Ontario 2018 election

[mileslunn]

Looking at the party leaders I would say in terms of likelihood of winning their seats are as follows

Andrea Howarth (Hamilton Centre) - She may have the toughest road to becoming premier, but there is no chance of her not winning her seat

Doug Ford (Etobicoke North) - This is a tough one as normally his riding is a fairly safe Liberal one and in many ways it is more likely to go NDP than PC, but it is the heart of the Ford Nation and with him being leader I suspect he will probably win it.

Kathleen Wynne (Don Valley West) - Her riding went Tory federally in 2011 so far from a safe one although I think with the choice of Doug Ford as leader it probably improves her chances whereas had Elliott been chosen, I think she would be in grave danger of losing her seat.

Of the PC candidates my rankings in winneability are:

Caroline Mulroney (York-Simcoe) - Very safe riding so should easily win hers.

Christine Elliott (Newmarket-Aurora) - As long as the PCs don't shoot themselves in the foot she should win her riding

Doug Ford (Etobicoke North) - See above but his is far less favourable than the two above

Tanya Granic Allen (Mississauga Centre) - Sort of a bellwether although more favourable than most Mississauga ridings so could go either way.  Not sure if her staunch social conservatism will be an asset or liability.  Generally GTA is more socially liberal than most of the province, but her riding is a heavily ethnic riding and much of the immigrant community are fairly socially conservative.

[mileslunn]

Do you honestly think the people of Etobicoke North are more loyal to the Liberal Party than the Fords?

Liberals won Etobicoke North by 10-11% in 2011 and the current polls are in the ballpark of the federal 2011 result. Ford Nation has to be worth at least a 5% swing.

Well, not to mention turnout was much higher in the Toronto election than the provincial election (believe it or not!), so a lot of that Ford nation support is actually from non-voters.

What visible minorities are most attracted to/ turned off Ford Nation?

I'd guess Blacks are the most attracted, followed by East Asians, Hispanics and South Asians the least. But all more so than White Torontonians. Hence why the comparisons with right wing populism in any other country has to stop.

Sounds about right although interestingly enough the Black community is generally the group the Tories tend to be weakest amongst, but agree Ford seems to do well with them.  Chinese generally lean in the conservative direction and it seems are trending that way.  With East Indians mixed bag, but I've found much like in the UK, the Tories do best amongst Hindus, while struggle with Sikhs and Muslims.  I do think Ford gets lots of white Torontonians, particularly groups like the Polish, Italians, and Portuguese as well as your married suburban types.  It's more than downtown types who hate him as well as for the business community he is a big turn off as a lot of them lean right on fiscal issues, but don't tend to like populists.  Amongst Jewish voters he is much weaker than their federal counterparts who have done well amongst them.

Lets also remember a lot of the countries where we have non-white immigrants from have populists leaders.  Duterte in the Philippines and Modi in India could both be described as that, although Ford is quite different than either of those two, but point being populism can work quite well with immigrants if you keep the racism and bigotry out of it, which most populist parties elsewhere haven't been able to do.

[mileslunn]

Wynne is promising free childcare after 2.5 starting in 2020.  The Liberals are sure going on a big spending binge but tough to see how this plays out.  I see the following possibilities:

Liberals:  It might save them, but I suspect a lot will ask why not over the 15 years and many might see this as smacking of desperation.  Never mind with strong growth and low interest rates, the idea of running a deficit will be a tougher sell than in the 2015 election when we had 0% growth as opposed to 3% growth and even then Liberals promised fairly modest deficits.

PCs: Liberals probably hoping to trip them up in either they oppose those or their platform won't add up.  Nonetheless recent polls seem to show people like most of the new programs being brought in, but they also want lower taxes and a balanced budget and if the latter is a higher priority this could favour the PCs, while if the former is a higher priority will be bad news for them.

NDP: This seems to be done to squeeze the NDP out and it might do so, but could have the opposite effect.  With both parties asides from Hydro One running on similar platforms people might decide to go for the real thing instead of the last minute conversion and go for the party who seems genuine vs. the one who seems to be only doing this because of their lousy poll numbers.

Also with how steady the polls are maybe most voters have already made up their mind and nothing will change.  My guess is polls don't change much until the writ is dropped.  From May 9th until end of long weekend, no major changes either but leadership numbers should be watched as those are often good lead indicators.  After the long weekend is when I think you will see some movement as that is when people will start to make up their mind.

[mileslunn]

That's a typical Liberal Campaign Promise. Go left to squeeze the NDP, move back to the center once in Government. Look at Trudeau.

Actually Trudeau has generally stayed on the left which is why the Tories not NDP are the primary beneficiaries of his follies.  It's true with the Chretien/Martin government they did that and maybe many Red Tories and Blue Liberals expected the same from Trudeau.  McGuinty also did this too while for Wynne the only policy I can think of that I would classify as right wing was the sale of Hydro One and that is perhaps the only area where the NDP and Liberals strongly differ.  You could add beer and wine sales in some grocery stores as being right wing although outside of English Canada that is just standard procedure.  That is the norm throughout Europe, most of the US, and even Quebec so not withstanding protestations from Smokey Warren Thomas in the OPSEU I would hardly describe that as right wing. 

For Trudeau, cannot think of many right wing policies he has brought in.  Sure he broke his promise on electoral reform, but that is not something you can really put as left or right wing as you have supporters and detractors on both sides.  Yes more on left favour switching to PR, but that probably has more to do with it would mean they would win more often and less on the merits of the system.  If we had one left wing party and two right wing parties and the right wing vote usually exceeded 50%, but the left won more often than the right, I suspect it would be the right pushing for PR not left.  After all PR would have helped the right in BC in 1996 and Alberta 2015 and interestingly the left in Alberta is largely mute on the issue.

[mileslunn]

Today is budget day so expect lots of goodies.  This will be the real test when the next batch of polls come out if the Liberals can move the needle.  If this won't change the poll numbers, then pretty much the only thing left for the Liberals is hope the PCs screw up massively.  Will be interesting as their big spending no doubt is a concern for many with the large debt levels, but at the same time turning down popular programs won't exactly be popular either so will probably come down to people's priorities.  Is keeping taxes low and a balanced budget more important than the new programs, which is good news for the PCs, or is more program spending more important which is bad news for the PCs but tough to say whether the NDP or Liberals benefit from this.

[mileslunn]

Singh's brother is running in Brampton East.

That will probably ensure they win that seat.  Might help them in Brampton Centre and Brampton North too which are currently pegged as three way races.  Brampton South is likely a PC-Liberal race still and Brampton West favours the Liberals although go PC if they win a landslide and Liberals fall to third place.

[mileslunn]

Is it just me or has Election Prediction Project really jumped the shark (thanks to the idiocy of "Not Non-Partisan" and "jeff316")?

Electionprediction.org makes predictions based on a combination of general trends while also looking at the comments. Quality not quantity is what they use so nonsensical posts get ignored in their predictions. On the website they explain how they make them.

[mileslunn]

First post budget poll out and good news for Liberals while bad for PCs.

PC's 36 percent
Libs 29 percent
NDP 26 percent

Interestingly enough only 24 percent liked the budget while 44 percent did not so it could be more the Ford effect. Quito Maggi who is CEO of mainstreet tweeted his polls have shown tightening too but over anti-Ford voters going Liberal not budget. I've found Forum tends to underestimate Liberals and overestimate PC's mind you they also are good at picking up trends but tend to exaggerate them. The thing that really jumped out is the biggest shift was amongst seniors who were leaning heavily PC before but generally don't like Ford. Next week when more polls come out we will probably get a better idea.

I still think with Wynne's low approval ratings her winning the most seats is unlikely but could stay on as premier if Ford only gets a minority and she gangs up with Howarth to keep him out.

[mileslunn]

First post budget poll out and good news for Liberals while bad for PCs.

PC's 36 percent
Libs 29 percent
NDP 26 percent

Interestingly enough only 24 percent liked the budget while 44 percent did not so it could be more the Ford effect. Quito Maggi who is CEO of mainstreet tweeted his polls have shown tightening too but over anti-Ford voters going Liberal not budget. I've found Forum tends to underestimate Liberals and overestimate PC's mind you they also are good at picking up trends but tend to exaggerate them. The thing that really jumped out is the biggest shift was amongst seniors who were leaning heavily PC before but generally don't like Ford. Next week when more polls come out we will probably get a better idea.

I still think with Wynne's low approval ratings her winning the most seats is unlikely but could stay on as premier if Ford only gets a minority and she gangs up with Howarth to keep him out.

We'll obviously find out if this poll is just a blip or not or the dreaded '1 out of 20' but if it is accurate, I think the most important thing is that once these voters are taken from automatically supporting the P.Cs, they might be up for grabs even if they desert the Liberals.

There could be an opportunity here for the NDP.  This could be the first genuine three way election in Canada since ?

Much like it was federally I doubt this will last into election. As per past three ways, the closest I can think of is Quebec 2007. Nova Scotia 2003 had a similar spread of the three parties while Quebec 2012 was one vote wise but two way seat wise as CAQ was only five points back in votes but didn't do well in terms of seats.

[mileslunn]

Or perhaps while not thought of a lot if the PCs only win a minority, the Liberals could agree to let them govern provided they choose a different leader, although that is probably stretching it a little too much.  I could only see this happening if the Liberals and NDP do gang up and then caucus feeling they could break this with a different leader forces Ford out and once the PCs get a new leader the agreement falls apart.  But even that seems unlikely.  Had the PCs not been so stupid and chosen Elliott instead of Ford this would probably be a non-issue as she is not nearly as divisive as he is.

[mileslunn]

Having reviewed the budget, and realizing how the government has not planned for any way of paying for any of it (trivial raise in taxes; and cigarette taxes amounting for a whopping 0.2% of revenue), what are the odds the NDP attacks the Liberals for being fiscally irresponsible? There is nothing actually inherently right wing about being fiscally responsible; in fact the NDP has a long track record of balanced budgets in other provinces. I know when Mulcair ran on a balanced budget in the federal election it kind of backfired, but with an unpopular Liberal Party, it might be away to win over some centrist voters who don't want to vote for either Ford or Wynne. Of course the downside is the NDP might have to promise to raise taxes in order to pay for their promises, and that might not go over well.

I think if they raised taxes on those making over 100K it wouldn't hurt them too much as most making those incomes don't vote NDP anyways and those concerned about a potential brain drain also probably don't vote NDP either.  Yes raising corporate and the top rates has dangers in making Ontario less competitive (Top rate if you combine with federal is 53.53% which is 2nd highest in North America behind Nova Scotia and one of the highest in the OECD), but that would more be something the PCs would attack. 

As for Mulcair losing on balanced budgets, the polls I've seen show most were in favour of deficits in the 2015 election, but today want a balanced budget not deficits.  And that makes some sense as even if most haven't taken economics or understand Keynesian theory, many understand you run deficits when the economy is underperforming (In 2015 it was with near zero growth) and you run surpluses when overperforming (It is now with 3% growth and record low unemployment).

[mileslunn]

Another question for people who understand these things better than me, if Ontario has one of the highest deficits and highest upper income tax rates in the OECD, but doesn't have the corresponding social program spending to go along with it, then where is all the money going to?

The reason for this is overall taxation is low by OECD standards.  In most of Europe the difference comes in much higher sales tax rates.  The HST is 13% in Ontario while in most European countries VAT rates are 20-25%.  Federally each point in the GST is $7 billion so adjusting for population difference essentially every point in HST is $3 billion so if raised to 20% it would be $21 billion extra and if raised to 25% (That is what it is in the Nordic Countries) would be $36 billion extra so that is where the difference comes from.  Off course raising HST like that would be political suicide for any party, but that is the reason.  Also debt level servicing is another as the three most Western provinces have top marginal rates under 50% and more in line with the OECD and G7 averages (BC 49.8%, AB 48%, SK 47.5%, while France 54.5%, Japan 55.9% so higher than ON, but Italy 45.8%, Germany 47.5%, UK 45% ((47% if you include National Insurance)), US 37% to 50.3% depending on state) so that is another advantage of having a lower debt.  All provinces from Manitoba eastward have debt to GDP ratios above 30% and top marginal rates over 50% whereas all provinces west of that have debt to GDP ratios under 16% and top marginal rates under 50%.  Off course had Mulcair been PM the top marginal rates wouldn't have gone up federally so less of an issue as Ontario's top rate would be 49.53% so only slightly above the G7 average.  Ironically enough Trudeau only got an extra $1.5 billion in revenue from the 4% hike in the top rate as it just led to more aggressive accounting.  Case and point, many executives switch to stock options which are taxed at half the rate.

[mileslunn]

Another question for people who understand these things better than me, if Ontario has one of the highest deficits and highest upper income tax rates in the OECD, but doesn't have the corresponding social program spending to go along with it, then where is all the money going to?

Good Question -
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-2018-ontario-budget-in-charts-and-numbers/

38.7% Health Care!
18.3% Education
13.1% "Other programs"
11.3% Children and Social Services
7.9% Interest on Debt
7.4%  Postsecondary and Training sector
3.2% Justice Sector

Revenue sources are interesting as well:
23.4% Personal Income Tax
17.6% Sales Tax
17.1% Federal Transfers
11.5% Other Non-Tax Revenues
9.9% Corporate Tax
4.3% Employer Health Tax
4.0% Education property tax
3.9% Other Tax
3.5% Income from Gov`t business enterprises
2.6% Health Premium
2.3% Gas and Fuel Taxes

** The NDP is already going to be running on higher corporate taxes, that`s pretty much a given.

Problem with raising corporate taxes is with US cuts Canada has lost its competitive advantage.  Now Ontario could raise theirs from 11.5% to 12% which would bring it in line with all four Western provinces and just above Quebec by 0.1% but amount of revenue gained would be minimal.  Sales tax hike as per earlier post is where you can get the most revenue.  Also European countries tend to have higher payroll taxes and many even fund their social programs completely through those.  Another possibility is have the top rate kick in at a much lower level.  In the Nordic Countries, top rates kick in between 60K to 80K equivalent so it hits a lot more people whereas Ontario's is 220K so far fewer taxpayers hit.  In Netherlands where their top rate is 52% (dropping to 49.5% next year), it kicks in at only 67,000 Euros, while Belgium who has a top rate of 50% (It is 50-54.5% when you include municipal) kicks in at 38,000 Euros only.  Germany's top rate kicks in at 250,000 Euros, however the 42% rate (44.3 when you include solidarity surtax) kicks in at 54,000 Euros.  In UK top rate kicks in at 150,000 pounds, but the 40% one kicks in at only 54,000 Pounds.

In California, their top rate is close to Ontario's but kicks in at a million USD so affects very few people never mind marginal rates are only what you make over that amount not total.  Also another one that stands out is federal transfers as those before the mid 90s used to be a lot higher, but don't count on those being raised anytime soon.

Some will claim HST is regressive which is true, but also most European countries have lower rates for essentials as opposed to non-essentials and we could just up the rebates anyways in terms of both dollars and those who qualify.  The thing about sales taxes is they are tough to avoid so you generally get every dollar you anticipate whereas with corporate and income taxes you have to factor in behavior changes thus rarely realize the full amount.

[mileslunn]

Sounds like we need to start taxing stock bonds more

Bonds are already taxed at the full rate, only equities are taxed at 50% (that is 50% of whatever rate you pay so for top marginal it would be 27.26%).  I think the reason Liberals are running deficits is people may not like it but doesn't affect them like tax hikes do.  Raising sales taxes doesn't seem to hurt politically in Europe, but in Canada its quite costly.  HST destroyed Gordon Campbell in BC, GST destroyed Mulroney, and Selinger's big drop in the polls largely came over a 1% PST increase.  In fact the main reason Alberta doesn't have a sales tax is not because it is a bad idea, but polls show any party that introduced one would pay at the polls.

I think that is the problem in Canada is many want Scandinavian style programs but without the taxation they have on the middle class.

[mileslunn]

I'm not a fan of GST/HST because it's regressive, but I'm not opposed to the idea of taxing certain things if they're 'sinful', so perhaps one idea might be to increase the VAT on items that are harmful to society.

Or you could like most European countries have a two tier system with a low rate for essentials and regular rate for non-essentials.  Usually food, clothing, shelter and other essentials are only 5-10%, but everything else is 20-25%.  Just hitting sin products wouldn't work as not enough but if you exempt essentials that definitely would.  Also the poor would benefit in that yes they pay more tax, but they receive more programs and most with lower income are more impacted by the number of programs available as opposed to tax so as long as it means more programs that greater tax rate would be offset by savings in not paying user fees for many things they do now.

[mileslunn]

I think that is the problem in Canada is many want Scandinavian style programs but without the taxation they have on the middle class.

That's very true.  The Nordic welfare states are financed by so-called "regressive" taxes but all that revenue has a redistributive outcome.  Of course the top marginal rates are higher too, but overall the Scandinavian tax system is actually flatter than that of the US.  I would argue that the net impact of the tax system in Scandinavia is more progressive.

If you want Scandinavian social democracy you have to tax the middle earners more too.  One strength of the Scandinavian system is that the middle classes actually have a stake in the welfare state too. 

Actually not totally true, but somewhat.  I looked up the tax rates for each and here is what I got.  In Canada bottom rate if you exclude payroll taxes is combined from 20.05% in Ontario to 27.525% in Quebec while top rate is 47.5% in Saskatchewan (44.5% in Nunavut if you include territories) to 54% in Nova Scotia.  If you include CPP and EI then bottom rates range 26.66% to 34.135% although CPP as long as you or your spouse makes retirement age you get back.  EI is a different story as most workers never claim it and many are ineligible anyways.

Denmark:  Top marginal rate is 55.6% so just a little above Ontario, but their tax structure is ridiculously complex so tough to understand.

Finland: National rates are 6.5% to 31.25% while municipal are a flat rate of 16.5% to 22.5% and you have payroll taxes of 7.76% which aren't capped unlike in Canada.  So marginal rates are 23-29% for bottom (30.76% to 36.76% if you include payroll) while top is 47.75% to 53.75% (55.51% to 61.51% if you include payroll) so similar if you exclude payroll but higher when included.

Iceland: Had a flat tax until 2010, but has only two rates, bottom at 36% so much higher than here, but top is 46.2% so similar to what Ontario was in 2011 (It was 46.41% then).  Also kicks in at around 80,000K.  That being said due to its small size you don't need the same level of re-distribution as you would in Canada as pre-tax incomes are a lot more equal than here.

Norway: Bottom rate excluding payroll is 23% (19.5% in the two most northern regions).  Top rate is 38.4% (34.9% in two most northern regions).  Payroll taxes are uncapped and only those making over equivalent of around 7K and are 5.1% for pension income, 8.2% employee income, and 11.4% for self-employed.  Employer pays 5.9% so it is for regular employee a total of 14.1% but you only see the 8.2%.  That means combined top is for pensioners 43.5% (40% two northern regions); regular employees 46.6% (43.1% in two northern regions), while for self-employed it is 49.8% (46.3% in two northern regions), while indirectly if employed it is 52.5% (49% in two northern regions).  So definitely lower than Ontario and lower than all provinces unless self-employed or you include employer portion.  Mind you Norway has a tonne of oil so they can afford lower taxes and more programs.

Sweden: a flat tax at the municipal level of 32%, while a progressive one of 0 to 25% at the national level so marginal rates range from 32% to 57% so a bit higher than Ontario too.

Looking at other Western European countries, here are the top rates I was able to dig up:

Germany: 47.475% so lower by health care is funded through sickness funds and social insurance not general taxes so probably that is the difference.

Netherlands: 51.95% (planned drop to 49.5% next year but not approved yet) there health care also funded through mandatory private insurance subsidized by government based on income

Belgium: 50% to 54.5% depending on municipality (average 53.5%) but if you include payroll taxes average top rate is 56.5% to 60.4% and kicks in at only 38K Euros.

Luxembourg: 45.8% (47.2% if you include payroll taxes) however median incomes are much higher than Canada.

UK: 45% (46% in Scotland) and if you include National Insurance 47% (48%) in Scotland so a bit lower.  Bottom rate is also only 20%, but middle rate of 40% kicks in at a much lower than ours so UK has lower rates for rich and lower middle income, but higher for upper middle income than us.

Ireland: 48% (51% for self-employed); 43% for pensioners, and 52% if you include payroll taxes while 55% total for self-employed.  Their tax rate as a portion of GDP is lower than Canada unlike most Western European countries, but mainly due to ridiculously low corporate tax rate.  Someone like Bono would pay 55% total there thus why he goes offshore.

France: Around 54.5% if you include social taxes.  45% is top rate but you have separate social taxes for welfare state.

Switzerland: Varies by canton and municipality but ranges from as low as 22% to as high as 46%, average of 34%, around 40% in major cities.

Austria: 55% but only over 1,000,000 million Euros and ends in 2021 when top rate falls back to 50%

Portugal: 53%, 58.17% if you include payroll taxes

Spain: 45% (as low as 43% in Madrid while 48% in Catalonia and Andulusia but varies by autonomous community

Italy: 44-47% (varies by region and municipality, average of 45.8%)

Greece: 55%

So as you can see Ontario is not too far off many but tends to line up more with the smaller countries, maybe economies of scale.  But definitely higher than most larger ones although considering how little revenue was received from tax hikes, probably could be cut to 45% (29% federally and 16% provincially) without losing too much revenue, but wouldn't sell well politically.  Lower rates are actually similar in Europe but vary even more widely from as low as 10% to as high as 36%

[mileslunn]

The final possibility, rarer nowadays: like the famous top marginal rates in the 1950s USA or 1960s UK, almost nobody is actually in the tax bracket. This doesn't seem to apply to Ontario

To the best of my knowledge no country has a top marginal rate exceeding 60%.  Some countries have wealth taxes so if obscenely wealthy it might be possible to be paying more but for income taxes top rates of over 90% like the US once had no longer exist although no one actually paid anywhere close to that, well except for Elvis Presley who had a terrible accountant so IRS got more from him than any other American.  UK had a top rate of 95% in the 60s which is why most British artists went abroad.  Beatles tax man song that says if 5% appears too small or 1 for you 19 for me refers to this.  Paul McCartney today would have a top marginal rate of 45% (Since over 70 he is exempt from national insurance thus not 47%) and I suspect like most rich people he has good accountants so probably pays much less than that.

[mileslunn]

Actually not totally true, but somewhat...

Don't forget though that the top marginal tax rates kick in at much lower levels than they do in Ontario/Canada.  Sweden's top rate applies at about CDN$100,000 for example.

Higher tax jurisdictions in the US like New York and California have top marginal rates above 50%, but you have to be in the top 0.5% or so.  Americans think everybody is middle class, so they tend to put their "fat cat" taxes on a tiny of people almost nobody knows.

Exactly or at least that is the case in many European countries.  Germany and UK have their top rates kick in at higher levels (150,000 GBP and 250,000 EUR), but the rates at 70,000K equivalent are only a few percentage points lower.  In terms of top rates over 50%, actually New York is not but California is (It is 45.82% in New York state, but New York City due to municipal tax is 49.7%, 37% + 8.82 + 3.976%, while California is 50.3%; 37 + 13.3%).  Now if you include the 2.35% medicare levy than both California and New York City exceed the 50% mark, although not New York state, but as you mentioned only hits those making over $1,000,000 US so such a tiny portion and also a very different cohort.  Those making over a million tend to be mostly wealthy CEOs whereas over 200K it is usually high skilled professionals and people tend to have a negative view of the former but positive of the latter.  The one problem is in Canada we have a lot fewer millionaires than the US so the revenue we would get would be much less.  I imagine in Sweden where income distribution is even more equal, that is probably why the top rate kicks in lower as they would get less at 200K than we do.

[mileslunn]

On the issue of taxes related to the election.  It's obviously a no brainer the PCs will be against any tax hikes but with tax cuts they have to be careful as whatever hole they leave, that means spending cuts so while their tax cuts will be popular, the potential spending cuts is where the danger is.  Don't know what they will do, but probably smartest would be make their tax cuts noticeable but relatively small in treasury cost or backload them to the final year.  As for tax hikes, raising corporate and income taxes and high net worth individuals is an easy sell, the problem is when you crunch the numbers the amount of revenue you will get is not very much.  You have to raise the HST, fuel taxes, or middle income taxes to gain significant revenue and any of those will be politically harmful.  There is also sin taxes which governments of all stripes raise but again revenue from that is not particularly high, especially in the case of tobacco taxes as smoking rates are declining.  There is off course the marijuana revenue but again you put the tax too high on it, people will just turn to the black market.

As for deficits, my thinking is most NDP supporters probably don't care so no risk for the NDP.  For the PCs most do care so would be politically stupid not to at least have a plan to return to balance even if it takes a few years.  For Liberals its a mixed bag.  Large deficit could cost them some Blue Liberals (but I think Wynne has already given up on them or figures the only way she can win them back is from fear of Doug Ford not support for her) whereas amongst their left flank it doubt it will hurt them.  Apparently the PC platform will be five points and will be released in stages.  Risky in the sense the Liberals will try to poke holes, but could be very effective.  After all that is what Harper did in 2006 and it worked there and he entered the campaign with similar negatives to Ford.  Although he only got a weak minority on his first try, but Paul Martin's approval rating was also a lot better than Wynne's too.

[mileslunn]

The NDP has to be careful here two, they have two voting pools: urban/intelligentsia progressives/social democrats and Working class/blue collar/unionized populist/progressives. So Higher corporate taxes (major differentiator from the OLP) is usually a staple in policy as is increasing taxes on the wealthy since both of these groups essentially support this policy. Raising the HST, across the board will not happen. BUT perhaps the ONDP will pull a BCNDP and raise the HST on luxury items (i'd like to see this paired with a decrease on essentials like food, infant products, what used to be the old PST exempt stuff). That could be one way the NDP can run on raising revenues and not turn away their voting pool and potential pool. Hopefully the NDP takes the opportunity to look at BC (and Alberta) to see what's been done there; they can look at a increasing the speculation tax perhaps, and sin tax increases.
I would like to see the party embrace taking back ownership of the 407 as well... and expansion of public assets (more public corporations) but we shall see.

Remember outside of Toronto, especially in SW ontario and the North, the NDP competes primarily against the PCs. These areas is bread-and-butter, pocket book issues that matter.

Buying back 407 might actually be easier than Hydro One.  Most opposed the sale of Hydro One, but the cost of buying back will be large.  I think the government already owns 47%, so if the NDP just promised to buy back another 3% so they own the majority that would be an easy sell as opposed to 53% of shares.  Nationalizing other industries is interesting and not sure whether that would sell well or not.  It worked well for Corbyn in the UK, but hasn't been tried here so tough to say although the danger is much like Rae's Plan to introduce public auto insurance it could bite them if they don't follow through.

On corporate and top income tax rates, the types who care about those would never vote NDP anyways so no real risk other than the amount of money raised will be small.  Also much like with the PCs, NDP's battles will vary depending on region of the province.

416 - Mostly Liberals as their support is strongest in the downtown core, but could get some three way races in the working class suburbs if Liberals crater.

905 - Asides from Oshawa and Brampton, they are pretty weak there, but PCs in Oshawa while three way in Brampton.

Hamilton/Niagara, Southwestern Ontario, and Northern Ontario - Agree it is the PCs not Liberals who will be their main challenge. 

Central Ontario - Unlikely to win seats there even if they win outright.

Eastern Ontario - Ottawa Centre and Kingston & the Islands are the only two realistic pick ups, maybe Peterborough-Kawartha if there is a surge but otherwise the party has never done well there even in the 1990 election.

Definitely have to focus on both groups mentioned as it seems Wynne is really going hard after the urban/intelligestia.  But Doug Ford does have strong appeal amongst blue collar workers so the party needs to connect with them or risk Ford much like Trump picking them off.

[mileslunn]

Two big news stories in relation to Doug Ford.

1.  Doug Ford won't let reporters on the campaign bus, but will still stream events and allow questions at campaign events. 

2.  Doug Ford is the only one of the four leaders not attending a debate put on by the Black community, claiming he already has a commitment in Northern Ontario

Both play into the idea this guy is a very risky one and the party wants to avoid him getting much media attention since he has the tendency to say stupid things.  Also the party has no longer committed to a fully costed platform which could make them easier to attack.  At the same time perhaps he is playing classical frontrunner role which is limit the opportunities to do something stupid, so we shall see.  At this point I think any of the three parties has a path to victory although in the case of the Liberals, minority is probably the best case scenario while for NDP chances of a majority are pretty slim although minority somewhat more plausible.  For PCs to early to say if minority or majority is most likely but as long as they don't screw up badly, the most likely outcome is the PCs winning the most seats, but with Ford having high negatives personally a majority is far from assured and certainly losing outright seems more realistic than it did before Brown's downfall.

[mileslunn]

Also three Liberal MPPs confirmed they are not seeking re-election; Michael Chan, Tonda MacCharles, and Grant Crack.  All of them were in vulnerable ridings although not ones they were certain to lose.  Definitely plays to the idea of rats fleeing a sinking ship as we saw a lot of that last provincial election.  Even though some may have personal reasons, the high number resigning doesn't look good, still it is possible to recover.  Christy Clark saw a similarly high number resigning prior to the 2013 election and did manage to come back although come backs like that are unusual.

My thoughts on the five possible ridings (MacCharles and Chan's were split so they had two options).

Michael Chan

Markham-Unionville: Considering that went Tory federally and last election the PCs would have only lost by 3 points, it would have been very tough barring a major PC screwup to hold this one.

Markham-Thornhill: He probably would have run in this one and it did go Liberal federally during the 2011 disaster so somewhat more favourable, but has been trending Tory never mind directly north of wards that voted heavily for Doug Ford so a toss up at the moment.

Tracy MacCharles

Pickering-Uxbridge:  With the inclusion of Uxbridge which is largely rural this would have been far more difficult to hold than under the old boundaries, but still possible if things tighten up but Liberals would need to be within a few points of the Tories provincewide to have a chance here.

Scarborough-Rouge Park: On paper looks fairly safe, but voted heavily for Doug Ford municipally so depends on how much of that vote who normally don't go Tory he could carry over.  Also NDP did well in the 2011 federal election so any NDP surge could flip this one or they could create the splits for the PCs to win.

Grant Crack

Glengarry-Prescott-Russell: Traditionally a Liberal stronghold due to its large Francophone population, but also largely rural and Wynne is very unpopular in rural Ontario while NDP for whatever reason has never done well in Eastern Ontario.  It did go Conservative federally from 2006-2015 so I am guessing this will go whichever way the province does so for the Liberals probably their strongest rural riding, but considering how unpopular in rural Ontario, far from safe or even likely.

[mileslunn]

Agree the Mainstreet numbers are likely way off.  Mind you it would be interesting to see a third one as I am kind of guessing the real numbers fall somewhere in between Forum and Mainstreet but slightly closer to Forum.  They do both show nonetheless that the budget didn't go over particularly well.

[mileslunn]

I do however think Mainstreet's final numbers on June 5th or 6th will be fairly accurate as asides from Calgary municipal they have a pretty good track record.  But I have seen lots of weird one's in between elections.  Remember the one last year in late April that showed the BC NDP ten points ahead?  Or in 2015 three weeks before the election showed the Tories 8 points ahead.  They do however usually converge with the others in the final week so outside the final week they are interesting but should be taken with a grain of salt.

[mileslunn]

Ekos is now out and it looks like their numbers at least for the PCs are right smack in between Mainstreet and Forum while for Liberals more like Forum and for NDP more like Mainstreet.

PC43%
Lib 29.3%
NDP 20.7%
Green5.2%

Taken between March 20th to April 5th so all post Doug Ford but only partially post budget but looking at the others pre-budget I would venture to guess no major changes over budget.

Interestingly looking at the breakdown it seems there is a strong gender gap with Doug Ford massively ahead amongst males but much more competitive amongst females.  He also leads amongst millennials which is puzzling although millennials do have a tendency to be attracted to populist politics, good example of this was the success of the Five Star Movement amongst millennials in Italy.  Amongst seniors the Liberals are doing surprisingly well in three polls so I am thinking the free prescription drugs is helping there.  On a regional basis nothing really unexpected.