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

Forum Sponsor
Mcdonalds has actually been looking at paying more than minimum wage (in the corporate owned stores) and rather than cut back staff they've been changing the jobs they do. sure you're getting the self serve kiosks in the lobby but then you have the staff that would have been taking orders roaming around checking to see how people are, bringing orders out to people. Some of the franchises have balked at this method but it seems to be working for corporate.
 
LiNK666 said:
Never again. I was a liberal growing up, but now I will never vote for them ever.
Click to expand...

Never say never. All the political parties have had their own share of boondoggles and if they screw up in the future they don't deserve your unwavering vote - they DESERVE to get booted. The people who refuse to change their vote regardless of how bad a political party screws up is what's given us Wynne right now.

I don't have any firm political leanings. Honestly I don't understand the people that vote strictly with a certain political party both federally and provincially regardless of policy. I have voted one way in a provincial election and another way in a federal election, I have changed my vote across parties (both fed and prov) many times, and to me, it makes sense - vote with the person and party who seems to have the best platform and meets your desires and expectations for the country/province moving forward.

If the party screws up or their views or policies change in such a way that you can't feel good about supporting them anymore, vote for someone else, even if it's a different party.
 
RockerGuy said:
Judging by your posts, you do
Click to expand...

Don't misconstrue personal opinions as a marriage to any one political party.

If one party decides that my opinions are their opinions, I'll vote for them. If they suddenly decide that the opposite is true, but another political party takes up that opinion/policy, then I'll vote for them instead.

Harpers fight against science would be a good example - he seemed to think that science was optional, and something that needed to be muted when it was inconvenient to his whims, goals, or desires. I voted conservative/for him at one point, but could no longer stomach that, amongst other things, so when the opportunity presented itself to vote for a new party in the last election that actually understood and appreciated science, I voted for them instead.

Yeah, neither party is perfect and there are aspects of all of them that I both like, and dislike, but again, I take my vote where I feel the country is best served, not where I just feel I "must" vote because of a particular colour. Again, to blindly vote for the same party over and over again gives us Wynne situations.
 
Yeah, it sounds like she's done, but they'll get rid of her and get a new leader. Even so, I think Patrick Brown would be good for 4 years, after that we'll see. I'm not a neo-conservative type, I'm really a libertarian conservative so I never went for Hudak or guys like him. I think dislike among voters of the neo-con agenda is why McGuinty and Wynne got elected. This time even the left-biased Ontario news media can't save the Liberals. It's time for change.
 
PrivatePilot said:
Don't misconstrue personal opinions as a marriage to any one political party.

If one party decides that my opinions are their opinions, I'll vote for them. If they suddenly decide that the opposite is true, but another political party takes up that opinion/policy, then I'll vote for them instead.

Harpers fight against science would be a good example - he seemed to think that science was optional, and something that needed to be muted when it was inconvenient to his whims, goals, or desires. I voted conservative/for him at one point, but could no longer stomach that, amongst other things, so when the opportunity presented itself to vote for a new party in the last election that actually understood and appreciated science, I voted for them instead.

Yeah, neither party is perfect and there are aspects of all of them that I both like, and dislike, but again, I take my vote where I feel the country is best served, not where I just feel I "must" vote because of a particular colour. Again, to blindly vote for the same party over and over again gives us Wynne situations.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. You're a dyed-in-the-wool liberal from your posts. Sounds like you're in denial. I bet 4 out of 5 elections you voted Liberal.
 
Roadghost said:
I don't believe you. You're a dyed-in-the-wool liberal from your posts. Sounds like you're in denial. I bet 4 out of 5 elections you voted Liberal.
Click to expand...

Negative. Last 5 federal elections: liberal, conservative, conservative (Didn't like Dion), NDP (Done with Harper and I liked Layton), NDP (Didn't particularly like Trudeau but liked Harper even less now, and I really thought Mulcair deserved a shot - result wasn't ideal but Harper was booted, so it was a win for me.

And I don't particularly care if you believe me or not.
 
mxs said:
So the above means I should vote the the blue right. What positive changes will they bring, you think? (don't count the obvious one meaning they will avoid the scandals the Libs managed to attract so well, because the conservatives will have their own baggage, every political party does. sooner or later ...).
Click to expand...

PC, Libs, NDP. We've had them all and sooner or later they get the boot. Some might vote Liberal again thinking that they've used up all of their bad ideas.
 
Roadghost said:
Even so, I think Patrick Brown would be good for 4 years, after that we'll see.
Click to expand...

Why do you think he will be good?

A guy virtually invisible to my eye. What can I, middle-classer, expect? Him or his party to be good for my life from policy/tax standpoint? I don't care about church of any kind nor am I worried about sex ed education or pro-life non-sense .... does he has anything in store or me?
 
mxs said:
Why do you think he will be good?

A guy virtually invisible to my eye. What can I, middle-classer, expect? Him or his party to be good for my life from policy/tax standpoint? I don't care about church of any kind nor am I worried about sex ed education or pro-life non-sense .... does he has anything in store or me?
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if an inert lump of jello would be an improvement.
 
mxs said:
Why do you think he will be good?

A guy virtually invisible to my eye. What can I, middle-classer, expect? Him or his party to be good for my life from policy/tax standpoint? I don't care about church of any kind nor am I worried about sex ed education or pro-life non-sense .... does he has anything in store or me?
Click to expand...

Right now they basically have no real platform and are just running on "we are not the Liberals." Classic Canadian least worst approach.

My largest concern with Brown these days... Lots of infighting in the party. He got the leadership by being a social conservative (against Elliott as the progressive). Now he has realized he cannot win the cities, or the election (or maybe he just had an epiphany) so now he is progressive. The good news is that may win him the election and boot the Liberals, the bad news the party is imploding over this because the bigots all feel betrayed and they are mad he favours progressives now.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queens...ario-pc-riding-association-abandons-ship.html

So what if he wins and the party then boots him as leader??? What if we get someone like Monte McNaughton, that is the big risk with them these days.
 
Last edited:
mxs said:
Why do you think he will be good?

A guy virtually invisible to my eye. What can I, middle-classer, expect? Him or his party to be good for my life from policy/tax standpoint? I don't care about church of any kind nor am I worried about sex ed education or pro-life non-sense .... does he has anything in store or me?
Click to expand...
I have to jump in here because that question reflects the type of diseased thinking that is so common everywhere these days yet I believe it's the root cause of why our politics are so bitter and dysfunctional.

The purpose of politics isn't to care for individuals but to make the decisions that benefit the city, province, or country the most taking into consideration the balance of everyone's interests and morals. You're not voting for the Premier of mxs, you're voting for the Premier of Ontario. That's all that politics is; just a decision making process when it involves more than one person. Romantic relationships are political, business deals are political, everything you want to accomplish with someone else involves politics. It's become a bad word but it's an inevitable consequence of not living all alone on a remote island.

Politicians of all parties end up caving in to special interests exactly because those groups demand specific benefits in their own craven self-interest, even at the expense of public good, in exchange for political support. That's what lead to the stupid GO station serving maybe 1000 homes in Kirby at the expense of the tens of thousands in Barrie. Same with the power plant debacle in Oakville.

The reality is a stronger country or province or municipality benefits all its residents. Even if some benefits are directed more to some groups than others, like transit benefits the poor more or subsidies benefit businesses more, there's usually an overall benefit to society in the big picture as long as the plans were based on sound impartial assessments grounded in facts.

An honest politician, when faced with the question of what they're going to do specifically for you, would say "not a goddam thing". But of course they can't be honest because people either haven't thought about, or don't believe, in the benefits they derive from a basic healthy, working society.
 
Is the parliamentary system moot?

It seems that it was a great idea back in the 13th century when the first ‘Commons” elections were held in England, the idea was that people in a particular area would select someone to go to London to represent them and their views in-case they got shafted. It became even more important in the 17th century when the supremacy of parliament was established.

The internet seems to have made that premise somewhat stale.

With the right infrastructure in place, I could propose changes to laws or even new laws, have them seconded and accepted by a quorum, anyone interested can debate them and we can have a doodle poll at the end. Everyone that interested can have their individual vote on any subject.

If we need a head of state pick someone that’s inspiring and deserves it… Rick Hansen, Rohit Ramchandani, Richard Weber.

Just my opinion… Yours may vary
 
fastar1 said:
I have to jump in here because that question reflects the type of diseased thinking that is so common everywhere these days yet I believe it's the root cause of why our politics are so bitter and dysfunctional.

The purpose of politics isn't to care for individuals but to make the decisions that benefit the city, province, or country the most taking into consideration the balance of everyone's interests and morals. You're not voting for the Premier of mxs, you're voting for the Premier of Ontario. That's all that politics is; just a decision making process when it involves more than one person. Romantic relationships are political, business deals are political, everything you want to accomplish with someone else involves politics. It's become a bad word but it's an inevitable consequence of not living all alone on a remote island.

Politicians of all parties end up caving in to special interests exactly because those groups demand specific benefits in their own craven self-interest, even at the expense of public good, in exchange for political support. That's what lead to the stupid GO station serving maybe 1000 homes in Kirby at the expense of the tens of thousands in Barrie. Same with the power plant debacle in Oakville.

The reality is a stronger country or province or municipality benefits all its residents. Even if some benefits are directed more to some groups than others, like transit benefits the poor more or subsidies benefit businesses more, there's usually an overall benefit to society in the big picture as long as the plans were based on sound impartial assessments grounded in facts.

An honest politician, when faced with the question of what they're going to do specifically for you, would say "not a goddam thing". But of course they can't be honest because people either haven't thought about, or don't believe, in the benefits they derive from a basic healthy, working society.
Click to expand...

Premier of mxs ... I love the sound of it. Beer and bike for everyone if that happens.

So, again why should I vote for PC and thus make help Patrick Brown be the premier of this province? I see nothing wrong with the question? Which you really didn't answer ... I guess you don't like me wording the question the way I did. If that's the case, why don't you then tell us why would he be a good premier of this province and PC party be the party to have a chance form the next government?
 
Last edited:
mxs said:
Premier of mxs ... I love the sound of it. Beer and bike for everyone if that happens.

So, again why should I vote for PC and thus make help Patrick Brown be the premier of this province? I see nothing wrong with the question? Which you really didn't answer ... I guess you don't like me wording the question the way I did. If that's the case, why don't you then tell us why would he be a good premier of this province and PC party be the party to have a chance form the next government?
Click to expand...


This, so much this. I'm largely a Conservative at heart and I cant figure out why he would be a good leader, or what the PC's would do for the province besides shout down all the liberals are doing , which is easy, we do it all day here.
 
Delboy said:
Is the parliamentary system moot?

It seems that it was a great idea back in the 13th century when the first ‘Commons” elections were held in England, the idea was that people in a particular area would select someone to go to London to represent them and their views in-case they got shafted. It became even more important in the 17th century when the supremacy of parliament was established.

The internet seems to have made that premise somewhat stale.

With the right infrastructure in place, I could propose changes to laws or even new laws, have them seconded and accepted by a quorum, anyone interested can debate them and we can have a doodle poll at the end. Everyone that interested can have their individual vote on any subject.

If we need a head of state pick someone that’s inspiring and deserves it… Rick Hansen, Rohit Ramchandani, Richard Weber.

Just my opinion… Yours may vary
Click to expand...

The simple answer is quick and efficient policy changes would actually cause complete chaos. The markets do not like instability. Businesses cannot plan ahead if policies change too quickly. Slow changes breed stability (good or bad).
 
mxs said:
Premier of mxs ... I love the sound of it. Beer and bike for everyone if that happens.

So, again why should I vote for PC and thus make help Patrick Brown be the premier of this province? I see nothing wrong with the question? Which you really didn't answer ... I guess you don't like me wording the question the way I did. If that's the case, why don't you then tell us why would he be a good premier of this province and PC party be the party to have a chance form the next government?
Click to expand...
Right, I didn't like the wording because it reflected a very problematic way of thinking that needs to be discussed, probably in most Western democracies.

You're also right that I don't have an answer for the essence of your question. We have a very preliminary idea that Brown will bring the P back to Ontario PCs, but as long as the election is a year away and everybody is hating Wynne I wouldn't expect them to make any particular effort to publicize their platform.
 
Well, the election day will be at some point in Jun 2018, with some campaigning to do (and I believe Brown has a lot to do to make himself known to people outside of his riding), we are talking 6 months before the cycle kicks in ... not that far away.

The last thing I would expect them to do is to rely on how bad Wynne's team has been and somehow think it is slam dunk that their time has finally ome ... remember everyone expected PC to do well after McG boondoggle, then Hudak opened his mouth. So, they should really think about this long and hard, because they have the ability to still **** it up ...
 
mxs said:
Well, the election day will be at some point in Jun 2018, with some campaigning to do (and I believe Brown has a lot to do to make himself known to people outside of his riding), we are talking 6 months before the cycle kicks in ... not that far away.

The last thing I would expect them to do is to rely on how bad Wynne's team has been and somehow think it is slam dunk that their time has finally ome ... remember everyone expected PC to do well after McG boondoggle, then Hudak opened his mouth. So, they should really think about this long and hard, because they have the ability to still **** it up ...
Click to expand...

There's an old line about there being no such thing as bad publicity. The Libs are getting lots of publicity but the PCs aren't attracting media attention and may become the "Who?" party that should have won.

Hudak lost me with his bizarre job math. Should have stuck to counting on his fingers and toes.
 
I started to question Brown early on when the whole sex-ed flipflop BS happened. I refuse to vote for another anti-science lack of common sense person like Harper had become.

I didn't vote for Trudeau and I certainly don't agree with everything he's done (or not done, more often than not) but I am watching the NAFTA negotiations very carefully in particular, as well as how he's handled Trump since day 1. Quietly, cautiously, and very, very strategically, I think that they are threading the needle on both accounts, specifically NAFTA, and I think we are going to come out the other side in a decent position of strength still. Had we had a bombastic PM who came out with guns a blazing at Trump I'm pretty confident we would be coming out the other side black and blue. On the flipside, a PM who just rolled over and capitulated to Trumps demands could have been equally as bad. Finding the middle ground and standing up to him, all while not not pissing him off and staying off his radar for the most part is the magic bit.

Say what you will, but based on what I've read so far (read the whole article, not just the headline) about how Trudeau and the government as a whole are very strategically working all things Trump/NAFTA, I like what I've seen.

I do agree that Brown has an uphill battle ahead of him, especially if Trudeau comes out of the NAFTA renegotiation smelling like roses after showing that he's willing to stand up to Trump - that will be a major feather in Trudeau's cap that Brown simply won't have. And if Brown comes off as that aforementioned bombastic guy who might call up Trump and try to rip him a new a-hole on day one as PM, well...I think the Canadian people understand the risks involved in that, and many will be unwilling to give him the opportunity.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom