CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:08 pm
 


Bad day for Federal and provincial conservatives in Ontario.

Not only did the federal Tories lose one of their most senior MPs over sexual images but today it was revealed that Doug Ford lost not one but two senior personnel over sexual misconduct. The Ford government originally tried to claim cabinet member left to seek treatment for alcohol addiction but the truth always comes out, and now Doug’s office refuses to talk about any of it.

Quote:
[It was allegations of sexual misconduct, not an alcohol addiction, that led to the resignation of Economic Development Minister Jim Wilson, according to multiple media reports.

Global News reports that the allegations were brought forward by a male staffer at Queen’s Park and Premier Doug Ford learned of them on Friday — the day Wilson resigned.

A statement from Ford’s office late Friday stated that Wilson resigned from cabinet and the Tory caucus “to seek treatment for addiction issues” related to alcohol.

Wilson had been Ford’s most senior minister and was a PC MPP for 28 years. Back in July 2014, he was elected interim party leader after former leader Tim Hudak resigned. Wilson held that role until Patrick Brown took over as leader in May the following year.

A report by Global News cites multiple sources also claiming Andrew Kimber, the premier’s executive director of issues management and legislative affairs, resigned Friday over allegations of sexually inappropriate text messages sent to a female Queen’s Park staffer.


https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/11/05/ ... legations/


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1469
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:11 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Bad day for Federal and provincial conservatives in Ontario.

Not only did the federal Tories lose one of their most senior MPs over sexual images but today it was revealed that Doug Ford lost not one but two senior personnel over sexual misconduct. The Ford government originally tried to claim cabinet member left to seek treatment for alcohol addiction but the truth always comes out, and now Doug’s office refuses to talk about any of it.


There's nothing to talk about and frankly, I'm disappointed how quickly Ford and his team caved to more unfounded accusations.

Frankly, I'm tired of it.

If someone has a legitimate criminal complaint, go to the police. Period. Full stop.

If someone made a crude joke to you 20 years ago or maybe made 'inappropriate' gesture, get over it and move the fuck on.

When I was in my teens, I had a co-worker show me her newly enhanced tits. At work. Perhaps I should find her, accuse her of 'sexual misconduct' (which isn't even a thing) and ruin her life? Or maybe, I'll wait until she runs for office and then bring it forward because the incident caused me so much emotional trauma.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:04 pm
 


Doesn’t sound like an incident 20 years ago since apparently he’s gone for treatment. As for the severity of their alleged one can only guess but for Doug Ford of all people to jettison someone that senior one would think it’s a little more serious than a tasteless joke.

Let’s also not forget the circumstances that lead Ford to become party leader in the first place. It would be pretty hypocritical for the PC party to jettison Patrick Brown over his allegations just before the election and then ignore and whitewash something much worse after the get elected.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1469
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:39 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Doesn’t sound like an incident 20 years ago since apparently he’s gone for treatment. As for the severity of their alleged one can only guess but for Doug Ford of all people to jettison someone that senior one would think it’s a little more serious than a tasteless joke.

Let’s also not forget the circumstances that lead Ford to become party leader in the first place. It would be pretty hypocritical for the PC party to jettison Patrick Brown over his allegations just before the election and then ignore and whitewash something much worse after the get elected.


Doug is no different than any other leader. He's saving his ass...first and foremost. Doug may be a doorknob, but he's done one thing right and surrounded himself with people that know how to control him and the party.

It's just sad that even the slightest whiff of 'allegations' and people's lives are ruined. It's wrong.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 7:48 pm
 


Quote:
The Ontario government says it is increasing the number of seats in the legislature required to achieve official party status.

Progressive Conservative House Leader Todd Smith says the new threshold — to be laid out in the fall economic statement later this week — will be 10 per cent of the house, or 12 seats, up from the current eight.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith says the move is meant to provide clarity and denies it is an attempt to stymie the Liberals, who fell one seat short of official party status in the spring election.

Can the Liberals still succeed with a moderate, centrist approach? It depends who you ask
How Ontario's Tories can use taxpayer dollars to fund partisan news
Ontario Proud's arrival on federal scene renews fears about third party collusion
Slipping below the threshold meant the Liberals lost funds for research, staff salaries and other purposes and can only operate in the legislature in a limited fashion.

The Liberals have asked the government to grant them some accommodations, including funding, similar to what New Democrats received when they failed to achieve party status in 2003.

Interim Liberal leader John Fraser says the government's decision to instead raise the threshold is needlessly divisive and disrespectful to the roughly 1.1 million people who voted for Liberals.

"It's thwarting democracy and it's also what bullies do," Fraser said.


https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4903705

Dirty tricks


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:01 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
Quote:
The Ontario government says it is increasing the number of seats in the legislature required to achieve official party status.

Progressive Conservative House Leader Todd Smith says the new threshold — to be laid out in the fall economic statement later this week — will be 10 per cent of the house, or 12 seats, up from the current eight.

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith says the move is meant to provide clarity and denies it is an attempt to stymie the Liberals, who fell one seat short of official party status in the spring election.

Can the Liberals still succeed with a moderate, centrist approach? It depends who you ask
How Ontario's Tories can use taxpayer dollars to fund partisan news
Ontario Proud's arrival on federal scene renews fears about third party collusion
Slipping below the threshold meant the Liberals lost funds for research, staff salaries and other purposes and can only operate in the legislature in a limited fashion.

The Liberals have asked the government to grant them some accommodations, including funding, similar to what New Democrats received when they failed to achieve party status in 2003.

Interim Liberal leader John Fraser says the government's decision to instead raise the threshold is needlessly divisive and disrespectful to the roughly 1.1 million people who voted for Liberals.

"It's thwarting democracy and it's also what bullies do," Fraser said.


https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4903705

Dirty tricks

Actually it makes sense. It was lowered by Mike Harris to account for less seats (130 to 103) from 12 to 8. We're back up to 124, so it stands to reason the minimum would be increased again with it. Also, the NDP refused the funding offered in 2003.

Not everything is nefarious. If you can't win the seats, why should you be afforded the benefits of winning the seats? Why have the rule at all then?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:10 pm
 


Quote:
Why have the rule at all then?


Indeed


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1469
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:21 pm
 


Quote:
"It's thwarting democracy and it's also what bullies do," Fraser said.


Fraser is so full of shit.

Democracy spoke. You're not a party recognized by the Province. Period.

The rules were changed to reflect a smaller number of seats and pushed back to account for the increased seats.

This is about the Liberals wanting their free handout. Not democracy. Not fairness.

Money.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:14 pm
 


What does this have to do with money. Nothing changes with money either way.

Also note they didn’t change it “to reflect a larger number of seats” they changed the formula altogether Previously you need 8 seats for party status. Now they changed it to 10% of seats.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1469
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:32 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
What does this have to do with money. Nothing changes with money either way.

Also note they didn’t change it “to reflect a larger number of seats” they changed the formula altogether Previously you need 8 seats for party status. Now they changed it to 10% of seats.


This has everything to do with money.

Not having party status means no money for caucus offices. No salary bonuses for performing certain roles, such as house leader, caucus chair, or party whip.

Also, parties get $2.71/vote. At 1,124,218 votes that's just over 3 million they don't receive as a party.

They didn't earn party status either way. Just be honest with the public. Don't get all high-and-mighty and talk about this being a threat to democracy....total crap.

Democracy put them in a position of non-party status.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:50 pm
 


Coach85 wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
What does this have to do with money. Nothing changes with money either way.

Also note they didn’t change it “to reflect a larger number of seats” they changed the formula altogether Previously you need 8 seats for party status. Now they changed it to 10% of seats.


This has everything to do with money.

Not having party status means no money for caucus offices. No salary bonuses for performing certain roles, such as house leader, caucus chair, or party whip.

Also, parties get $2.71/vote. At 1,124,218 votes that's just over 3 million they don't receive as a party.

They didn't earn party status either way. Just be honest with the public. Don't get all high-and-mighty and talk about this being a threat to democracy....total crap.

Democracy put them in a position of non-party status.


They don’t have party status currently. Doug Ford raising the bar doesn’t change that. Nothing changes so it’s not fair to sau this us about getting money they’re not entitled to. If anything this about Doug Ford trying to keep them from getting the money they would normally be entitled to if they pick up one seat in a by-election.

This is just typical kick-a-man-when-he’s-down, mean spirited conservatives up to their usual low-blow partisanship . It’s unnecessary and I think it’s dirty politics.

What the conservatives don’t understand is that when they cross these normative lines like this or like changing the city of Toronto council mid-election and using the notwithstanding clause they lower the bar for everyone and they normalize this behaviour that was previously unthinkable. The conservative excuse is that doing it just this one time isn’t going to do any harm but once the line is crossed it’s going to happen again and again by this government or the next one or the one after that and when these kind of stunts become normal expected behaviour, democracy is damaged.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:06 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
What does this have to do with money. Nothing changes with money either way.

Also note they didn’t change it “to reflect a larger number of seats” they changed the formula altogether Previously you need 8 seats for party status. Now they changed it to 10% of seats.

Which makes sense. It's better to have a percentage based system tied to the number of seats than an arbitrary number. And yes, that makes it reflect a larger number of available seats if it was previously only reflecting 6.5%. That's how math works.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22204
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 6:11 pm
 


BeaverFever wrote:
This is just typical kick-a-man-when-he’s-down, mean spirited conservatives up to their usual low-blow partisanship . It’s unnecessary and I think it’s dirty politics.

Did you feel that way when the liberals refused to give party status to the NDP? And that Wynne lied about it after the election?

Sorry, this is partisanship if I've ever seen it. I don't like Ford, I think he's a dick and he's made a lot of stupid decisions already. This isn't something to get worked up over. It was lowered by Harris because of less seats, and as the seats has grown it makes sense to raise it back up to it's previous levels. By making this a percentage, this should happen automatically, so in the future if number of seats change, it doesn't need to go through legislature to change, it just happens automatically.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12415

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 7:10 pm
 


Why 10% and not say 5%? It’s a safe number for the PCs that’s why. It’s not the same proportion as before.

Anyway on to more news:

Today in Doug Ford’s Ontario, the conservatives reinstated “cash for access” fundraising that had been abolished by the Wynne Liberals

Now to he fair, what we’re talking about isn’t really that sinister, it’s something that’s standard practice in every democracy since the start of politics: expensive fundraising dinners for wealthy donors, attended by senior party members. And it’s always been done by Conservatives and every other party since the dawn of time. But when the Wynne government was in power, the conservatives were successful in convincing the public that this was scandalous Ontario Liberal behaviour and that it was selling access to senior government officials. . The liberals outlawed the whole practice just to silence the issue even though they never did anything different from any other party.

Well now after screaming himself hoarse over this supposed crime, Douggie’s bringing it back.

The update comes with a host of other changes made today, most relatively benign. Ford announced cuts of 3.2 billion from the budget from programs such as mental health, but only reduced the defecit by a mere 0.5 billion because he also announced 2.7 billion in tax cuts, including a reversal of an increase in taxes on the wealthiest 17%.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1469
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:16 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
BeaverFever wrote:
This is just typical kick-a-man-when-he’s-down, mean spirited conservatives up to their usual low-blow partisanship . It’s unnecessary and I think it’s dirty politics.

Did you feel that way when the liberals refused to give party status to the NDP? And that Wynne lied about it after the election?

Sorry, this is partisanship if I've ever seen it. I don't like Ford, I think he's a dick and he's made a lot of stupid decisions already. This isn't something to get worked up over. It was lowered by Harris because of less seats, and as the seats has grown it makes sense to raise it back up to it's previous levels. By making this a percentage, this should happen automatically, so in the future if number of seats change, it doesn't need to go through legislature to change, it just happens automatically.


It is partisanship. Notice how Beaver completely avoided your questions and likely never said a word about it when the Liberals were in power?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 284 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 14  15  16  17  18  19  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.