Andrea Horwath

Free tuition exists in some European countries but in each case these are places where the proportion of the population that attends university is vastly lower than in Ontario - and in most cases these are also countries with sales tax of 23-25% and much higher income taxes as well. It remains to be seen whether people in Ontario - currently the most indebted sub-national government in the world - would go along with hiking the HST to 23% and bringing marginal tax rates to 60% - all for the sake oif free tuition. But there are certainly other less drastic steps that could be taken to make PSE more affordable

Horwath is so full of shit. Free tuition, yeah sure, like public auto insurance 25 years ago. Liars and grandstanders. Same with the $15 minimum wage. When it counted (like, when running for office), she refused to adopt that demand of the social movement. If she had the slightest bit of principle or integrity, she could start by emulating Newfoundland/Labrador or Québec. We didn't get there by generosity of big-hearted politicians. It was generations of struggle by students, and the struggle isn't over.

Stockholm wrote:

Free tuition exists in some European countries but in each case these are places where the proportion of the population that attends university is vastly lower than in Ontario - and in most cases these are also countries with sales tax of 23-25% and much higher income taxes as well. It remains to be seen whether people in Ontario - currently the most indebted sub-national government in the world - would go along with hiking the HST to 23% and bringing marginal tax rates to 60% - all for the sake oif free tuition. But there are certainly other less drastic steps that could be taken to make PSE more affordable

Perhaps a modest increase in the corporate tax rate would help. Also, if students graduate without being buried under a mountain of debt, they have more money to put back into the economy, which means more tax revenue, which contributes to offsetting the cost of not charging tuition. When you see other countries going tuition-free, without their economies collapsing, it doesn't look so "drastic".

Ontario currently has a $12 billion dollar deficit AND we need massive amounts of new money in the health care system just to avoid major cuts in services AND we need major new money in education, just to avoid more cuts to special needs and more schools being closed and we need to spend about $30B over the next few years on transit and infrastructure just to stop being strangled in grislock AND we need massive new money for the environment AND we need massive new money for legal aid AND we need massive new cash infusions to deal with aboriginal communities AND welfare rates are way too low and need to be boosted AND we need universal, free child care...how do you propose to address every single one of those priotities AND make all higher education 100% free, plus stipends for students without rasing the HST to about 30%. The idea that you could pay for all of this by raising the corporate tax rate "modestly" is the kind of magical thinking that made the federal NDP platform become an object of ridicule in the last federal election.

I think Horwath has done okay.  To my knowledge she was the first political leader in recent times in all of Canada who advocated for a raise in taxes on the very rich, making this (along with raising ODSP and OW rates) a condition of her continued support of the Liberals when they had a minority.  Bear in mind that, with the exception of Topp and Cullen, ALL the fed leadership candidates during the last fed NDP leadership campaign opposed raising taxes on the rich as too risky (and that includes Nash, Saganash, and Ashton).  Horwath taking this stand made it a more acceptable idea.  Also, last Ontario provincial election, they opposed the Liberal budget because they rightly saw that the Liberals were planning on moving toward privatizing Hydro One and possibly the LCBO as well (that budget was littered with phrases like "divestment" or "asset optimization" -- it was not a progressive budget).  Horwath rightly said, "you can't heat the house by burning the furniture." 

Speaking of Wynne privatizing Hydro One, here's a good article from Fred Hahn:  http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2016/08/kathleen-wynne-t...

Quote:

Despite a litany of expert criticism of the plan and extensive polling demonstrating huge public opposition, the premier seems to believe that her desire for short-term cash is worth the substantial long-term costs to the government and everyone's hydro-bills.

The other thing is that Horwath has increased the NDP's vote share and seat count each time (maintained it last time considering by-election wins, but did beat the previous election), expanding into new areas as well (though losing a lot of the fickle Toronto seats, admittedly).

I do feel they should move beyond the "increase the corporate tax" and/or "raise taxes on the rich" and just bite the bullet and say the government needs more revenue, Liberal and Conservate tax cuts over the last twenty years have been wrong, and then raise everyone's taxes (except the first bracket -- IE, the second bracket up by 0.5%, the third up by 1.0%, the fourth up by 1.5%, and the fifth up by 2.0% -- or something like that).  And certainly also stick with raising corporate taxes.  Something very noteable about the recent Liberal budget is how they equate having the 2nd lowest corporate tax rate of the provinces (only BC being lower) as a "job creator".  What jobs?  Precarious retail?  It's ridiculous.  The Liberals have to go.

I think you're confusing platforms with policies.  I'm not even sure that the Ontario NDP has a policy book.  Presumably there's resolutions upon which platforms are based.  I dunno.  But like I said, I feel the Ontario NDP next time should not only promise to raise corporate taxes but also everyone's personal income tax rates (except the first bracket) as well.  By what amount exactly I'll leave to better minds than mine to determine.  I also don't think they should promise an increase in the HST, since I don't feel it's good to increase flat consumption taxes.  They may wanna propose to redo the health care premium too, since it's not properly progressive, in my opinion.

When I look at this latest poll to me it reflects the NDP weakness. The Liberal government in Ontario is a shabby and incompetent outfit with a wildly unpopular leader and yet the NDP can't seem to overtake them.

Like I said, I dunno.  Maybe a failed campaign strategy since they came third though.  But regardless they did increase their vote share somewhat, and they took a stand against privatization and in favour of increasing corporate taxes (regardless of amount), so I'm not overly critical.  Of course they're not good enough for you -- after all, they are the NDP.

Quote:

When I look at this latest poll to me it reflects the NDP weakness. The Liberal government in Ontario is a shabby and incompetent outfit with a wildly unpopular leader and yet the NDP can't seem to overtake them.

We are talking about Ontario.  Here the population is even more critically obsessed with the NDP's past than even the most obsessed of posters here is while simultaneously kissing the Liberal boot that keeps kicking them in the face.

Her being one of the first in recent times to advocate raising taxes on the rich rather than cutting services (or she'd withdraw support) was a great action that drew a line in the sand.  Her drawing a line in the sand and withdrawing support from the government over the budget that clearly hinted at privatizing both the LCBO and Hydro One and other assets too (that budget being littered with language like "divestment" or "asset optimization") was a great action, in spite of fools who proclaimed the budget as the "most progressive budget in modern times" and sent daggers her way.  She's more than worthy of support, in my opinion.

They made a gain in the vote share and in the seats from the last election.  They lost Toronto, but gained elsewhere. 

Privatization is a tricky issue to campaign on given many people's (misplaced, IMO) antipathy to public institutions.  Recall that Hampton campaigned on "public power", and this did not result in gains for the NDP.  I loved Hampton's campaign, but Ontario voters obviously didn't. 

radiorahim wrote:

Just a trip down memory lane.  Here's a link to the rather inarticulate interview that Horwath gave to CBC Radio's "Metro Morning" after pulling the plug on the Liberals in the spring of 2014.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2454494372/

Horwath spoke of privatization issues in this interview and after blowing it, never spoke of them again for the rest of the campaign, choosing instead to run on "pocketbook populism" and $100 per year hydro rebates.

Horwath stated that the Liberals planned to "privatize the TTC"...and that's what made the headlines.   It was a statement that the Liberals were easily able to dismiss.

It's quite true that there is a great deal of rather convoluted "P3" crap going on with TTC expansion (and other stuff), but no plans to directly "privatize the TTC".

Horwath and the ONDP braintrust pulled the plug on the Liberals without any kind of well thought out game plan for an election campaign.   It was a disaster.

The real issue with Horwath's campaign is that she had effectively been Wynne's junior partner in a de facto coalition and could not clearly communicate why she felt the need to suddenly turn on them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/ndp-pushes-for-union-bolstering-m...

Quote:

The provincial NDP announced today that it is calling for two measures that the party says will make it easier for people to join a union.

The NDP says it will push for card check certification and first contract arbitration legislation — a move NDP leader Andrea Horwath heralded as a move towards better pay, jobs and benefits.

The first measure, card check certification, is a proposal that any workplace can unionize when 55 per cent of workers at a workplace sign a card stating they want to join a union.

It was the standard in Ontario from 1950 to 1995, when it was removed by the Mike Harris government.

The Liberals partially restored the practice in 2005 — but only for construction workplaces, the NDP says.

The second proposal, first contract arbitration, would allow newly unionized workplaces an automatic right to binding arbitration within 60 days of forming a bargaining unit.

[..]

Ontario's current Labour Relations Act does allow for binding arbitration when a first collective agreement can't be reached, but only at the discretion of the Minister.

Horwath maintained that the "best pathway for people into the middle class" is to join a union, and that these measures would help facilitate that.

[..]

Horwath says that in some circles, unions are still feared — but she maintains it's the best way to make a decent living, pointing to the "strong labour roots" of the city.

"I grew up in a unionized city and a unionized household," she said.

http://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/does-the-ndp-dare-to-dream-again-

Horwath seems to have learned some lessons from the previous election. A few months ago, she came up with a promise to re-nationalize Hydro One, as part of a plan to lower electricity rates. Today, I got an email from the ONDP announcing a universal pharmacare plan. If they aren't careful, someone might begin to think they are a left wing party.

toaster wrote:

 

None of the choices right now are exciting anyone, and with this same old, uninspired ideas, you cannot start a movement.  You want passionate volunteers?  You want young people?  Start a revolution.  Talk about free post-secondary tuition in Ontario for all.  Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others (Catholic schools).  Talk [more] about a 15$ minimum wage for everybody.  Talk about a universal provincial pharmacare program.  Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding. Talk about basic income for all. It's baffling to me that the ONDP has not adopted these positions in 2016.  Most people seem to be against the Hydro sell-off but that is not resonating with voters, obviously at 17%.  Watching the Bernie Vs Clinton race has given me hope.  I, like many of those I see who are standing up for what they believe in (Bernie or Bust), will not stand for the lesser or two (or 3) evils.  Let's organize now so we are ready when the time comes.  I really hope I'll be able to support Horwath come election time.

She's starting to listen to me!!!  :D

I think that the privatization of Hydro has been such a complete and utter disaster in Ontario that re-nationalization (although I would message it as something like "return to public ownership") could actually be a winner, even in the current political climate. It certainly comes across as a bold, progressive policy move that underlines how beholden the supposedly "progressive, left-wing" Wynne Liberals truly are to corporate interests. I think progressives need to do a better job of making the case for public ownership of infrastructure and utilities by pointing out the fact that contrary to what we've been told by generations of neoliberal politicians and policy-makers, private ownership of these assets does NOT result in lower costs for consumers or better levels of service - in fact quite the opposite. Horwath's task is to convince people that if elected, she won't run away from this promise at the slightest sign of pushback (viz. Rae's abandonment of public auto insurance). 

Quote:

Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others

Quote:

Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding.

Just curious, but do you really, genuinely believe that either or both of these is the sort of bread and butter issue that motivates voters?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Talk about doing away with special funding for one religion above all others

Quote:

Talk about expanding referrals for those requiring sex reassignment surgery, and provide full funding.

Just curious, but do you really, genuinely believe that either or both of these is the sort of bread and butter issue that motivates voters?

 

I do think it could convince those on the left-end of the Liberal party to jump ship, if the NDP framed it properly, particularly in the downtown Toronto ridings (for the second point you mentioned).  How could a Liberal candidate defend not wanting to provide increased funding / more referral access (removal of the double "Prior approval" for certain surgeries,  loopholes/red tape, long wait lists) for trans people in downtown Toronto against an NDP candidate who says they will change the broken system.

In terms of the education issue, I tend to think most people today, even Catholics, don't agree with Catholic schools receiving public funding. The only argument I've heard is that "it's the way it's always been".  And while this may be anecdotal, many of my family members are traditional Italian catholics, and even with them, they see it as discriminatory, and more, a waste/duplication of money in 2017. Getting rid of public money for religious schools is also a way to add credibility to their plans of being able to do all the things they want to/should be doing.  And even if people don't understand it from an equity stance, if it means their Hydro bills will go down, I really don't think Ontarian's would care about getting rid of the Catholic systems.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

How could a Liberal candidate defend not wanting to provide increased funding / more referral access (removal of the double "Prior approval" for certain surgeries,  loopholes/red tape, long wait lists) for trans people in downtown Toronto against an NDP candidate who says they will change the broken system.

Not trying to help the Liberals with this, but I suppose they could say "there are also people waiting on prohibitively expensive drugs or wishing for other de-listed procedures, and we can't do everything unless you're all OK paying tons more in taxes".

I'm sure that trans-people who want surgery would suggest that that surgery should be covered under OHIP (or any other provincial equivalent).  But trans-people are also the ones who say "Women can have a penis too -- get over it".  If the piece of dangly flesh isn't what it's really all about, why would we bump removing that flesh to the head of the line, in terms of funding?

More to the point, I don't think this is particularly important to anyone except trans-people.

Quote:

The only argument I've heard is that "it's the way it's always been".

Then here's another:  "It's in the Constitution".

FWIW, I don't agree with it either, but it's not just a matter of some politician "having the courage" to sign a document and just do away with it.

Here's my thinking:  don't say "The NDP should do all of those things that *I* want".  Find out what really, actually matters to the electorate and do what *they* want.  Frankly, the trans thing and the church thing read like personal hobby-horses.

Precisely things I think are just and what I think most young progressive people want.  There's a difference between things anybody wants (" Give me 1 million dollars just because), and what I think makes good policy.  I tend to believe politicians should aim to do what is right, rather than what is popular or what will easily get them elected.    Both of the items listed follow that principle.  Your logic (doing what the "majority" or "they" as you call it) would not have been beneficial if public opinions on same sexy marriage at the time, aborition, and other things where taken into consideration when making decisions.

Horvath has no chance of ever winning Ontario. It will just get handed back and forth from Conservative to Liberal until she is forced out. She is bereft of charisma, ideas and courage. Unfortunately, for the NDP, they seem gifted at choosing leaders for which the leadership of the party is a big step up in income, meaning they will cling to the leadership as long as is humanly possible. 

Any leadership approval polls she wins, is the result of hardcore NDP'ers and a reflection of how disliked Brown and Wynne are. If she can't win, with those two running, she never will. 

NorthReport wrote:

How Andrea Horwath could win the Ontario election

The NDP may be starting out in third place, but Cochrane and Thomas say that if Horwath can convince enough voters that she can provide a change in leadership from Wynne without turning the province in a different direction, she could unite the left and win.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/features/how-andrea-horwath-could-win-the-ontario...

According to the latest Forum poll, the NDP may well be on the way as THE ALTERNATIVE to Fordism as they are now second in the polls with 28% to 21% for the Liberals. 

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2838/ontario-horserace-april-2018/

NorthReport wrote:

Sweet!

Statement from NDP Leader Andrea Horwath on Hydro One executive salaries

 

“Skyrocketing bills and outrageous executive salaries are a direct result of the privatization of Hydro One – which Doug Ford strongly supports. Firing every executive at Hydro One just creates a bunch of openings for more million-dollar executives to take their place, as long as it’s a private corporation.

 

The Wynne Liberals knew this would happen, and they privatized Hydro One anyways – and the Ford Conservatives have no plan to undo that damage. In fact, Ford wants to cut public services further, and keep privatising the assets built and owned by hardworking Ontarians.

 

Meanwhile, everyday families are stuck paying sky-high bills, with no relief in sight.

 

The only way to rein in outrageous executive salaries and bring hydro rates down for everyone is to own and control Hydro One again. New Democrats will bring Hydro One back into public hands, rein in executive salaries, and lower everyone’s hydro bills by about 30 per cent.”

https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2018/04/20/statement-from-ndp-leader-and...

Yeah I'm not saying executives at Hydro One don't make too much, but cutting their salaries isn't going to affect hydro prices by any significant amount. Those salaries are a drop in the bucket compared to the $24 billion in interest we'll pay for short term rate relief.

Of course I'm not going to pull my vote over this issue, but it's setting yourself up for failure to promise you'll reduce rates by 30% when that's practically impossible (unless the NDP is planning to switch to cheaper and dirtier energy - unlikely) and certainly not possible in the way you'll say you do it.

Say the NDP wins, and hydro bills either stay the same or go up (which is what will happen if the only corrective action taken is to save a few mil in salaries). How does that make them look? Either untrustworthy or incompetent. Why do people hate the Liberals again?