Talk:Ontario Liberal Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

COMPLETELY biased article, non-neutral and needs to be revamped or put up for deletion

This article has SO MANY blatant negative-biases, OBVIOUSLY written by someone who is a pro-tory, pro-conservative. This needs to be fixed immediately. Also, whether the person who wrote that it is a "centrist" party believes that or not, is his/her opinion and is irrelevant. The party presents itself and considers itself a left-centre party. I'm tagging this article. Let's re-vamp and fix it and abide by POV guidelines before it gets deleted. 70.26.15.146 (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

a very pro-mcguinty article

how has this not been identified as not-so-neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.132.199 (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Centrist

Obviously there will be differing opinions on the exact position of the Liberals, because as a centrist party, they may have members from both centre-left and centre-right factions. Where is there evidence that the Liberals consider themselves to be centre-left? Cheez346 (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

A large number of the Liberals policy positions would be descirbed as left or centre-left. Accoplishments promoted by the party include improvments in health care with new hospitals built and more families having family doctors, and improvments in education with reduced class sizes and the introduction of full-day kindergarden. . However, the party has also pursued fiscal policy that could be described as being more centerist. What I would like to see, if consensu could be reached, is to have the ideology listed as "centre to centre-left". Similar to how ideology is listed on the Liberal Party of Canada infobox.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal knowledge of the Ontario Liberal Party, however the main article states the party is ideologically similar or the same to the Liberal Party of Canada, which happens to be Centre to Centre-left, in contrast to the current statement of the Party to be Centre-left, which is the position of the Ontario NDP.Lolsen2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Number of seats

Why is the ref added in the summary rather than cited in article? Right now the article indicates 53 seats were won but no mention of any resignations or by-elections to bring it to current number. Surely one of you 2 that changed the number could add some referenced material to bring the 2 numbers inline with each other. --Daffydavid (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

40th Legislative Assembly of Ontario keeps track of the changes, and it needs alot of references. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontario Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031005214020/http://www.ontarioliberal.on.ca/ to http://www.ontarioliberal.on.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontario Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031005214020/http://www.ontarioliberal.on.ca/ to http://www.ontarioliberal.on.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ontario Liberal Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070802142848/http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/media/2007/nr06-per.html to http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/media/2007/nr06-per.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

Formatting Leaders of the Ontario Liberal Party section 102.184.177.114 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added one missing space, but it's not clear if you were referring to that. Please mention the specific changes you want in a "change X to Y" format. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Let’s include how many years liberals been in power :)

I have to include how many years the liberals been in power like “ as of 2021 they’ve governed Ontario for _ years” and update as years go on Black roses124 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)