Disingenuous At Best, Hypocritical At Worst

To listen to post-election Ontario Tories and to take them at their word would suggest that the lot of them were simply dupes of Machiavellian forces over which they had no control. Up to and including the day of the election, they all appeared to be solidly behind their leader and his plans. After their abject failure to win the hearts and minds of Ontarians, that narrative quickly changed, most notably in Lisa MacLeod's disavowal of both her leader and his program.

The latest exercise in what many would describe as arrant hypocrisy was evident in newly-appointed Tory interim leader Jim Wilson's public musings yesterday:

Coming from a former cabinet minister during the savage Mike Harris years, Wilson's disavowal of both tactics and tone are a little hard to take seriously. Consider this statement:

... the party has been “attacking people for a decade and in my heart and my caucus colleagues heart we not that kind of people . . . we are going to be Progressive Conservatives.”

Not that kind of people, eh? Well, perhaps Mr. Wilson could tell us exactly what kind of people enthusiastically put forward their names to run as candidates for a party that thrives on division, whether the attacks it has so wholeheartedly embraced over the years have been directed against teachers, union bosses, the Rand formula, civil servants and their 'gold-plated pensions,' progressive taxation, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

And while we're at it, he might also address what kind of people, as soon as they are denied power, so openly and ignominiously turn on their erstwhile leader? To be sure, young Tim Hudak was never fit to lead the province, but that apparently was never obvious to his many 'loyalists,' who unsheathed their knives with such unseemly dispatch as soon as the direction of the political winds became apparent to them.

What kind of people are the Progressive Conservatives, Jim? Allow me to try to answer that. They are opportunistic, cynical people who, now frustrated because of a failed strategy, are desperate to reinvent themselves into a party of inclusion and sensitivity. In other words, since all else has failed, they have decided it is time to try that 'sincerity thing.'

Trouble is, Jim, people can spot insincere sincerity a mile away. Next strategy, anyone?

Lisa MacLeod Revisited

The other day I wrote a commentary on recently re-elected Nepean-Carlton Ontario Progressive Conservative Lisa MacLeod. In a thinly-disguised job application/op-ed piece for the Star, Ms. MacLeod talked about what is needed for revitalized leadership of her party, brought to electoral ruin by the soon-to-be-departed leader Tim Hudak. Perhaps not surprisingly, MacLeod's prescription for renewal seemed to reflect her 'skillset.'

It is a self-assessment with which not everyone agrees. In today's Toronto Star, two letter-writers point out what the party needs, and their prescriptions do not seem to include Ms. MacLeod:

Re: Ontario Tories need fresh leadership, Opinion June 24

When I read drivel such as this penned by Lisa MacLeod, it is difficult to drum up any optimism about the futures of Ontario, or its Progressive Conservative Party.

The Tories lost the election for one reason: incompetence on a massive scale. Instead of running with a few things that would have resonated with the vast majority of voters (hydro rates, and debt load on our children’s shoulders), true to form they handed their opponents coils of rope and voluntarily built the scaffolds.
It is quite apparent that Lisa MacLeod is positioning herself for a run at the leadership of the party, and I would extend a caution to anyone who might be under the impression that her fresh face is the ticket to party rejuvenation.

I met Ms MacLeod several years ago at a public meeting in rural Ottawa. Her personal brand of politics differs little from the all-too-familiar version: politics is nothing but the acquisition and retention of power — decency and concern be damned.
And the fact that she ran away from a discussion about our declining property rights shows that she really isn’t much different from Mr. Hudak, or the Liberals and the NDP, for that matter.

Jamie MacMaster, North Glengarry

MPP Lisa MacLeod could have saved a lot of ink and space by simply writing: pick me, pick me!

She is already looking to the next election. Listen up Tories: Ontarians don’t like elections. They cost money. Our money.

What we want for the Ontario Tories is a leader with intelligence, integrity, candour, honesty, a social conscience, and especially, the ability to work with all parties, to find the best solutions for Ontarians’ needs. Not your party’s needs.

That pretty much rules out all the old baggage carriers from the Mike Harris years – like Tony Clement and the neocons/Tea Partiers like Lisa Raitt.
Oh, and Lisa MacLeod.

“Red” Tories it’s time to take back the party.

Susan Ruddle, Waterdown

The Blame Game

The fact that I experienced physical and verbal abuse at the hands of my teachers during my Catholic education probably has a lot to do with my visceral response to arrogance. Having someone presume to sit in judgement on another is both a humiliating and ultimately enraging experience, one that most of us have probably experienced at some point in our lives; however, even that realization does not not in any way make the experience more acceptable or palatable.

It is therefore within the above context that I take great exception to politicians who presume to lecture us on our shortcomings as voters. Either we are the victims of 'the politics of fear,' according to Andrea Horwath, or the dupe of unions, or the failure of Tim Hudak's leadership, both of which are popular views of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Consider what a truculent, unrepentant Horwath had to say after finally emerging from hiding on Wednesday:

The NDP leader insisted Wednesday her party lost on June 12 because the Liberals frightened Ontarians into voting against the Progressive Conservatives.
“Look, the people in this province, they made a decision to basically choose fear — or to vote out of fear — as opposed to choose positive change,” she said.

Just in case we might prove resistant to such a simplistic and insulting analysis, the NDP leader repeated and expanded upon her insights:

“Out of fear, the people of Ontario voted. They strategically voted to keep Mr. Hudak’s plan off of the books . . . . That’s their decision to make,” she said of the PC leader who will step down July 2.

“That means we have a lot of work to do around the strategic voting issue.”

Apparently not given to much introspection, she has not considered stepping down as leader, telling all assembled that it was “absolutely not” a bad idea to force the election by rejecting the May 1 budget.

The Star's Martin Regg Cohn takes a less enthusiastic view of Horwath's 'achievement.' In his article, entitled Andrea Horwath shows hubris over humility, Cohn points out an objective truth:

News flash for New Democrats: The NDP lost three key Toronto MPPs and elected three rookies in smaller cities, winding up right where it started — in third place with 21 of the legislature’s 107 seats. .... Horwath lost the balance of power she’d wielded since 2011. No longer can New Democrats influence a minority government agenda.

Cohn is puzzled by the oddly triumphant tone that Horwath has adopted in light of her non-achievement:

And what has she learned? Party members and union leaders “have all said to me you’re doing great, you’re a good leader, stay on.”

Reporter: “You said you have no regrets with the campaign, but are there any mistakes that you might have made during this campaign?”

Horwath: “We were able to connect with a whole bunch of people that decided to vote NDP for the first time ever. We’re excited about that.”

Mistakes? She can’t think of any.

It would appear that Ms Horwath may have to await the mandatory leadership review at her party's convention in November to be brought down from her current lofty perch of hubris.

In case you are interested in how the Progressive Conservatives rationalize their loss, Steve Paikin's The Agenda is worth a view as well:

Lisa MacLeod's Ambition

I'll say right off the top that I am no fan of recently re-elected Ontario Progressive Conservative Lisa MacLeod, and not just because she is a member of what has become an extremist party. Her embrace of the politics of division, her strident hyper-partisanship, and now, post-election, her hypocrisy, rankle.


Tim and Lisa in happier times

Ostensibly a staunch supporter of her leader up to and during the election, now Ms. MacLeod, a rumoured leadership hopeful, has dramatically changed her tune. In an op-ed in today's Toronto Star, entitled Ontario Tories need fresh leadership, she offers the following observation:

...we let Ontario down by not offering an alternative that more voters were prepared to accept. We have a lot of work to do over the next four years. The party needs renewal, a new direction, and most important, fresh leadership.

In what could very well be the rudiments of a pre-leadership manifesto, she talks about the need to prepare for the next election, telling us what the next leader must be capable of:

We need a person who understands urban, suburban and rural concerns, one who gets the complex makeup of this province.

But wait. Could that someone be her?

In my own riding of Nepean-Carleton, I represent new immigrant communities, expanding suburbs and a large rural area. I also take the lead on the urban issues that affect Ottawa, our second largest city. Nepean-Carleton is a microcosm of the growing and changing Ontario that our party must represent.

While not entirely disavowing the campaign under Hudak's leadership, she observes its shortcomings and includes information about herself that serves to offer redress:

Our most recent PC platform has been criticized for talking too much about numbers and not enough about people. Fact-based decision making is important, but we can’t overlook the human side. I’m a suburban soccer mom. I care about my child’s school, our local hospital and whether our community is safe, just like so many other Ontarians do. (emphasis mine)

And to drive home the point for those dullards among us, she adds:

Ontarians need a party that knows how to make their lives better in measurable ways. For example, the Schools First policy that I put forward as education critic would ensure that schools get built sooner in our rapidly expanding suburbs. (emphasis mine)

MacLeod ends her exercise in self-extolment, however, on a note with which I agree:

The PC Party has a responsibility to deliver a strong and broadly acceptable choice the next time.

It is in everyone's best interests to have strong and credible opposition parties. Such entities act as necessary checks in healthy democracies, standing at the ready to offer viable alternatives to governments that becomes stale, tired, complacent or arrogant.

A Timely Reminder Of Tim Hudak's Magical Thinking

While we should be back from our trip tomorrow in time to catch the Ontario election news coverage, this seems an opportune time to remind readers of the kind of magical thinking so favoured by extreme right enthusiasts such as young Tim Hudak. Tim, as you may recall, has made even lower corporate taxes a major part of his plan to create one million jobs, despite the fact that Ontario's rates are among the lowest in North American, and despite the fact that no apparent empirical data supports the equation that lower business taxes create jobs.

Here is a letter from today's Star that I think makes the point rather nicely:

Leaders make one last push as campaign winds down, June 10

The Fortune 500 companies in the U.S. recorded $1.08 trillion in profits last year. That was an increase of 31.7 per cent over the year before. During that time, these same companies increased employment increases of 0.7 per cent.

A similar picture exists on Canada. In 2001 corporate tax rates were 22 per cent. Today they stand at 15 per cent. We’ve lost $6.1 billion in government revenue while corporate profits have skyrocketed to $625 billion.

Tim Hudak talks about creating one million jobs through a lower tax rate. During the Mike Harris years in Ontario this philosophy did not work out very well. The provincial debt during the Harris years went from $90.7 billion in 1994-95 to $130.6 billion is 2002-03. This, while cutting many jobs and services and giving the province the legacy of Walkerton among other atrocities.

Former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney tried to convince Canadian corporations to spend some of the “dead money” they have been sitting on after accumulating such large profits over the years. To date, the corporations have not responded.

For years, right-wing government leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan to Mike Harris have been selling the supply-side economic lie. It didn’t work for them and it won’t work for Tim Hudak. A first-year economics student could tell you the reason for this. The rich don’t tend to spend additions to their revenue. The poor do. The rich accululate this money as the corporations in Canada have been doing for years.

In the Conservative attack on Kathleen Wynne on the radio, they end by asking, “Can you afford to vote for Kathleen Wynne?” I am wondering if I can afford not to.

Carl Nelson, Huntsville

A Timely Reminder of Young Tim Hudak's Faulty Math

While much of the media seem to give young Tim Hudak a free pass on his ludicrouse claim that he will create one million jobs in Ontario over eight years by slashing both jobs and corporate taxes, Paul Boothe at Maclean's is offering a more critical perspective:

A very surprising and, for voters, unfortunate thing became apparent last week in the Ontario election campaign. The Progressive Conservatives’ central campaign proposal, the million jobs plan, collapsed when analysts looked closely at the math. Elementary, but critical arithmetic errors in their calculations resulted in the Progressive Conservatives vastly overestimating the number of jobs their plan would create. These errors demolished the underlying economic rationale the party had put forward for its smaller-government, lower-tax plan.

It seems that a fundamental error occurred in the Tory brain-trust's calculations:

...the planners confused person-years of employment with permanent jobs. This confusion led them to vastly overestimate the effect of their proposed job-creating measures. The result was that the half million jobs the Progressive Conservatives were promising to create with their plan (base-case economic growth was expected to provide the other half-million jobs) was really only about 75,000—fewer than the 100,000 public-sector jobs they were pledging to eliminate.

Or to put it another way, as explained by McMaster economist Mike Vealle,

Mr. Hudak appears to have conflated person years of employment – how many people would be employed for a single year – with permanent jobs. As a result, he counted many projected jobs multiple times.

Tim's predictable response?

“We strongly disagree with that interpretation,” he said while touring a factory on the outskirts of Niagara Falls. “I stand behind our numbers.”

While no one has yet demanded studies to back up Tim's basic premise, that austerity and tax cuts create jobs as discussed in two previous posts, this discovery of error at least represents a good use of journalistic time.

And Speaking Of Tale Tales

Here's a whopper from one of young Tim's chief disciples, Lisa MacLeod:

Political Rhetoric Pierced

Hyperbole is, of course, a mainstay of political campaigns, as those vying for public office offer a blunt message to potential voters. Keep it simple and repetitive seems the overarching strategy, never more apparent than in young Tim Hudak's 1 million jobs plan. Will people be fooled by his claim that with the destruction of 100,000 good-paying jobs that provide much-needed services to Ontarians, Phoenix-like from their ashes will arise more jobs than there are people seeking them?

Judging by these recent letters from Star readers, I suspect he has his job cut out for him:

Re: Hudak’s popularity takes a hit over jobs plan, May 14

So on the one hand, Tim Hudak is going to create 1 million jobs in Ontario. On the other hand he is going to eliminate 100,000 jobs from the civil service. One can only wonder what kind of jobs he’s going to create. Minimum wage? Part time? No benefits? No pensions?

This is war on the working people of Ontario. We’ve seen this kind of politicking before under the inimitable Mike Harris, Hudak’s mentor and go-to boy. One can only hope that the electorate doesn’t buy into this kind of small mindedness.

Stephen Bloom, Toronto

Tim Hudak has revealed his platform, and his great plan for Ontario is to lay off 100,000 civil servants. It is hard to believe the audacity of this man. Not only has he decided to let these people go, he’s inferred that they are just rather worthless employees, living off the fat of the government, and of course, running up the poor taxpayer’s tab.

Mary Pucknell, Whitby

Hudak’s promise of a million jobs is like my 3-year-old telling me that one cookie is not enough, she wants a million. I for one am tired of politicians glibly using terms like unemployment without giving any thought to the underemployment of our precariat class. Let’s not oversimplify a complex and serious problem with meaningless talk and myopic platforms.

Matthew Ferguson, Oakville

Tim Hudak, a trained economist, would have us believe that supply-side economics works despite the evidence in recent years. That we are still in anemic economic growth six years after the Great Recession is sufficient evidence to prove that low corporate taxes in Ontario and Canada will not boost the economy.

Canadian businesses have tens of billions of cash to invest but they are not investing. Why? The opportunity to profit is not there because economic growth is driven by consumption and the ultimate consumer is us. Business investment depends on consumers buying.

Hudak repeats daily that he will create a million jobs by reducing corporate taxes further and eliminating 100,000 public sector jobs. He operates with a blind belief that this would increase profits for business and thus attract them to invest in Ontario.

Where Hudak fails is identifying who is going to buy the stuff and services that business is selling. As more wealth is shifted to the top 20 per cent, leaving 80 per cent of the population with less to spend, overall consumption is going to be stagnant at best if not decline. If consumers are not buying, there is no profit for business to make. Even if corporate tax is reduced to zero, when there is no demand, business will not invest.

Plants of U.S. companies are moving back to the U.S. It is not because we are not competitive. These plants were here because they cater to a sizable Canadian market then as well as the U.S. market. As consumption here decreases due to unemployment and lower incomes, there is no reason for those plants to be here.
Business need us to buy. If we don’t have the means to buy, business won’t have a reason to invest, or to exist. That’s basic economics which right-wing politicians don’t seem to get.

Salmon Lee, Mississauga

You can read more of these well-considered rebuttals to Hudak's fantasies here.

The Common Sense Revolution Redux ( A.K.A. Tiny Tim Roars)

H/t Theo Moudakis

If you have resided in Ontario for some years, and were of a certain age when Ontario's Common Sense Revolution was conducted by Mike 'The Knife' Harris, you will recall it was a time of great upheaval that, contrary to the mythologizing that the right-wing so much enjoys fabricating, left the bulk of Ontarians worse off.

It was a time of job cuts, dissension, the sowing of hatred against various groups that fell into Harris' crosshairs, monumental downloading of provincial responsibilities to municipalities for which property owners are still paying dearly in their tax bills, the selling off of Highway 407 to cover fiscal ineptitude and balance the books, etc. etc. And yet, Harris was wielding a mere hatchet in his reductionist zeal compared to the battle axe that his acolyte, young Tim Hudak, plans to use should he win the election.

With the magical thinking so favoured by the extreme right, Hudak says that to balance the budget he will slash 100,000 public sector jobs out of whose ashes, along with more corporate tax cuts, will emerge one million 'good-paying jobs.' Forget for a moment that both strategies has been amply discredited and look closer at the numbers.

In a piece in today's Star, Kaylie Tiessen and Kayle Hatt analyse what will be involved in these cuts:

Statistics Canada indicates there were 88,483 Ontario public servants in the general government category in 2012, the most recent year of data available.

This includes the core public service, agencies, boards and commissions (such as Metrolinx, the Ontario Municipal Board, the Niagara Falls Bridge authority and several hundred other organizations), provincial police and judicial employees.

Eliminating 100,000 jobs would amount to 15.3 per cent of Ontario’s provincial public servants — 1.5 per cent of the total jobs in Ontario.

And this means the broader public service, including those involved in public education and health care, and would likely range from teachers, educational assistants, community home-care providers, nurses, etc.

The writers also make a point that Hudak conveniently chooses to ignore: the multiplier effect:

The federal ministry of finance estimates the multiplier effect of government spending is approximately 1.5. That means every dollar the government spends generates an additional 50 cents in economic activity through increased consumer spending, business activity and other second order effects.

Using that multiplier, we estimate the impact of cutting 100,000 good jobs out of Ontario’s economy would result in the loss of an additional 50,000 private sector jobs — because those who used to be employed in the public sector would no longer have the money they need to participate in the local economy, go to movies, eat at local restaurants and shop in local stores.

Essentially, the boy who would be premier demands that we bow at the twin altars of austerity and corporate tax reduction. Hudak tells us that it will be good for all of us, although it is truly difficult to discern any beneficiaries in this mad gambit.

The more people who understand these facts, one hopes, the less support Hudak's demented vision will receive on June 12.

Political Opportunism Or Epiphany?

Well, the more cynical among us might suggest that Andrea Horwath no longer has a monopoly on political expediency in Ontario. More trusting souls, in this breaking story, might suggest a different causative factor.

Young Tim Hudak, leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party, to borrow a phrase from his good friend Rob Ford, appears to have had his 'come to Jesus moment.' The hapless anti-wunderkind has renounced his heretofore unshakable commitment to right-to-work legislation that would ultimately destroy unions in Ontario.

The Lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

Too Good Not To Share

This one's for you, young Tim.



H/t Union Thugs

Another Provincial Concern

Aware of my interest in politics, my friend Gary sent me an email this morning:

I read a comment in the National Post and it made me think of the label you use, "Young Tim".

The fellow in his comment asked the question "Have you ever heard of a Provincial Leader being named after a cup of Coffee? "

That got me thinking about another Tim, who, like the Progressive Conservative Party leader, might also be seen as full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Enjoy:

An Epidemic of Stupidity

Starting with Tim Hudak and then progressing stateside, this post will attempt to merely display the range of prodigious stupidity that North America seems to be cursed with.

First, to young Tim. It seems that each time the beleaguered leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservatives opens his mouth, one of his bipedal extremities fills the gap. His latest example of reflexive and profound ineptitude came almost immediately after the two byelections held on Thursday. Losing to the NDP in Niagara, Hudak, in what apparently passes for smart strategy in his mind, saw fit to insult the voters in that area, essentially calling them dupes of 'union elites':

“This is all about the union elite who are running the show and they don’t discriminate between whether it’s a Liberal vote or a NDP vote, they want those members in their back pockets and that’s where they are today.”

“Give me a level playing field in Niagara Falls, we win that seat. It’s a PC seat but when you give that oversized influence to big labour they buy influence with numbers.”

Not only does his declaration that Niagara Falls is a 'PC seat' betray his profound contempt for its voters but also his shocking inability to understand the rudiments of democracy.

Moving stateside, the following video speaks for itself, amply illustrating how ignorant bluster can be countered by a little intelligence and knowlege. Enjoy:

With Apologies, Another Post On Tim Hudak

I have to admit that I grow increasingly tired of and bored with young Tim Hudak, the boy who would be Ontario's next premier. Yet because his duplicitous tactics and rhetoric provide such a window into the sordid world of Conservative politics, sometimes I just hold my nose and plod on. But I promise to be brief.

In this morning's Star, Martin Regg Cohn examines Hudak's oft-repeated plan to bring 'workplace democracy' to Ontario, i.e., make union membership optional. Says Tim:

“We will change Ontario’s labour laws to give union members more flexibility and a greater voice. We will give all individuals the right to a secret ballot in certification votes. We will introduce paycheque protection so union members are not forced to pay fees towards political causes they don’t support.”

Such a touching concern for the sensibility of workers, to which he adds:

“Modernizing our labour laws is a part of that [bringing manufacturing jobs back to Ontario]. Makes it more attractive for jobs. Thatcher was instructive in that … they had rigid labour laws, they were deep in debt. She ended the closed shop, she modernized the labour laws.”

Assuming a rudimentary reasoning capacity just slightly beyond that of a toddler, one can fill in the details that young Tim withholds as to why making union-membership optional might, in theory, attract more jobs. No, it's not because a worker given the choice of union membership is a happier and more productive worker - without a union, he is a much cheaper worker, a reality at odds with Hudak's promise of one million good-paying jobs for Ontario.

What about the political machinations going on behind the scenes? In a party that has grave concerns about its leadership, those Progressive Conservatives who will likely run in the next election are concerned about how to best massage the message. The following, from The Hamilton Spectator, offers some insight into the sordid, morally-compromised world these people inhabit:

Internal memo shows concern over Hudak's 'right-to-work' plan

Alarm over Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak's controversial "right-to-work" policy is spreading among party activists, MPPs and increasingly skittish new candidates.

In an unusually candid memo obtained by The Toronto Star, 11 would-be MPPs express concern that Hudak's U.S.-style anti-union measures could hurt them in a provincial election expected as early as spring.

Echoing fears raised in a Jan. 22 conference call of 300 party stalwarts and earlier by MPP John O'Toole at last September's Tory convention, the candidates worry that radical labour reforms will be a tough sell to voters.

"Part of being smarter means we should recognize that campaign policies need to be flexible in order to allow for the type (of) precision needed to maximize regional support," says the draft memo, written by Timiskaming-Cochrane Tory hopeful Peter Politis with input from the 10 other Northern Ontario nominees.

"I'm sure we agree that messaging of policies and being prepared for the counter-message is the most important aspect of our campaign going forward," he writes.

Politis warns that "critical wedge issues" must be "messaged effectively in order to maximize the impact in our region while not hurting the impact of other PC seats in other regions."

"The 'right-to-work' policy also needs to be messaged effectively to maximize its impact in the south without sacrificing 11 seats in the North that can very well be the difference between a majority or minority government."

The candidates' memo is the latest sign of an internal PC schism over a pledge to eliminate the Rand Formula, which requires all workers in a unionized workplace to pay dues, regardless of whether they join the union.

Harking back to the party's heyday, the PC standard bearers urge Hudak to follow the centrist footsteps of former premier Bill Davis, who governed from 1971 until 1985 and remains popular to this day.

It is perhaps a testament to the character of the candidates that their concern over Tim's union-busting policy is prompted, not by principled objections but rather political expediency, i.e., "How can a union-busting promise be presented without damaging our chances of getting elected?"

Such is the stable from which the Progressive Conservatives draw.

UPDATED: Like A Scab: Tim Hudak

Like a scab (not the metaphorical kind so beloved of the extreme right) that I can't resist picking away at, once more Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak looms large. Although I wrote about him again very recently, the magnitude of either his ineptitude or his arrogance, depending on one's perspective, is worthy of further examination.

As noted in my previous post, young Tim recently announced his Million Jobs Act, one that promises untold riches in the form of 'good-paying jobs with benefits' for Ontarians if only we reduce corporate taxes and enact free trade with the other provinces. Not a word during this announcement about his previous panacea, 'right-to-work' legislation that would make union membership optional, leading, of course, to their ultimate demise.

Young Tim has refused to state whether a war on unions is still part of his overall strategy and cure for what ails us. Nonetheless, I think it is safe to assume it is still very much on the table.

Despite maintaining a 'strategic' silence on the issue, the Wile E. Coyote of Ontario politics yesterday fired one of his candidates in the upcoming byelections. Essex candidate Dave Brister was terminated because of his public opposition to Hudak's anti-unionism. He had posted recent “unacceptable” tweets slamming the party’s anti-union push, raising questions as to whether the policy is being downplayed to increase Tory chances in another Feb. 13 byelection in blue-collar Niagara Falls.

Apparently, young Tim had thrown him a lifeline:

Brister, who was running in a riding now held by the New Democrats, said he refused to change his stance.

“I was asked to recant my opposition to RTW legislation in exchange for retaining my position & I refused to do so,” he tweeted under his handle @davebristerpc.

A Tory candidate who stands on principle? What is the party becoming?

Meanwhile, in today's Toronto Star, Carol Goar has a column in which she asserts that once Tim's rhetoric about that million-jobs plan is stripped away, there is little of substance to be found. You might want to read the piece, especially if you live in Ontario or have an interest in politicians who show such egregious contempt for the electorate.

I'll leave you with a brief clip of Wile E. Coyote in freefall:



UPDATE: Martin Regg Cohn says, It would be a complete misreading of the emerging Progressive Conservative election platform to conclude that Hudak is backing away from “right-to-work.” You can read his thoughts on the subject here.

Good Tim, Bad Tim

Tim's Contemplative Face

Anyone who reads this blog regularly is probably aware that I am no fan of Ontario's Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak. A callow lad at best, a duplicitous mini-demagogue at worst, the lad who would be premier has always struck me as one with limited imagination and no real vision, content as he is to spout the usual right-wing bromides (unions bad, workplace democracy good).

With a spring election looking increasingly likely in Ontario, young Tim has lately shown his egregious contempt for the electorate's intelligence by attempting to reinvent himself with a private member's bill he is planning to introduce that promises the creation of a million jobs over eight years, a plan that has come under considerable criticism. For me, what is most striking is that there is no reference in this bill to Hudak's previously-touted mantra of union-busting as the path to prosperity.

Are we to take it that Tim simply misspoke on all those previous occasions about the need for euphemistic right-to-work legislation? It is indeed difficult to reconcile his anti-union screeds with this rhetoric:

“Your odds of getting a minimum-wage job – they’ve doubled under the current government’s approach, supported by the NDP. If you want a good, steady job, with benefits and better take-home pay, look at my plan. It will create a million of these good, well-paying jobs in our province of Ontario again. But we’ve got to make these choices to get on this path.”

Rather beguiling, his promises, aren't they?

As usual, Toronto Star readers are exercising their critical-thinking skills and have much to say about Tim's plan. There are a number of very good ones, and I offer the following only as representative examples:

So Tim Hudak is going to save Ontario. He is going to freeze the public service. Perhaps he didn’t notice that freezing the public service wages over the past five years to give tax breaks to corporations did not create jobs. Instead we lost 45,000 jobs last month. What did Kellogg’s and Heinz do with their tax windfall? Those two stalwarts of Ontario called the moving trucks.

He is going to create one million jobs. That would be 400,000 more than we need, or will the unemployed need two jobs to make a living at those created? His plan to reduce public sector jobs and replace them with low-paid private sector jobs will not help the economy and training for skilled trades won’t produce workers for these former government jobs.

Maybe by driving down the standard of living Mr. Hudak believes that he can lure back some of the manufacturing jobs other Tory governments helped leave Ontario. Surely cutting the green energy subsidies won’t create but will eliminate skilled jobs. Training skilled workers is a great idea if there are jobs for them to go to after the training.

Hudak has no plan for reducing energy costs even though he cites this as a reason for job losses. Too many friends at OPG?
He is from an era where cutting taxes was the mantra to create jobs. Employers who get tax cuts keep the money. They rarely invest in job creation without government welfare assistance. Families that get tax relief need the money to meet rising energy and fuel costs. Tax cuts will not now, nor have they ever, created jobs. Ideas from the 20th century that didn’t work then definitely won’t work now. Ontario has a business friendly tax structure and we are still bleeding jobs.

Do we need recycled Mike Harris ideas? I think not. Hudak’s plan is to continue the Conservative ideology of lowering the standard of living for working Ontarians and giving more to the 1 per cent will not save Ontario. We need to concentrate on the economy with 21st century solutions that will create sustainable jobs that pay above the poverty line.

Bob File, Hamilton

I am wondering what exactly Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak is referring to when he states, as part of his five-point plan for improving Ontario’s economy, that he will “end the bureaucratic runaround that inhibits job creation.”

Is he talking about lifting environmental restrictions on businesses and resource development? Is he talking about changing laws around workplace safety? Is he talking about changing laws relating to the use of part-time and temporary workers — so called “precarious employees” — who already have to scrabble to make ends meet without the benefit of job security, benefits and an employer provided pension?

Laws that favour business owners and resource developers over Ontario workers and citizens line the pockets of the rich while eroding quality of life for average Ontarians.

Brian O’Sullivan, Stouffville

Tim's Mad Face

Tim Hudak's Vacuous Vision

Young Tim's Mad Face

Readers of this blog will know that I have no use for Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak, an acolyte of Mike Harris who learned the essence of that hated leader's philosophy when he served in his cabinet in the 1990s: divide, conquer, sow dissension, lambaste instead of lead, etc., etc.

In yesterday's print edition of The Toronto Star, the lead letter neatly summed up young Tim's vacuity of vision and his vicious vilification of unions. I have taken the liberty of copying it from the paper's digital edition for your consideration:


Re Hudak targets government employees, Dec. 5

Tim Hudak, the master of the politics of resentment, professes to advocate for, in his words, “the hard-working taxpaying families of Ontario.” His is a cynical approach that rankles the very fibres of a caring society. His demagoguery is clothed in phrases purporting to support the financially struggling working poor and the middle class. As a disciple of Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution, his proposals will have the opposite effect and prove, should he win the next election, a pathway to economic disaster for the middle class and further increase the already historical profits and salaries of corporations and their CEOs.

Hudak states, “We need to act on behalf of the 85 per cent of Ontarians who aren’t on the government payroll and made far more sacrifices in these difficult times.” By pitting one group of Ontarians against another, he is hoping to abolish unions because they are an impediment to Ontario’s economic progress. He would like Ontario to become a “right to work” province. Doesn’t that have an innocent ring to it? Who could possibly be against your right to work? It is no secret that folks in right to work jurisdictions in the U.S. are earning slightly better than minimum wage and are having difficulty supporting their families. Caterpillar moved to Indiana, a right to work jurisdiction, and cut their workforce salary in half along with their benefits. That’s what Hudak would like to achieve in Ontario. Such wilful manipulation of an electorate is both crass and unscrupulous.

For a man who aspires to be chief public servant, you would think his main purpose would be the common weal. Strange indeed that he would display such distaste for other public servants wanting to help all Ontarians. Dear Mr. Hudak, if you can’t find it in your heart to represent 100 per cent of Ontarians, do the right thing and step aside. I am sure someone in the Conservative party will embrace all Ontarians.

Nicholas Kostiak, Tottenham

Oh Tim, Why Don't You Stop Bothering Us?

When considering the political motivations of Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, the boy who would be premier, there seem to be only two possibilities: he is either an indefatigable demagogue appealing to the same kind of folks (a.k.a. Ford nation) who blindly support Toronto mayor Rob Ford, or he truly believes the nonsense he is spouting, the latter perhaps the more disturbing, given the intellectual limitations it would suggest.

Either option, in my view, renders Hudak unfit to hold Ontario's highest public office.

A secret document leaked to the Toronto Star confirms that, if his party wins the next election, this Mike Harris clone would be indeed disastrous for all but the most ideologically-twisted residents of Ontario:

This kind of document [which] is usually a closely guarded secret available to about three people, reveals the daily itinerary Hudak would have followed had an election been called last spring. It reveals the usual rhetoric designed to appeal to the base: “tax cuts create jobs,” “reducing the size of government,” and spoiling for a fight with teachers.

It also affirms Hudak's commitment to crippling unions in Ontario, as revealed by this part of his schedule:

The party’s direction the next day in Windsor becomes very clear with the heading “Fixing Labour Laws” and a Hudak appearance at a non-union factory, the kind of visit that is repeated as the campaign progresses.

One of the party’s many party policy papers calls for getting rid of the Rand Formula, which requires all employees in a closed union shop to pay dues whether they join or not. Coincidentally, Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ivan Rand introduced the formula in 1946 as a result of the 1945 Ford strike in Windsor.

A similar message — Allow Choice in Union Membership — was on the agenda again just a few days later in Guelph and the Kitchener-Waterloo areas, which fuels fears that Hudak’s agenda is to turn Ontario into a right-to-work province, similar to several U.S. states.

The conservative mind, as a rule, has difficulty accepting new ideas or new information that can alter one's thinking and views. This handicap is abundantly evident in the case of young Tim who, compelling evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, is confident spouting the old shibboleths about unions being the root of all evil, the primary reason that unemployment is high and business is staying away from the province.

In his jeremiads against unions and his Pavlovian enthusiasm for right-to-work laws, young Tim ignores the data betraying his hollow and simplistic thinking:

In right-to-work states, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage as of May 2011 ranged from lows of $13.11 (U.S.) in Mississippi and $13.68 in Arkansas to highs of $15.70 in Nevada and $16.40 in Arizona. When you chop off the highs and the lows, most were in the area of $14 and change or $15 and change.

In those states without such rules, the median hourly wage ranged from lows of $13.46 in West Virginia and $14.13 in Montana to highs of $19.87 in Connecticut and $20.65 in Alaska. But many were in the area of about $17 and up.

What about his assertions that crippling the unions would mean "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Again, the American experience reveals that it is not a panacea:

The lowest jobless rates, as of October, are in North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Utah and Wyoming, all right-to-work states, at between 3.1 per cent and 5.2 per cent. The highest are in North Carolina, a right-to-work state, New Jersey, California, Rhode Island and Nevada, also a right-to-work state, at between 9.3 per cent and 11.5 per cent. Unemployment in Michigan is 9.1 per cent.

I could go on and indict Hudak's similarly blinkered thinking when it comes to tax cuts equaling job creation (despite the fact that unemployment is still high in Ontario even though our corporate tax rate is amongst the lowest in the world,) but I think you get the idea.

So whether Tim Hudak is merely a cyncal manipulator of people's passions and prejudices in the pursuit of power or a young man who lacks the intellectual depth and fiber needed to hold high political office, one fact remains constant. If people allow themselves to be seduced by sweet and soothing rhetoric that promises low taxes, prosperity and no pain (except, of course, for the workers who support the economy), they will have no one but themselves to blame if Mike Harris Redux is the headline after the next provincial election.

On The Minimum Wage And Tim Hudak's 'Bold' Plan For Ontario

Continuing on with the theme of the minimum wage, which groups in both Canada and the United States are demonstrating to significantly increase, The Star had a good letter in yeterday's edition that points out the hidden costs of having so many working for poverty-level remuneration.

Fight poverty, boost wages, Editorial Sept. 18

The Star underscored a bitter truth with its editorial call for a minimum wage increase: “a lot of people are working hard to remain in poverty,” due to a minimum wage that’s been frozen for over three years. And, as you note, a great many people are affected: more than half a million minimum-wage Ontario workers directly, along with their family members.

It’s important to realize that we all pay the price of poverty-level wages, in many ways. More than 400,000 Ontarians must rely on foodbanks and emergency meal programs to ward off hunger. Many of them are working, but don’t earn to pay rent and meet other basic needs, including food. A minimum-wage increase would enable more of them to buy their own food — and would ease the burden on foodbank volunteers and donors. It would also raise demand at local food stores and other local businesses, thus boosting the local economy.

A fair minimum wage is a basic issue of justice. It’s also a key element of Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy, which has shown disappointing results in recent years. The minimum wage should be set at a level that ensures that work is truly a pathway out of poverty.

If Premier Kathleen Wynne is sincere about her professed desire to be the “social justice Premier,” she needs to affirm her commitment to real progress against poverty and quickly implement a substantial increase in the minimum wage.

Murray MacAdam, Social Justice & Advocacy Consultant, Anglican Diocese of Toronto

On a related note, this video appeared on Alison's blog at Creekside, which I am taking the liberty of cribbing. Although 19 minutes in length, it is well-worth viewing, exposing as it does the kind of hollow and destructive policy advocated by Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak as he promises to bring in 'right-to-work' (i.e., union-busting) legislation should he become the next premier.

As the film shows, young Tim's promises about the prosperity that will ensue if we just get rid of 'those greedy unions that are hobbling the economy' have allure only if we choose to be willfully ignorant of the fact that such measures will lead to lower wages and even more precarious employment than currently exists:

Young Tim's 'Transparency'

In a political landscape littered at all levels with lies, deception and expedience, it is hardly surprising that young Tim Hudak, the beleaguered 'leader' of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party, has hung former Finance critic Peter Shurman out to dry.

Those who follow Ontario politics will likely be aware that Shurman, who represents the riding of Thornhill, lives in Niagara-on-the-Lake and maintains an apartment at taxpayer expense in Toronto, since his principal residence is more than 50 km from Toronto. This was done, according to Shurman, with the full knowledge and approval of Hudak, knowledge and approval which the Tory leader now steadfastly denies.

As a consequence of Shurman's expense claims coming to light, along with his refusal to pay back the money, young Tim, apparently in a futile effort to display 'decisive leadership,' fired Shurman from his finance critic's post:

“He did follow the technical rules but I need to enforce a higher standard,” said Hudak. “I think we need to change this rule.”

Which may be all well and good except for two things: Hudak's prior approval of the arrangement, if Shurman is to be believed, and this interesting tidbit in today's Star:

Embattled Progressive Conservative MPP Peter Shurman wanted to run in Niagara Falls in the 2011 election, but Tory Leader Tim Hudak urged him to remain in Thornhill to save that seat ...

... four senior Conservative sources said the leader was worried the Liberals would win Thornhill without Shurman and pleaded with the popular incumbent to remain there, even though Hudak knew he was living in the Niagara region by then.

While young Tim is trying to use this situation to show that he is capable of strong leadership, some would say it is an example of something far less flattering: personal betrayal.