moira_j_moore1: (Default)
I recently read an article about Stephen Harper’s PR team trying to “humanize” him for the election next year, and I’m terribly depressed about the real possibility that people will forget that he’s trying to enable the government to spy on Canadians on the internet without warrants, strip power from Elections Canada so the government can make it difficult for people Harper doesn’t like to vote, and get rid of the senate because the senate has been shutting down his more egregious attempts to gleefully shed our Charter. Also, they plan on pimping out his wife. Using members of the family to get votes is despicable.

This article talks about the money Harper is spending to accomplish this. Also, taking a shot at Justin Trudeau for having the sole goal of legalising marijuana. I am so frustrated with the Liberal party choosing Trudeau, he's just riding on his father's coattails and doesn't seem to stand for anything, but if it's a choice between an agenda of "Legalising marijuana" and that of "Destroying the Constitution," I'll take the former.

One source of comfort is that Harper's cronies have been trying to humanise him for years without success.
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
An article about why the bad math in Tim Hudak's million jobs plan means more than just bad math. And I found these passages particularly interesting:

"The other report, however, became hotly controversial – and for good reason. It was prepared by a U.S. consultant Benjamin Zycher, who has worked for many far-right causes (some funded by the Koch brothers of Tea Party fame), has strongly advocated so-called “right-to-work” laws for Ontario, and has expressed startling opinions on subjects ranging from environmentalism to how Michelle Obama received her Princeton degree."

"Mr. Zycher’s report for the PCs has been thoroughly criticized by several economists for shoddy methodology, data errors, and more. But it’s the underlying philosophical assumptions of his work for the PCs that should raise the loudest alarms. His economic model of “deregulation” is actually based on Ontario mimicking the fiscal policies and labour laws of places like Mississippi and Arkansas – and then asserting that this will make Ontario richer. (Of course, Ontario is already far richer than those places.) The mere fact the PCs would hire this man to flesh out their electoral platform is another indication of how far right they have aimed."

"Tim Hudak’s laughable math displays his true colours"
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
In his million jobs plan, Hudak claimed there were 800,000 people out of work in Ontario, despite the fact that stats can says it's in the 500,000 to 600,000 range. Now he's got a new ad up and the number has jumped up to 1,000,000. (He values rounding over precision.)

He reminds me of that loser senator in the original version of the Manchurian Candidate, who kept holding press conferences and throwing out random numbers of communists in the US government. At one point even he realised he was looking ridiculous and asked his wife if they could just please pick one number and stick to it.
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
Specifically, he's putting out bar charts to indicate how hydro costs and the provincial debt have increased under the Liberal party. The problem is that the bar charts don't have any actual numbers. They're just a bunch of bars.

Here's a link to an article:

By the way, I'm aware of the scandal and financial recklessness of the Liberals. This election for me is definitely about the lesser of two evils. Also, strategic voting on my part, because the party I want to vote for just isn't in a position to win right now and I want to keep the conservatives out.

So it's the lesser of two evils, but Hudak is making it really easy to determine which is the less evil party.

His campaign has degenerated into "I half-ass everything, but vote for me anyway!"
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
I love that Tim Hudak said in the debate that if his plan doesn't work, he'll resign. It's an EIGHT YEAR PLAN. Elections are supposed to be held every four years.
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
That he chose to give his post the title "RESPONSE TO LIBERAL LIES ABOUT MILLION JOBS PLAN MATH" means he's not fit to hold office. Specifically, the 'liberal lies' part. It's ok for some random blogger to use that language, but not for a politician. It's childish and it's unsuitable outside of a Fox News broadcast. Here's a link to his post.

Then, the post itself ....

First, Hudak has already admitted the math is ... well, not wrong, but irrelevant, which doesn't give Chudleigh much of a foundation.

All Chudleigh has done is put up some quotes by other people, so let's look at those.

•Philip Cross, the former Chief Economic Analyst at Statistics Canada, said the analysis that our plan would create only a million jobs was “overly cautious.”

•“The Million Jobs Plan to rein-in government spending and encourage business investment represents the best chance to revive job growth in Ontario. Cuts to the public sector are not a threat to jobs, but a tonic for reviving economy-wide growth.”

First, Cross actually says this: "Actually, one could criticize the Plan for being overly-cautious." Not exactly the same thing as Chudleigh would have you believe. He's not saying the analysis (by critics) is overly cautious, but that the plan itself is.

Also, Cross doesn't address the bad math that everyone else is talking about.

Here's an explanation about what's wrong with the math, from Maclean's:

"Here is a short primer on the mistake the Tories made. In the first line of their million jobs plan, they have 523,200 jobs from “baseline growth.” This number should be interpreted as saying the number of persons in the province with a job eight years from now will be 523,000 higher than it is today. However, when they claim that reducing the regulatory burden will create 84,800 jobs, this is based on the 10,600 job-creation estimate in the Zycher report (which the party commissioned) and multiplying it by eight to give 84,800 person-years of employment. But only 10,600 actual people (not 84,800) will have a job eight years from now who do not today. The Tories are adding baseline growth “jobs” to regulatory burden “person-years” to get their million-job estimate—despite the fact the two are in completely different units.... This error is not limited to the line item for reducing regulatory burden: the Tories made the same mistake for every item they adopted from the Zycher and Conference Board of Canada reports."

Given the plan relies on over 500,000 jobs being created "naturally," I propose the plan should be called the 500,000 jobs plan.

The numbers Cross talks about are the percentage of growth of employment reaching the million job mark requires. According to Cross, to reach Hudak's goal would require an increase of 14.6% over eight years, which he believes is very doable, given that back in the amazing 1990s, Ontario employment rose by 20% over eight years. Also during that time, they fired more public servants than Hudak is proposing to fire right now. He used a graph and everything!

Given that Cross doesn't actually address the "liberal lies," I would propose that Chudleigh's attempt to use him is a bust. Here's a link to Cross's comment.

Read more )
moira_j_moore1: (Default)
I’ve been missing playing with Diane Francis’s ridiculous book, it really was a lot of fun, so I decided to play with the Million Jobs Plan put out by Tim Hudak, the conservative running for premier of Ontario. You can find a copy of the plan here:

In short, this document is badly written, vague to the point of uselessness, and contradictory. And I think my critique of the plan is longer than the document itself.

There is another document, called a “technical backgrounder,” which doesn’t appear to be available to the public but was released to journalists when Hudak made his announcement about his plan. It apparently gives precise details about where the million jobs will come from. According to this article, the math in this document is wrong. Really wrong.

Here’s a link to an article in which Hudak stands by his math and says he doesn’t want to “haggle” over how many jobs his plan will actually create. He says:

“We can have a great argument over whether it’s going to create 80,000, 100,000, 120,000 or 150,000 jobs, the bottom line is, it’s going to create jobs…” ( I would suggest it isn’t legitimate to round up from 150,000 to 1,000,000.)

This article says Hudak is assuming a GDP growth for Ontario of 10.3 percent in 2015, after years of growth averaging about 2 percent. 10.3 percent would represent growth better than China’s.

Read more )


moira_j_moore1: (Default)

September 2017

34 56789


RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 12:26 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios