Sigma_Orionis wrote:PC, as in Progressive Conservatives, in the US that would be an Oxymoron
He was the master of complex politics at home. He created the first welfare state in the modern world, with the goal of gaining working class support that might otherwise go to his Socialist enemies.
The food-container manufacturer at whose Niagara plant he made the promise, Stanpac, has a factory in Texas, too. Electricity costs are 60 per cent cheaper there, its vice-president said in introducing Hudak. It’s a more attractive place to expand than Ontario is. Hudak fretted about losing business and good jobs to the south.
Texas’s electricity is cheaper. But its electricity system is not a textbook example of greatness.
Its structure is similar to Ontario’s: it has local delivery companies that own the wires and are mostly monopolies, and they’re distinct from the generating companies that make the electricity the wires carry.
Texas’s generating companies are mostly private, which is unlike Ontario. The biggest of them, TXU Energy, with about 1.7 million customers, was taken over in a leveraged buyout in 2007. Loaded up with the billions of dollars in debt its new owners took on to acquire it, TXU’s parent company killed plans to open eight coal-powered generating stations it had expected to construct (it still set out to build three).
Two weeks ago, TXU’s parent filed for bankruptcy protection. Regulators have stepped in to promise Texans their light switches will still work.
It didn’t help TXU to have its coal-based electricity undercut by natural-gas prices that have plunged thanks to fracking, which is huge in Texas. That’s the underlying reason electricity is so cheap there: Texas sits on a vast reserve of shale gas and producers are shattering the ground to siphon it out.
It’s a jurisdiction whose administration of electricity actually makes Ontario’s look good.
The Supreme Canuck wrote:..... I definitely agree that this is a "lesser evil" election. I just don't think we'll agree on who the lesser evil is.
But it’s disingenuous of the Tories to suggest they are implementing the Drummond plan. What they’re doing is picking and choosing the bits they like best. The one about chopping 9,700 “non-teaching positions,” including educational assistants? That’s in the PC plan, as “per Drummond.” (Apparently referencing “Drummond” is supposed to make us unquestioningly accept virtually any cost-cutting measure.)
On the other hand, Hudak simply ignored Drummond’s specific warning not to freeze wages. In fact, the PCs pledge to do just that. Wage freezes are the single biggest line-item savings the party is predicting — $2.15 billion by 2015.
And in vowing to slash 100,000 public-sector jobs, Hudak obviously isn’t adhering to Drummond’s advice to “avoid setting targets for the size of the civil service.”
It’s not that Drummond doesn’t believe in shrinking the number of provincial workers. But for the economist (who’s declining interviews during the election), cuts aren’t the starting point — they’re the natural result of a leaner, re-thought government. And that’s the thing about the Drummond report: it’s a 500-plus page thesis advocating a whole-scale reform of government. It’s heady, complex stuff — not a buffet of cost-cutting options from which a political party can choose to suit its agenda of the day.
Take the 30 per cent tuition grant. The PCs will cut it just like Drummond, they say. While the Drummond report does call for scrapping that grant, it also calls for targeting “more of the assistance to low-income students whose access is most likely to be compromised by financial obstacles.” But there’s no mention of helping poorer students in Hudak’s plan.
Now, you have to give the Tories credit for being upfront about the painful measures they’ll take if elected. That’s more than most political parties would do. But they haven’t been completely honest about exactly what services may be diminished, exactly which jobs will be cut.
Q How seriously should we take the Tories’ numbers, then?
A Zycher’s projections might be fine on their own, but they can’t reasonably be used to forecast the economy under a Tory government because they aren’t based on the policy proposals the Tories have been making. If Hudak would govern Ontario the way Zycher thinks he should, he isn’t saying so.
Now, let me be blunt: Michelle Obama, the product of lifelong affirmative-action coddling, is an intellectual lightweight who fancies herself a serious thinker. Just read her Princeton senior thesis, an intermittently coherent stream-of-consciousness pile of leftist jargon, campus pseudo-seriousness, and racial-identity babble. Can there be any doubt that the Princeton administrators accepted it only because of her skin colour?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests