Talk:Ontario Liberal Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Need to fill in gaps in list of Liberal leaders.

Rowell became Lib leader sometime between 1907 and 1913

[edit] Ontario Health premium

There's no need to be cute about this - the government acknowledges that it is a new tax. The legislative amendments made to enact it were done through the Income Tax Act (Ontario), it is administered through the income tax system, and the government had to amend the Taxpayer Protection Act in order to implement it. Payment of the "premium" does not entitle anyone to any services, nor does failure to pay it disentitle anyone from any services. As to whether or not they broke a promise, they broke a prmoise. Signing the commitment to the taxpayers' federation was clear and unambiguous, and they did not honour that commitment. Of course, the Liberals believe that they had no choice, and they probably are, IMHO, right on that. It's not POV to say that they broke that promise. Kevintoronto 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't being cute, I was mis-remembering the specifics. Thanks for the correction. CJCurrie 19:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That didn't come across the way it was intended, CJ. I value your contributions here, and I apologise if I gave offence. Kevintoronto 19:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My response probably came off a bit harsh as well. I should point out that I was managing a radio program while typing (see CFRC), and that my response was brief by necessity. I meant the words to be taken literally, but I can also see how they might have come off as snide. No offense taken, hopefully none given.
(Now I'm worried that we're falling into a Canadian stereotype with all this politeness ...)
As to the original point ... for some reason, I thought that the McGuinty government had initially argued that the health premium wasn't a tax in the strict sense of the term (which, as a quick Google search reveals, was a mis-remembering). Perhaps the hopelessly POV edits in the page history for Dalton McGuinty have left me hypersensitive to phrases like "broken promises"; in any event, though, I have no objection to the current wording. CJCurrie 23:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

An anonymous contributor wrote:

In respect to Feb.11, It is pointless to say who has the lead because the two parties are currently hovering around a tie. We know it could easily switch from day to day, so it would be inaccurate to post who has the narrow lead. It is true that the liberals are ahead by 2 points but that is well within the margin of error, making it a statistical tie. The last SES poll on the subject had the tories up 2 points. What did they call it? = a statistical tie. Like it or not, they are neck and neck.

My response:

The problem with this logic is that the Liberals have maintained a 2-3% lead in virtually every poll since John Tory became PC leader. Polls need to be considered in the aggregate, not simply as snapshots of particular moments -- and several polls showing the Liberals holding a 2-3% lead constitutes a pattern.

(I might note, for the benefit of other readers, that the previous SES poll being referenced by my anonymous interlocutor was taken before John Tory became PC leader. Polls taken by other companies since that time have consistently shown the Liberals with a narrow lead.)

Note also that a pro-McGuinty shill has been attempting to delete the word "narrow" from this page for some time now. I've consistently reverted these edits, just I intend to revert misleading edits from the other side. The current version notes that the Liberals retain a lead, while also noting that it's within the margin of error. Both aspects of this statement are accurate. If the polling situation changes (as verified by public domain polls, not internal party surveys), then the wording can change. CJCurrie 23:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually, I've now discovered a poll taken in October which had the Liberals up by 4% ... CJCurrie 23:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor:

You can't deny that they are statistically tied right now. Though the liberals are ahead by 2, Tory is ahead by 3 for best premier (granted it doesn't carry the same weight). When the Tory's were ahead by 2 in sept, SES said they were statistically tied. Also, we're talking about being well within the margin of error since it is around 5%. Recent polls should be ones done in 2005. If you want to include the ones before 2005, the torys and liberals both were leading. Le Before tory was elected leader, The PC's were ahead. You can't exclude that if you consider pre 2005 as recent.It is being biased to pick a date when the Liberals were suddenly ahead. The message should be: they are statistically tied but a feb. 11, jan.24 poll has shown liberals with the same 2 point lead.

Here is a list of relevant polls:

SES Research Feb. 11 2005 – Liberals 40, Tory 38 MoE= 5% = Statistically tied

(Best premier) SES Research Feb. 5- Tory 29, McGuinty 26 = Statistically tied

Ipsos Jan. 24 2005 – Liberals 37, Tory 35 = Statistically tied

Ipsos Oct. 2 2004 – Liberals 37, Tory 33

SES Research Sept. 16 2004 – Tory 40, Liberals 38 = Statistically tied

Ipsos Sept 9 2004 – Tory 35, Liberals 32

Environics Aug. 9 2004 – actually Tied

My response:

I will repeat my claim that polls need to be assessed in the aggregrate. The Tories briefly pulled ahead in the opinion polls during their leadership race, but every poll taken since John Tory became PC leader has shown the Liberal Party ahead. The fact that the Liberal lead is within the margin of error is relevant, but so is the fact that every poll in the last four months shows the Liberals in front (I believe there's also a CanWest/Global poll that could be added to the list). In the aggregate, the most accurate assessment is that: (i) the Liberals are ahead, and (ii) their lead is narrow. In a "snapshot" context, the fact that their lead is within the margin of error is also accurate.

Please note that the same conclusions would be accurate for the Tories, if they held a 2% lead over four months.

Incidentally, your decision to replace "2-4%" with "2%" is bad form. CJCurrie 06:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor:

"Recent" is not what happened last year. Recent is what has happened this year. It is time to update the numbers. Even still, you can't go back and pick the one poll that has the Liberals ahead, because the one before that also had the conservatives ahead. The focus should be this year not starting from a spot last year where the Liberals suddenly pulled ahead because that would be showing clear bias.

My response:

It seems that there are two basic points at issue here:

(i) When does "recent" begin, vis-a-vis recent polls?

(ii) How should polls be interpreted?

I would answer as follows:

(i) In this case, "recent" is best situated in relation to a pivotal event. John Tory's selection as PC leader provides both a convenient and useful starting point vis-a-vis an interpretation of recent polls: "five months ago" is still fairly recent in relative terms, and the pivotal event presents the beginning of a specific interaction between Tory's PCs and McGuinty's Liberals (which, I think you would agree, is the best manner of considering the provincial situation today). "The start of 2005" strikes me as an arbitrary starting point, in comparison.

(ii) I've already mentioned that polls should be interpreted in the aggregate, and as snapshots of particular moments. But perhaps this point has already been solved.

A further comment: I've noticed that the Ontario Liberal/Ontario PC/Tory/McGuinty pages seem to attract more partisan shills than most other pages on my watchlist. I've become somewhat apprehensive about any anonymous edits of these pages, knowing that any such edits have about a 50% chance (based on experience) of being partisan and misleading.

If it turns out that you're *not* a partisan hack, and are simply interested in presenting useful information, then I apologize for the strained tone that this discussion has taken in recent days.

Hopefully, the current edit will satisfy both of our concerns. (If you really want to add something about the PCs holding a brief lead during the leadership race, I won't object in principle.) CJCurrie 22:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anonymous contributor:

I can see how looking back at a pivitol event to present can be considered recent but John Tory was elected leader in the fall of last year. He is now running in a by-election. There are so many "pivitol events" that you could choose, making that method more arbitrary.

Clearly if you look at the polling, it can be divided into 2 periods: 1)polls surrounding the leadership election, 2)polls in 2005. It is recognizable because there is a large gap of no polls done in-between . In conclusion, it would be more accurate and logical to concentrate on the most recent period of polling.

My response:

September 2004 is still recent, and Tory's selection is much less arbritary as a cut-off point than New Year's Day. The by-election is a current event; I don't really see how this comparison works.

I think that most of our current disagreement comes down to "what counts as recent". Perhaps we could agree to hold off on this point until some other readers contribute their views. CJCurrie 23:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Btw, I think you might technically be in violation of the "three revert rule" (ie. no more than three reverts of the same article in a 24-hour period). In the interest of civility, however, I won't press the point. CJCurrie 23:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

anonymous contributor:

CJ, you are missing the point. I have not decided to randomly make the cut off date new years. We are talking about the polls here and if you look at when they were taken, you can see that they can be divided into very clear periods as I mentioned above.

My response:

Actually, that might be a valid point (it only became clear in your next-to-last contribution, if you were trying to make it earlier).

Would you agree to a compromise wording including the following information:

  • the PCs held a lead during their leadership race
  • the Liberals pulled ahead after Tory was selected
  • the Liberals now hold a narrow lead, within the margin of error ... ?

(I still think there was a CanWest poll as well, btw.) CJCurrie 00:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response:

You do not need to include that the tories were in the lead in 2004 or the Liberals were in the lead in 2004. There was such a large gap in the polling period that either party could have been ahead. If any polling is listed on this site it should be the most up to date. Hence all polls done in 2005. It might not seem that a few months is a long time but I think in politics you would agree it is.