Dalton McGuinty wins 85 per cent leadership endorsement from party - Macleans.ca

Dalton McGuinty wins 85 per cent leadership endorsement from party


OTTAWA – Ontario’s Liberals are keeping Premier Dalton McGuinty as their leader, despite a disappointing result in last year’s election.

The premier received an endorsement from 85.8 per cent of delegates who voted in a leadership review at the party’s convention Ottawa.

McGuinty, whose government was downgraded to a minority last October, failed to win the one seat he needed for a majority in two recent byelections.

The Liberals hung on to their seat in Vaughan, but came in third in Kitchener-Waterloo, which went to the New Democrats for the first time in their history.

McGuinty has also alienated much of the Liberals’ base of support by going after the salaries of public sector workers to balance the books.

Unions representing most of the teachers and education workers in the province are at war with McGuinty after helping him get re-elected over the past nine years.

They’re angry over a new law that will cut their benefits and restrict wages, as well as give the government the power to stop strikes and lockouts.

About 100 demonstrators from teachers’ unions picketed outside the Ottawa hotel and convention centre where the Liberals were holding their annual general meeting.

Many wore T-shirts with McGuinty’s picture, quoting his oft-repeated statement that his government will respect the collective bargaining process.

Public servants, nurses and other workers have also joined the fight over proposed legislation that could potentially impose new collective agreements and restrict their right to strike.

McGuinty has said he doesn’t plan on going anywhere and will lead his party into the next election.

He’s been Liberal leader since 1996 and has served as premier for nine years.

Filed under:

Dalton McGuinty wins 85 per cent leadership endorsement from party

  1. What a bunch of fools. McGuinty is a weasel far past his best-before date and getting riper everyday. I hope there’s an election a year from now and the Liberal party crashes and burns Iggy/Charest-style. Of all of them, none deserve it more than McGuinty.

    • Harris and Rae just about killed Ontario….McGuinty has had to do a lot of damage control and rebuilding. Managed to be a good education premier though.

      • McGuinty bent over backwards preserving Harris’s reckless income tax cuts (Reaganomics.) He also brought in pointless corporate tax rates. According to KPMG Canada has the lowest effective corporate tax rate of all countries. (We ranked #2 in 2008 before the Harper/McGuinty $18B/yr tax cuts.)

        McGuinty’s education and green reforms were also over the top. Electricity rates continue to soar (whatever socialist QC is doing, we could certainly use some of that in ON.)

        In short, McGuinty is a pay-as-you-go progressive conservative. The federal Liberals crashed and burned catering to blue Liberals. Same will happen in ON. They need to turn the page…

        • Rubbish….my electricity rates haven’t changed in years….and no we don’t want any QC or Bob Rae socialism.

          The federal Libs didn’t ‘crash and burn’…..over 145 years sometimes you lose elections….they’ll be back.

          It’s great to have goodies Ron….but you have to be able to pay for them.

          • Apparently we can only pay for massive tax cuts that do absolutely nothing for the economy. Harper has slashed taxes by $30B/yr. Or, in other words, a 30 billion-dollar-a-year boondoggle.

            In terms of social spending Canada ranks #23 of 34 OECD countries. The US #25. Canada has 85% debt/GDP and a $125B infrastructure deficit. The US has 103% debt/GDP and a $1.2T infrastructure deficit.

            Both countries keep cutting spending and slashing taxes and keep going further and further into debt.

            Countries in northern Europe spend more, have stronger, greener economies and lower debt.

            So it doesn’t look like these right-wing economics are as self-evident as self-serving businessmen make them out to be…

            (BTW there’s a big difference between macroeconomics and household economics. For a start, a household is not an economy…)

          • For a start, I’ve done both macro and microeconomics thanx.

            And your repetition of socialist points and headlines is meaningless.

            I said long ago that socialism, communism and capitalism all died at the same time

          • I support the centrist Keynesian system which got spectacular results in the post-war era. (Northern European countries stuck with it, while North Americans embarked in 30 years of anti-Keynesian free-market reforms that culminated in the huge mess we are presently in.)

            But just to recap: during the post war era, America (using the Keynesian system) created modern living standards and the modern middle class; had rising living standards for everyone; and paid down its government debt from 135% debt/GDP to 35%. (Canada: 100% to 17%.)

            Over the past 30-year “age of greed”, we had an economic tide that only raised the yachts (living standards were downsized for everyone else); debt and inequality soared (now 103% in America; 85% in Canada); and the period ended in a global economic meltdown we have yet to recover from.

            We gave the right-wing ideologues their chance. They failed in every objective they set out to accomplish. Now it’s time to go back to the center and let adults manage the economy competently like they did before.

          • You’re not listening.

            And I know from long experience it’s something economics types don’t do…which is why everything is such a surprise to them.

            Forget about WWII….it was the halfway point of the last century, and is no longer valid. A good deal of the world was trashed, and everyone needed goods. Mainland USA was untouched by bombs, and had factories ready to go. So the postwar years were a huge boomtime for North America, and then Europe as the Marshall Plan kicked in…and eventually Japan etc.

            WWII was also the peak of the Industrial Age….in fact ‘the high-water mark for manufacturing was in the U.S. 1943,”…. “It’s been in decline ever since.”

            1956 was when white collar overtook blue collar for the first time….it is still that way, although now t-shirts and t-necks have overtaken white collars.

            GM currently employs over 200,000 people worldwide….Google employs 50,000 worldwide.

            That’s the difference.

            In short….the war was a one-off. It isn’t going to happen again, and it’s time to move on …because we aren’t going back to manufacturing and a closed market.

            Doesn’t matter what wing you like…left, right or bbq’d….doesn’t matter which of the old systems you promote….the world is now global, and in the knowledge economy.

          • Like the laws of physics, the laws of economics don’t change over time. The fundamentals remain the same: economies grow, technology advances, productivity rises, nations become wealthier.

            The purpose of economics is to develop a system that bests allocates resources to maximize prosperity.

            The supply-side free-market ideology we employed over the past 30 years was based on the premise it would usher in an new age of prosperity. It utterly failed. We had all the above fundamentals, but only the wealthy benefited from them: a tide that only raised the yachts.

            This is why demand-side economics were created in the first place: to level out the playing field and ensure everyone was getting their fair share of the economic pie. And that’s precisely why that system worked and the free-market system failed (like it did originally in the 1930s.)

            BTW, in a functioning economy (a tide that raises all boats) productivity growth means workers have to work less hours over time. Eventually machines and artificial intelligence will take over almost all of the economy, putting most people out of work.

            Under the free-market system, the economy collapses: people have no jobs and there are no markets from which businesses can make their riches. Under the demand-side system — founded on partial government involvement in the economy ensuring people share in the wealth — the economy keeps going and the fundamentals remain the same…

          • The ‘laws’ of economics do indeed change over time….we made the whole thing up in the first place….and we can just as easily change it or chuck it.

            And enough with the rising tide stuff and ‘productivity’ and so on. All meaningless now.

            And btw that’s not why we had a depression in the 30s.

            Listen….be a socialist all you want…but you’re wasting your time trying to persuade me to be one.

          • Actually, Keynes is in the center of the left-right economic spectrum (100% left is communism: full government control of the economy; 100% right is libertarianism: no government involvement in the economy.)

            America used the Keynesian system in the post-war era. They were not socialists. Even Nixon said he was Keynesian.

            By economic laws I mean the ones that accurately describe how an economy functions effectively. We certainly don’t know what these laws are down to a science like we do quantum mechanics, for example. But they exist none the less (like the laws of quantum electrodynamics existed before we knew the electron existed…)

            The global economy has suffered worse economic quagmires than the one we are presently in. The Great Depression is one example. Knowledge-based economics got us out of the last mess (also caused by free-market ideology); they can get us out of this one.

          • Utter tripe. Go to bed.

  2. I believe Canada should found telesurgery robotics schools. This would help the developing world and especially for respiratory medical treatment, aid in responding to pandmeic; having a surge capacity of teleoperating nurses would be nice. Just have to learn how to tax again and build from McMaster’s robotic medicine expertise.