He's on TV talking about his 'one million' job plan.

Yet he'll cut 100,000 jobs in healthcare if he's elected.


Gotta love conservatives.

LOL at "Hudak Math" being a valid campaign point because of Hudak's one million job plan

Tim Hudak rejects economists' criticism of his math - LOL this guy is so out of it!

Originally Posted by Phoneup

He's on TV talking about his 'one million' job plan.

Yes it poorly named, misleading, and pretty pathetic.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Yet he'll cut 100,000 jobs in healthcare if he's elected.

Now where you getting this information... because Ive read the platform and watched the debate.

Promise:
To cut 100,000 Jobs in the PUBLIC (not just healthcare) sector of the current 1.2 Million.

Primary Way To Accomplish Goal:
Via Attrition (aka not re-hiring new workers after those who retire leave)

Primary Public Sectors Affected:
1) Energy (OPG directly mentioned)
2) Governance (Cabinet)
3) Middle regulatory bodies. Aka councils and boards for approving any number of things. These committees were usually created as make work projects in the first place.

Mostly Safe Public Sectors (those that will not see cuts .. or see minimal cuts):
1) Healthcare (specifically mentioned to receive funding to aquire more jobs)
2) Education (unions are too strong to allow anyways)
3) Policing (typically police and military budgets increase the more right you go)


Note that the vast majority of the union hate is directed to the 2 year pay freeze in all public sectors.

Originally Posted by Phoneup

Gotta love conservatives.

The conservatives do not have a strong platform and a leader rated as very "untrustworthy". Under normal circumstances ( a strong opposition) the liberals would not stand a chance of even a minority. Long time in office, insane deficit, and scandal after scandal. Harper should face the same problems with the next federal election.

Originally Posted by qwerty91

Yes it poorly named, misleading, and pretty pathetic.

Now where you getting this information... because Ive read the platform and watched the debate.

Promise:
To cut 100,000 Jobs in the PUBLIC (not just healthcare) sector of the current 1.2 Million.

Primary Way To Accomplish Goal:
Via Attrition (aka not re-hiring new workers after those who retire leave)

Primary Public Sectors Affected:
1) Energy (OPG directly mentioned)
2) Governance (Cabinet)
3) Middle regulatory bodies. Aka councils and boards for approving any number of things. These committees were usually created as make work projects in the first place.

Mostly Safe Public Sectors (those that will not see cuts .. or see minimal cuts):
1) Healthcare (specifically mentioned to receive funding to aquire more jobs)
2) Education (unions are too strong to allow anyways)
3) Policing (typically police and military budgets increase the more right you go)


Note that the vast majority of the union hate is directed to the 2 year pay freeze in all public sectors.



The conservatives do not have a strong platform and a leader rated as very "untrustworthy". Under normal circumstances ( a strong opposition) the liberals would not stand a chance of even a minority. Long time in office, insane deficit, and scandal after scandal. Harper should face the same problems with the next federal election.

Hudak’s plan to slash about 10 per cent of the provincial public service would mean fewer firefighters, water inspectors, teachers, personal support workers, nurses and therapists, Wynne warned at a campaign event with nurses in Toronto.

Hudak maintains his planned cuts would not impact health care, police services or water inspectors, but Wynne questioned how he could keep that pledge.

“That that could be done without affecting health care is, I think, questionable at best,” she said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A growing chorus of economists says Tim Hudak vastly inflated the number of jobs his signature Million Jobs Plan would create, largely because the Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader made a basic arithmetic mistake with his own data.

The economists, including three former federal finance department officials, say some of Mr. Hudak’s policies would actually create just one-fifth the number of jobs he claims. His central error, they said, was conflating person years of employment – how many people would have work for a single year – with permanent jobs."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Tory leader has already said that teachers will be targeted. He also vowed to eliminate agencies like the Ontario Power Authority, Local Health Integration Networks and the College of Trades.

More about LHIN:

Prior to the formation of LHINs, health care services in Ontario were fragmented and many health care providers delivered care in isolation. Patients and their loved ones were forced to make their own way through a very complex health system as they moved from one health service provider to another.
LHINs were created to change all that. In March 2006, the Local Health System Integration Act, 2006 transformed the way our health care system is managed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hudak said in February that he would not pursue right to work legislation if he becomes premier. But now his claims for a million jobs rely in part on right to work laws coming to Ontario. That means either Hudak is still committed to the idea or the analysis is even more deeply flawed. Either way, we can’t trust the numbers.

The Conservatives’ own analysis claims that Hudak’s regulatory changes would mean a one-time boost of 10,600 jobs. But once the Conservative campaign team got its hands on the research, the claim was inflated to 84,800 jobs, or 10,600 in each of the next eight years.
That’s a far cry from the one-time boost their analysis predicted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The PCs would also scrap the 30% post-secondary tuition break, the seniors Healthy Home Renovation tax credit, local health integration networks...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tim Hudak is promising to fire 10,000 education workers, fire 2,000 health care workers, he'll cancel infrastructure projects across the province," said Duguid, referring to recent PC platform releases called 'white papers.' "Tim Hudak's 'right-to-work-for-less' plan also explicitly calls for lower wages for Ontario workers. He wants jobs that don't pay a living wage."[/b][/b]

Something I realized yesterday, was that There aren't 1,000,000 free employees in Ontario to fill these jobs. Let's say he did all the math right and he created 1,000,000 jobs, then most of these jobs wouldn't even be filled. Here is my logic with all numbers from Statscan.

So the the unemployment rate in Ontario in 2012 was 7.8% and currently, just shy of 7,000,000 are employed in Ontario. This means that there are roughly 7.6 million people in the workforce, with about 600k being unemployed. Even with cutting 100,000 public service jobs, that means that 300,000 jobs will not be filled assuming he made his plan work and was elected.

So basically even though he is sticking that his plan will work with bad math, there would actually be no benefit of electing him and even with my numbers above, small amounts of unemployment are ok. I have no idea why he decided to make that the main part of his campaign.

Edit:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...abr66g-eng.htm
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pic... 3&id=1095324

Without question, Hudak's math is flawed. Of greater concern is the lack of foresight in his plan. Whether you create 10 or 1000000 job, you need public services for those people. Health care and police and fire but also people to grant permits for buildings and inspectors for restaurants.

Yes many unions are strong. But having worked in a job that was unionized and in the public sector, it does not always mean that you will be appropriately compensated or protected. When you work with the disadvantaged in this province, you are paid according to how THEY, the disabled, the vulnerable, are valued. And most politicians do not value those members of society highly at all.

Tim Hudak is a moron who in the past two elections has singlehandedly sunk his party's chances of winning with ridiculous platforms.

If the PCs had a Red Tory leader and a more moderate platform, I'd vote for them. This Liberal government has been beyond irresponsible so unless they disappoint me before then I'll be voting NDP.

I fear the best thing that will come from this election will be the resignation of Tim Hudak.

I suggest you all check out the debates... the leaders debate as well as those in your ridings. The Sil is streaming the AFDW debate that took place in MUSC last week. Get out there and vote, even if it's just to decline your ballot. This election has the potential to have a very big impact on our generation.

I am voting Wynne because she is a female and also openly gay. Tim Hudak is a homophobic shitlord who try to destroy Ontario.

Originally Posted by topkek

I am voting Wynne because she is a female and also openly gay. Tim Hudak is a homophobic shitlord who try to destroy Ontario.

You shouldn't be voting for someone simply based on their gender or sexual orientation. You should be electing a person based on their platform.

Originally Posted by topkek

I am voting Wynne because she is a female and also openly gay. Tim Hudak is a homophobic shitlord who try to destroy Ontario.

I would love for Wynne to be elected, because it would be nice to see that the majority of people aren't refusing to vote for her on the basis of her gender or sexual orientation. Of course, even if the Liberals do not win, that's not necessarily something to be blamed on her gender or sexual orientation - the Liberals definitely have more pressing issues that people are (or should be) concerned about, and these issues could very well cost them the election regardless of their leader's gender/sexual orientation.

Where exactly are you getting your information that Hudak is homophobic? I seem to recall one of the Rob Ford recordings showing Ford saying that he would refuse to vote for Hudak because Hudak supported LGBTQ people, by supporting having the pride flag at City Hall during the Olympics.
Obviously that one act doesn't make him not homophobic, but I'm wondering where you get your information that he is.

You should vote based on the platform. Like I said, I'd love for a gay premier to be elected, but if Hudak was gay, absolutely nothing would make me vote for him, because the idea of him as premier - especially in a majority government - is rather terrifying.

Originally Posted by topkek

I am voting Wynne because she is a female and also openly gay. Tim Hudak is a homophobic shitlord who try to destroy Ontario.

no offense, i get angry when people vote because of these reasons. (similar to when people voted for Obama because he was black). try to get educated and look at each parties agenda. IMO, i wouldn't mind wynne winning (i prefer NDP) but i agree hudak should not win because he has confusing polices among other things. also where did you get the info of him being a homophobic?

Let's be honest: any number given by any party in any election is inflated, biased, aspirational and mathematically challenged. The issues with the PC numbers have been discussed in this thread, but let's not forget that the proposed Liberal budget that triggered this election was full of bad math as well. If you can find an example of a political platform based on sound unbiased numbers then you've just discovered the political equivalent of a living woolly mammoth, so please share.

In an election campaign, numbers are just thrown out there to distract people by getting them to debate over who's numbers are better, rather than debating the substance of the issues. The real debate in this election (at least as it relates to the platforms) is the importance of the debt and deficit vs. the needs of our public services. Since this is a complex debate with no easy answers the leaders would rather talk about "1000000 jobs" vs. "0 deficit in 2017" and nit-pick over who's bad math is worse. As university students this debate is beneath us.

Originally Posted by samd

Let's be honest: any number given by any party in any election is inflated, biased, aspirational and mathematically challenged. The issues with the PC numbers have been discussed in this thread, but let's not forget that the proposed Liberal budget that triggered this election was full of bad math as well. If you can find an example of a political platform based on sound unbiased numbers then you've just discovered the political equivalent of a living woolly mammoth, so please share.

In an election campaign, numbers are just thrown out there to distract people by getting them to debate over who's numbers are better, rather than debating the substance of the issues. The real debate in this election (at least as it relates to the platforms) is the importance of the debt and deficit vs. the needs of our public services. Since this is a complex debate with no easy answers the leaders would rather talk about "1000000 jobs" vs. "0 deficit in 2017" and nit-pick over who's bad math is worse. As university students this debate is beneath us.

This is such an extremely flawed logic....I'm lost for words...

Originally Posted by Phoneup

This is such an extremely flawed logic....I'm lost for words...

Nice rebuttal, very thorough and thought provoking.

Originally Posted by samd

Nice rebuttal, very thorough and thought provoking.

Why would I even bother with a rebuttal. I don't bother explaining my position when people have such a flawed logic. And when there is also a lack of common sense.