He also backed off on municipal election promises.

Hitler knew how to lead. I don't think the German people of the 1930s and 40s were all murdering thieves but Hitler was able to convince them that the way to avoid paying for their first mistake (WWI) was to murder people and steal / invade their lands.

Not all good people are leaders and not all leaders are good people.

Party leaders are elected by backroom deals and IMO are basically puppets.

 

[crankcall]

Really? channeling your inner Berni this morning and going with a Hitler reference? good Lord.

I vote for what is important for me, my family and my business. My view is usually based on what they say they will do , because there is no other benchmark. Its my dream, albeit a bit foolish that they will at least try to do what they say they will do.

Its become too common and almost a media joke to follow up on what they said/ then did.

 

[mxs]

I vote for what is important for me, my family and my business. My view is usually based on what they say they will do , because there is no other benchmark. Its my dream, albeit a bit foolish that they will at least try to do what they say they will do.

Common, vote for the good of Ontario, not just yourself or your family ... so I have heard ... LOL

 

[mxs]

In the next provincial election, I just hope the PCs don't shoot themselves in the foot, as they have done in the past (on multiple occasions) by either taking a stand on an issue that I absolutely could not go along with, or by having someone as a candidate who I absolutely detest.

Sounds like a pipe dream ... just watching their occasional one-liners they produce ... :-(

 

[Evoex]

Then what exactly SHOULD one vote for? The guy with the nicest tie? The nicest hair? The shiniest shoes? The fanciest car? The slickest speech?

Or is it all irrelevant so long as you vote for the party, not the person?

Sorry, but just voting for a party hoping that the new leader (whoever he/she might be, since it's irrelevant?) isn't my idea of making a wise choice.

Essentially yes.

I think if you look back federally and provincially at the decisions made by sitting governments (especially those with a majority), they follow a trend line.

Liberals will almost always raise or introduce new taxes to acquire cash flow. As of late they also seem fine with selling off the publics investment in industry (Hydro One, etc).

Conservatives will cut services to acquire cash flow.

No matter the promises, no matter the person running the show it almost always (imo) seems to go back to basics, how to fleece the taxpayer as it were. If one believes this to be true then you don't really care what name sits next to Premier or PM title.

Personally, i don't care about service cuts. I use public transit like twice a year, i don't have kids or am enrolled in school, my benefits/pay are substantial enough for me to survive an overhaul of the medical system..my choice seems clear.

So yeah, i think if someone is smart; Ignore the jibberjabber and decide how you can best part with your money.

 

[crankcall]

I care about service cuts, because i think public transit should be quadrupeld , affordable and rugular for those in a position to use it. Kids need decent education to keep the 'machine' running. Green spaces and conservation is very important to me.

How I part with my money is where the frustration kicks in. The bridge on Lakeshore in Oakville half built with the wrong size rebar, the pier in Burlington 'rebuilt' after they found the wrong rebar. Bronte rd delayed for months since the underground stream that has been there 3000yrs? known the local farmers was a mystery to the road engineers. Its tip of the iceberg stuff, but its the 100k's per month that I watch at the municipal level before we get to provincial wackiness.
Its pretty hard to watch, unless your on the recieving end.....

 

[fastar1]

Common, vote for the good of Ontario, not just yourself or your family ... so I have heard ... LOL

You learn quickly, young Padawan. But you use the force to produce internet sarcasm, this is not wise.

 

[fastar1]

Essentially yes.

I think if you look back federally and provincially at the decisions made by sitting governments (especially those with a majority), they follow a trend line.

Liberals will almost always raise or introduce new taxes to acquire cash flow. As of late they also seem fine with selling off the publics investment in industry (Hydro One, etc).

Conservatives will cut services to acquire cash flow.

No matter the promises, no matter the person running the show it almost always (imo) seems to go back to basics, how to fleece the taxpayer as it were. If one believes this to be true then you don't really care what name sits next to Premier or PM title.

Personally, i don't care about service cuts. I use public transit like twice a year, i don't have kids or am enrolled in school, my benefits/pay are substantial enough for me to survive an overhaul of the medical system..my choice seems clear.

So yeah, i think if someone is smart; Ignore the jibberjabber and decide how you can best part with your money.

Adequate transit, schools, and healthcare are all in your best interest, even if you never use them. A million dollar gov't cheque with no questions asked is NOT in your best interest, unless you value oligarchy over democracy.

Think about it.

 

[Evoex]

Adequate transit, schools, and healthcare are all in your best interest, even if you never use them. A million dollar gov't cheque with no questions asked is NOT in your best interest, unless you value oligarchy over democracy.

Think about it.

Not sure i feel that's the same thing.

 

[JTR]

Adequate transit, schools, and healthcare are all in your best interest, even if you never use them. A million dollar gov't cheque with no questions asked is NOT in your best interest, unless you value oligarchy over democracy.

Think about it.

Spending more on transit that has ever declining ridership numbers, is not in anyone's best interest. Hamilton for example, transit ridership on a constant decline, lets put in a billion dollar train for the benefit of the few, paid for by everyone in the province. A train btw, that only partially replaces just one bus route. What IS in everyone's best interest however, is lump sum provincial debt repayment. A practice that frees up cash flow later for either investment or lowered taxes.

 

[fastar1]

Spending more on transit that has ever declining ridership numbers, is not in anyone's best interest. Hamilton for example, transit ridership on a constant decline, lets put in a billion dollar train for the benefit of the few, paid for by everyone in the province. A train btw, that only partially replaces just one bus route. What IS in everyone's best interest however, is lump sum provincial debt repayment. A practice that frees up cash flow later for either investment or lowered taxes.

Dunno about the value of the Hamilton project, and I'm not saying any transit, education, or health initiative is justified. I know for a fact some aren't. But there are also clearly some inadequacies and fixing those is good for everyone in the community, not just those who benefit directly.

 

[JTR]

Well that's how we get tricked, right?. There are things that sound good when you say transit, education and healthcare. But they sound different if you say something like billion dollar train to nowhere.