I didn’t see anything about the facts being incorrect: perhaps cherry-picked and graphed unusually to emphasize a point. Anyway, we’re arguing over minutia really. And the voting public isn’t going to give a hoot about Jim Stanford’s report.
CAW membership only confirms that he is not an unbiased writer. His political affiliation certainly isn’t leaning to the right!
Anyway, looks like it will be a minority government either red or blue at this point. I don’t see either party winning a majority. I forget what it’s like to have a minority government in Ontario.
Would you have said the same thing if the Liberal platform’s documentation was presented in this matter? Would you have waved it away as “nitpicking” if a Conservative group had found the errors? I have a feeling you wouldn’t, though I apologize if you feel you would. Your post just comes across as yet another “my team did it, so it’s ok, no big deal” kind of reaction to something that is a big deal.
If the information you want to present to the world - particularly when it’s information related to running a government or otherwise implementing policy - can’t stand up to even simple peer review, your credibility is severely called into question. And the economist for the CAW is a peer. What else are they lying about? What else will they manipulate to meet their needs? Falsely scaling graphs and misrepresenting data isn’t “nitpicking” to anyone with a scientific mind; if we aren’t given the actual data, how can we reasonably make decisions about it? A graph or a chart is representation of true data - it is the opinions of what the data means that can vary, not the other way around.
Playing around with these kinds of numbers in so many industries and using it to make decisions with could lead to literally disastrous results. Why would it be acceptable in politics but not in real life?
You know, I’ve voted Liberal before. I don’t know why you keep bashing me about supporting a team. The McGuinty Liberals have been horrible for Ontario. If any other government had this track record for 8 years I wouldn’t be supporting them either.
I’m sorry, Leaffan, I don’t mean to bash you. I just don’t see this kind of stuff as being minor and “nitpicking” and I struggle to see why people would defend it. Your username probably also triggers that “voting for a team” analogy in my head, perhaps inappropriately.
I’m not really up on Ontarian politics (I was only a resident there for 2 years, though I lived there for 6, and barely cared back then either, since I knew I was leaving) and I agree from what I’ve seen that the McGuinty Liberals are pretty terrible. I just think that Hudak is coming across as worse, amazingly enough, and shit like this isn’t helping him. I don’t know nor have an opinion on what his actual policies are…but falsifying data to try and get people to vote for them is, IMHO, inexcusable. It moves his opinions (and those of any party that does this) into propaganda-land, and that’s both insulting to the people of Ontario and to the very premise of responsible government. It pisses me off that you’re kind of right that “no one will care” because more and more people just accept sound bites and pretty pictures without applying even the slightest bit of critical thinking.
I am disgusted with the game of politicking and I just wish people would a) think for themselves and b) care and get angry when they are being treated like morons. It saddens me that we are willing to be treated like ignorant children by our leaders.
I don’t think the point is that it’s minor, but that it’s sort of, um, naive to point to a biased source paid to say bad things about the PC party and then express anything more than a yawn that they’re saying bad things about the PC party.
In no way is that an endorsement of Tim Hudak, who, frankly, seems to be in way over his head as a party leader.
This. I well remember Ontario politics: Bill Davis, John Robarts, Mitchell Hepburn (whom I never lived under, but I do remember my history), and so on. Like them or hate them, they built the Ontario we know. Even David Peterson deserves a little respect; in spite of his errors, he persuaded the province to include Franco-Ontarians in the body politic.
I left Ontario before McGuinty took power, but based on the news I get from friends there, and the Toronto media I read online; he seems to be nothing but mediocre. I cannot speak for Mr. Hudak, but the news tells me that he is no Davis, Robarts, or Hepburn. I have no idea about the NDP candidates. Still, it would seem to me that Ontario needs, as RickJay so aptly put it, a statesman; who will lead Ontario as it was once led. His or her party doesn’t matter, as long as Ontario regains the footing it once had.
I see what you’re saying. I wasn’t really thinking about it that way - I got hung up on the whole falsification and misrepresentation of data thing. To me, that’s a BIG deal, but I’m a bit of a stickler for safety, regulatory compliance, complete and accurate documentation and sound science. It’s kind of been my job and I intend it to be again, though in a different field.
I’m not naïve enough to think this hasn’t happened before and won’t happen again, by any party at any level of government, but holy shit, it just pisses me off! There you go, you’ve now seen one of my biggest biases!
Don’t worry, we say the same thing in Quebec. That’s why a non-party is currently leading in the polls.
Although I kind of suspect that the current crop of politicians isn’t as bad as we think they are. You cannot get great statemen every year, they are a very rare breed.
Is anyone else vaguely concerned by the increasing use of government mandated back to work legislation? I took a quick look here and found the following
C-5: 1st reading 2011-06-16 – not passed – Air service
C-6: 1st reading 2011-06-20 – passed 06-25 – Mail
C-61: 1st reading 2009-11-30 – not passed - Rail
C-46: 1st reading 2007-02-23 – passed 04-18 - Rail
C-76: 1st reading 1999-03-22 – passed 03-25 – Government Service
C-24: 1st reading 1997-12-01 – passed 12-03 - Postal
C-74: 1st reading 1995-03-15 – passed 03-16 – Port Operations
Now we currently have more musing over the introduction of a bill again targeted to Air service. Now 3 potential bills are no indications of a trend but the sudden clustering following the Conservative election win gives me pause. I also fail to see any valid role in regards to C-5 of the potential upcoming C-x. So what exactly is the thinking behind the uptick in government involvement?
