Is Tim Hudak the new John Tory?

It is incredible how quickly things change in politics. A couple of months ago I would have thought that Tim Hudak and John Tory had very little in common. Mr. Hudak was a strong fiscal conservative with a populist tinge, and John Tory was a big government party elitist. But now in the middle of a leadership campaign Mr. Hudak is looking more and more like John Tory.

Consider John Tory in 2004. The party had just suffered a humiliating defeat in the polls and John Tory was the man to the rescue. Everyone billed him as the person most likely to return the PCs to their formal glory. Mr. Tory entered the race as the front runner and he kept his lead to victory.

Then of course he was a disaster. Far from being the party’s saviour he led the PCs into humiliation after humiliation. The problem wasn’t the organization, though it was weak, and the problem wasn’t even the man, for he was popular personally. The problem was the message. John Tory failed to provide anything that was substantially different than the Liberals.

Now take a look at Mr. Hudak. The supposed fiscal conservative has released policy that would make any true fiscal conservative cringe. All of his ideas aren’t about cutting bureaucracy or truly slashing taxes. They are all about government interference. Tim Hudak has become the subsidies candidate.

Just like the Liberals he wants the government to decide who the winner is and who the loser is. Just like the Liberals Tim Hudak thinks that the state can engineer a better society.

So here we are. Once again we have a ‘saviour’ front runner with a message that is awfully similar to the McGuinty Liberals. The only question is; will the PC Party membership make the same mistake twice?

(or thrice considering Ernie Eves)

Randy Hillier for Freedom from the Beer Store

Today Randy Hillier, candidate for PC Ontario leader, announced that he would allow competition to Beer Store.

Hillier proposes to allow corner stores to be able to sell wine and beer. As well restaurants, bars and hotels would be able to sell off-sales to further help their businesses.

This should be a no brainier for anyone who believes in individual choice and the free market. Such a policy would be an enormous boost to a multitude of small businesses and the entertainment industry as a whole.

The Beer Store is an insane institution. It is a government mandated monopoly on the sale of one of the most popular beverages in the country. Because of this Ontarians have suffered from inflated prices, poor service, and limited selection.

Ever wonder why the good beer is always hidden in the back of the Beer Store? If a microbrewery wants to sell its product in Ontario, they have to pay their competitors for the privilege of doing so. The Beer Store, owned by Molson Coors, InBev, and Sleeman, then gives preferential treatment to their own products. Ontarians thus fall victim to the conniving of an unchallenged control over the beer industry.

It is way past time for this insanely stupid status quo to be broken.

Recap of Elliott & Hudak events

You may or may not realize this by looking at my blog posts, but apparently there are other candidates in the Ontario PC leadership race besides Randy Hillier. As of now, Hillier is my top choice for leader, but the race is widely considered to be between Christine Elliott and Tim Hudak.

On Monday evening, both Christine Elliott and Tim Hudak held events in Toronto, conveniently located within 10 minutes walking distance. I was able to make it to both events and talked to the candidates. Here are my impressions from these events. (Yes, I know, a week late...)

Both events started at 7pm and I showed up to the Christine Elliott event at about 7:20pm. It was at her campaign office at Yonge & Eglinton. The room was already pretty full, and by the time she spoke it was about 8pm. My guess would be in the neighborhood of a couple hundred people were crammed in. Her speech was kept brief and she talked about how she has a Path to Victory plan. Notably absent from her speech was any mention of HST. I spoke with her after (more on this later) and then left for the Hudak event. There will probably still 100 people in the room. There was free drinks, but the beer list was a shameful array of tasteless macrobrews: Canadian, Coors Light, and Budweiser. Needless to say, I stuck to wine.

The Hudak event was at the Granite Brewery. The crowd was noticeably smaller, but the speeches had long finished and they weren’t providing free drinks, so it is understandable that would wrap up earlier. This made it easy to talk to Tim since there were only about 30 people there. While this was at an awesome venue for beer, nothing was provided for free. Even though I had to pay for it myself, I did enjoy Granite Brewery's own Best Bitter Special and Keefe's Irish Stout.

A couple other liberty-minded friends and I spoke to both candidates and we all agreed that Christine Elliott was much more impressive. I asked both about privatizing the LCBO. Elliott was much more in agreement on this than Hudak. While Elliott immediately agreed with me, Hudak started talking about his private members bill that would help out wineries, conveniently located in his riding. I told him that was protectionist and private stores should be free to sell whatever they want, but he seemed lukewarm on this.

On other random issues, Elliott was also better for liberty too. On the Green Space she said that (paraphrasing) it was unfair that the landowners were made to sacrifice on behalf of everyone else and should have been compensated. She had the words “property rights” in her answer, so that was nice. She said she didn’t agree with fully getting rid of the Ontario HRC, as Randy Hillier proposes, but that it should be getting out the business of more frivolous cases.

When asked about Hudak's income splitting private member's bill and if he was going to have that in an election platform, he said it could be and that it is a good idea to help improve the birth rate. I guess that could be a positive to some people, not me though. I asked him if he was planning on getting rid of the HST . He said he would be willing to propose eliminating it, but he did not say that this would be in his platform and that it will depend on how it is working. I followed up with saying I wished he would be attacking the spending in the budget more than the HST since pretty much every economist thinks it is a good idea. He claimed he does also talk about this, but his website seems to only focus on the "DST".

I also had asked both about policy positions and their platforms. Elliott said she will be having specific policies at some point in the campaign. Hudak seemed to smirk at me for suggesting he release his platform two years before the election.

After talking with Hudak, my friends and I decided that Elliott seems to be much better for a fan of liberty than Hudak. I am now strongly leaning towards Christine Elliott as my 2nd choice after Randy Hillier.

Since when is Christine Elliott a 'Red Tory'?

I just finished reading a Toronto Star column that described Christine Elliott as someone who "is running from the political centre." I look at this and find myself very confused. For years now whenever PC members talked about "who is red and who is blue" in the PC caucus, Ms. Elliott was always described as being a 'Blue Tory.'

My interactions with her and the interactions of people I know back up this assertion. She has said things in private that makes it clear that she is no John Tory.

I'm trying to figure out where this new image of her as a 'Red Tory' comes from. She has not released much in the way of policy. Instead she has set out a plan for a grassroots process that would consult on policy. Such a process has long been associated with the more conservative wing of the PC Party. So there is no indication there that she is a 'Red Tory.'

I can only think of one reason why people would think that she was more moderate than she really is. It seams to me that they assume that she is a 'Red Tory' because she is a woman. Just look at the column I linked above. This guy positively gushes at the fact that she is a woman. In the policy vacuum that her campaign have left, people like that have inserted their own conceptions of what she stands for.

Hey maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Christine Elliott is really John Tory's understudy, despite everything I heard during his awkward reign. But I doubt it.

I think the real truth is that the media is confused by this leadership race. They are use to PC battles being between the 'blues and reds.' That's not what this leadership race is about at all, and the media has yet to catch on.

Is the word 'heterological' autological or heterological?

I'm having some trouble sleeping and so I was flipping through a book that I had picked up a few months ago. It is called Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar... It is an attempt to explain philosophical concepts by using jokes as illustration. It actually does a pretty fair job of this.

I came across a section talking about logical and semantic paradoxes. The authors used three jokes to explain this concept:

1. There is a town in which the sole barber, a man, shaves all the townsmen, and only the townsmen, who do not shave themselves. Does the barber shave himself? If he does he doesn't if he doesn't he does.

2. True or False?: This statement is true

3. If a man tries to fail and succeeds, which did he do?

As I looked at the third joke I could not help thinking that it wasn't a paradox. I thought of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's concept of how to fly. You must throw yourself to the ground and miss. That is you must be aiming to hit the ground and fail. In order to fly you must be trying to hit the ground but fail to do so. If you are trying to fly then you must try to fail at your attempt to hit the ground.

If you succeed in flying than you have failed to hit the ground; if you succeed in hitting the ground you have failed to fly. These are two separate goals that are distinct though exclusive towards each other.

This leads me to the secret to success: If you always try to fail you will always succeed.

Ottawa Citizen attacks MP trying to help Revenue Canada victims

As my fellow Western Standard bloggers posted here and here, an innocent family has been made victims of a Revenue Canada tax error.

There is another interesting twist on this story. The family’s MP is a Conservative named Dick Harris. He doing what he can to help the family by using what political leverage he has to support the family’s case. This is exactly what a Member of Parliament is supposed to be doing and I congratulate Mr. Harris for attacking the problem with such energy.

That isn’t the story being reported by the Ottawa Citizen. The story there is that Mr. Harris compared Revenue Canada to Hezbollah in a PRIVATE e-mail.

I am angered and frightened by this situation. The idea that the government’s error could ruin my life or anyone’s life like this has truly gotten me scared. I would and have used strong language and angry terms to describe Revenue Canada in this case. I understand why Dick Harris would react so strongly IN PRIVATE.

My question here is this, why is the Ottawa Citizen so blatantly smearing this MP who is just trying to do his job? I read this article and sounds like the writers are running blockage for Revenue Canada.

What has happened is awful and should not be diminished by the exasperated PRIVATE words of one MP.

A Canadian flag made in China is still a Canadian flag

Last month the NDP in Ontario raised hell because government bought Ontario flags that were made in China. At the time I asked:

Who cares where a flag was made. Honestly it does not change the symbolism of what the flag means nor does it diminish pride in one’s home. Simply put if the Chinese supplier better fulfills the government/consumer’s needs, then I am glad that they made this decision. It shows that they have a respect for taxpayer’s dollars over petty idiotic politics.

Eventually the government of Ontario decided it wasn't worth the political headache. They cancelled the China contract and began to pay more for the Ontario made flag.

Now it looks like the federal NDP are out to waste national tax dollars as well. Charlie Angus MP is complaining that the flags provided to MP offices are Chinese made. The government is playing hot potato with the blame for this contract, but I suspect the outcome will be the same. I.E. Canadians will have to pay more thanks to the NDP.

My favourite part of this story is the last few paragraphs of this article. It just goes to show how valiantly the Conservatives protect common sense and the free market:

In 2005, the NDP and Conservatives sharply criticized the Liberal government for distributing made-in-China Maple Leaf lapel pins to MPs and Senators.

"The minister ... is hiding behind World Trade Organization agreements as his excuse for selling off the flag," Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer charged at the time.

Opposition criticism prompted the Liberals to back down and issue a directive that such lapel pins be manufactured in Canada.

Is Canada socialist by nature?

Gerry Nicholls, one of the top five political minds in the country, has some interesting points on this.

Better government beats bigger government

April 24, 2009 - 2:57pm — by Gerry Nicholls

Bookmark/Search this post with:

A lot of people keep telling me that Canada is a “left-wing country”.

Socialism, they say, is as Canadian as maple syrup, hockey and frost bite.

Indeed conventional wisdom suggests that a truly conservative party, that is a party that stands for lower taxes, less government and individual freedom, would never stand a chance of winning any votes.

Yet certain events in recent history seem to challenge this theory.

For instance, take former Liberal leader Stephane Dion. Remember him?

He moved his party from the political centre to the Left and as an added measure he planned to impose a measure which delighted every green-spirited, big government-loving, left-wing Canadian: a carbon tax.

According to the “Canadians are all left-wingers theory”, such a move should have ensured a Dion victory in a landslide.

In fact, he got trounced.

(Read More)

The Conservative Party has more to learn from the Australian Liberals

My friend who moved to Australia recently posted a letter from the Australian Liberal Party. I have heard it said in the media and elsewhere that the Conservative Party of Canada has taken lessons in communication from the Aussie Liberals. If this is so then they should be paying attention to letters like this:

From David Kemp (Liberal Party of Victoria State President):

As part of the renewal of the Liberal Party in Victoria , I am very keen to increase the opportunities for interested party members to meet with our Liberal politicians and senior office holders.

Many members have expressed their interest in interacting with Party Leaders to discuss Party philosophy and policies on a regular basis.

The expansion of membership of Electorate Conferences, State Assembly and State Council, and the creation of the Policy Forums, will help to achieve this.

One traditional forum, however, has also proven its worth over the years – The Liberal Speakers Group.

I have asked former Senator and Howard government Minister, Rod Kemp, to Chair The Liberal Speakers Group in 2009.

The Liberal Speakers Group program for this year will be officially launched by the Hon Joe Hockey, the Federal Shadow Treasurer at 6.30pm on Monday 27 April in Centenary Hall, 104 Exhibition Street , Melbourne .

Attendees are invited to gather earlier at 6pm to meet with senior office holders and State and Federal Liberal politicians. Time will also be available for informal discussion over drinks and light refreshments after the meeting ends at 8pm.

Special guests will include State Shadow Minister for Planning Matthew Guy and Senator Scott Ryan.

Senior office holders in the Party will also be attending, including State Director Tony Nutt and members of the Administrative Committee.

The Liberal Speakers Group is open to all Liberal Party Members. New Party Members are particularly welcome.

Places are limited and will be awarded on a first come, first served basis. A nominal charge of $5 will cover the cost of refreshments.

It would be appreciated if those wishing to attend could RSVP to Julie Reid on 9654 2255.

Please find attached your invitation and an agenda for the first Liberal Speakers Group.

I look forward to seeing you at the first meeting of the Liberal Speakers Group for 2009.

David Kemp
State President

Notice that not once did they ask for money. They didn't attack their political opponents or throw a lot of flash into the letter. Instead it was a simple communication telling members what is going on and inviting them to participate in the process.

This is the way you keep your base happy. By not treating them like an ATM.

Tim Hudak's plan to fight the recession

The policy debate in the PC leadership race has finally begun. Yesterday the front runner Tim Hudak announced the measures he would take to help get through the recession.

• An immediate one-year payroll tax holiday on new hires, encouraging businesses to grow without immediate payroll penalties;

In general I am not a fan of tax holidays. They tend to confuse or complicate the tax system. Plus they are hypocritical. Giving a tax holiday to ‘encourage growth’ is admitting that the tax hurts growth. If it is a tax that is doing enough damage that getting rid of it for a year would save the economy, then shouldn’t you just get rid of it forever? That being said, this is not the most horrible stimulus proposal I’ve heard.

• Suspending the Land Transfer Tax for one-year on all new and resale home purchases, saving homebuyers almost $3,000 on the purchase of a $300,000 home and incenting job creation in the construction sector

A large reason for the present economic crisis was government artificially inflating the housing bubble. Mr. Hudak’s plan is to artificially inflate it some more. If he wanted to get rid of or cut the Land Transfer Tax that would be one thing. But creating demand for a good or service is not the job of government. Mr. Hudak is displaying a tendency here to tinker with a tax code that is already too complicated.

• Stopping the Dalton Sales Tax (DST) harmonization tax grab that will add a new 8% tax burden on dozens of everyday items including gasoline and home heating costs.

Andrew Coyne compared the demonization of the Harmonized Service Tax with the demonization of the GST in the early 90s. In both cases the tax reform has the near unanimous support of economists. What is more is that the federal Conservatives have been pushing for the HST for years. I get the feeling that Tim Hudak opposes this not because it is bad policy (because it is good policy) but because it is Liberal policy. That is not the sort of leader that I want.

• The government should introduce an immediate $2,000 rebate on the purchase or lease of a new car to anyone turning in a vehicle that is more than 10 years old.

Again, it is not the job of the government to create demand for a product. If people with old cars want to buy new cars they are free to do so. This amounts to about the same thing as a bailout or industry stimulus plan. It is government money that is going to support companies that should be allowed to die. Or alternatively and more likely it is government money going towards foreign companies that are doing just fine.

• Hudak called for a wage freeze across the Ontario Public Service for senior government administrators, non-unionized employees and MPPs for the duration of the recession.

This at the very least took some guts to say. The devil of this of course will be in the details, but I certainly support this in concept.

Overall I have to give these policies a low mark. There is too much government interference through the tax system. There is very little in the way of a grand design of where he wants to take the province. The truth is that there is not much here that tells us why Tim Hudak wants to be premier. I doubt that he wants to lead the province just to make it easier for people with old cars to buy new ones.

Randy Hillier to reverse Pit Bull ban

I am sick and having trouble putting together coherant thoughts (which is sad because there is a lot I want to blog about). Luckily for me Janet Neilson over at the Western Standard has done the work for me on this story.

(Also an interesting post from Peter Jaworski about the Republican Party.)

BC NDP candidate should not have stepped down because of photos

The last federal election experienced a spat of candidates resigning for minor reasons. It seems that pattern is being continued in the BC election. A 22 year old candidate for the NDP has stepped down because there are what has been termed 'racy pictures' on Facebook.

Here is how the pictures were described by the Globe & Mail:

In one, Mr. Lam's hand was on an unidentified woman's breast; the second photo showed an unidentified man and woman with fingers on Mr. Lam's bulging underwear.

So basically this young man is disqualified from holding public office because he got drunk in university and is very comfortable with his friends. Seriously how is the fact that someone touched this guy's penis a scandal? Are people's sensibilities so easily shocked? Should we really be driving people away from the political process for such inconsequential reasons.

Full disclosure: There is on my Facebook a picture of me seemingly naked (I'll never reveal if I was truly naked or not) and draped in a Canadian flag. I was 19 years old and going to a Halloween party (my costume was meant to be 'a true patriot).

Question: Am I allowed to run for public office now?

Should this picture exclude me from a public forum in which I may one day wish to express my views? Or should I have been more anal in my youth; unwilling to do anything fun yet racy because I feared for my future political career?

We live in a new age where people share more of what they think and what they do with a larger audience than ever before. We should not allow our political culture to banish people for such meaningless garbage as a racy photo. After all, often it is those that push boundaries in their youth that turn into the greatest leaders.

CNN Reporter reveals bias at the TEA Party

A CNN reporter covering one of the TEA Party protests displayed her lack of professionalism. She interrupts the protester in the middle of his point. (I'm pretty sure Lincoln was the first to introduce an income tax and a draft but whatever) She then starts belligerently attacking him without asking any further questions. When the crowd got louder she suggests that things are getting out of control. (The 2 year oldin that man's arm looked very unconcerned)



My personal favourite part was when she said that this was "not family viewing." That guy waving to the camera afterall was clearly dangerous.

Christine Elliott would announce platform one year before election

In the lead up to the 2007 election there was a lot of discussion about when should the platform be announced. There was a small faction that was saying that it should be announced months even a year ahead of the election. That faction was shouted down by those who were around the leader. They argued that announcing the platform means that the Liberals will have a chance to steal conservative ideas. I alsways countered that if we want these policies implemented than the Liberals were welcomed to steal away.

The truth was that the PC Party didn't announce a platform because we didn't have one. A document called the platform was released but it was so close to the Liberal platform it might as well have been photocopied.

As part of her policy process announced earlier, Christine Elliott has promised to release a policy platform one year ahead of the election. This is a great plan. It would give the party time to sell its ideas to the people and it will make the party look like a government in waiting.

Christine Elliott proposes a grassroots policy process

Christine Elliott has yet to announce any policies that she would implement as premier. Instead she has announced the method in which she would find policy:

Working with the Ontario PC Party’s Policy Advisory Councils (PACs), we must continue to embark upon, and expand, the most wide ranging and inclusive policy development process since the creation of the Common Sense Revolution. PACs have been a part of our Party’s policy development process since the early 1990s and have taught us that when we listen to our Party membership about their priorities and ideas - we win.

Developing a platform that resonates with Ontarians can only be done by seeking the input and advice of grassroots members of our Party. Since the last election, our Party has revived the PAC process as a valuable tool to develop policy at a grassroots level. We need to maintain their effectiveness and inclusiveness.

I presently serve on a PAC and I can tell you that it is not a very active organization. There was some discussion about 6 months ago but since then I have not heard much.

It looks, however, like Christine Elliott wishes to energise the PACs. She is proposing PAC meetings with friendly stakeholders and regional town halls. Furthermore she is proposing that ridings put forth policy resolutions that would be discussed in regional policy meetings. The platform will then be created from a selection of these policies. (It is a little vague on how that selection would be made)

I like grassroots policy processes. It makes for not only a stronger party but also for better policy. That being said I would rather that Christine Elliott announce policies of her own choosing. I have too often seen grassroots consultations turn into theatrical jokes. The Winnipeg Conservative Party convention is a good example. Resolutions coming from that convention were completely ignored. Another good example is the PC Ontario convention last February, the ‘policy straw polls’ were so badly worded that they actually made me giggle.

It takes a leader who truly believes in a grassroots process to make it meaningful. Christine Elliott may be such a leader. But when it comes to this sort of process, I feel like Charlie Brown having the ball moved as I try to kick it.

Video on Taxes

Reason Magazine recently posted this video:



The most interesting factoid there is the working 103 days to pay off taxes. People work in the United States for 103 days without reaping the benefit of their productivity. There is a word for that...

The anti-drug war MP

Liberal MP Keith Martin wrote an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail attacking the criminalization of marijuana. This is the crucial point that he made:

The only beneficiaries of the status quo are the organized crime gangs that reap massive profits from the prohibition of this weed. In fact, 70 per cent of their revenues come from the trafficking in illegal drugs. In British Columbia alone, the marijuana crop is valued at a staggering $6-billion a year.

He goes on to quote Milton Friedman in saying that the best way to fight gangs is to attack their revenue source. The best way to do this is to take these products out of the criminal realm. People desire drugs and there will always be someone willing to fill that desire for profit. I would prefer that businessmen who are subject to the law fill that need, rather than violent criminal organizations.

(Keith Martin is also the MP that proposed a private member’s bill to remove the anti-free speech section of the HRC’s mandate)

Michael Ignatieff comments on foreign ownership♦

According to the Hamilton Spectator, Michael Ignatieff held a townhall in the economically troubled steel town. A union boss complained that foreigners were making business decisions that affected Canadian workers. I found Ignatieff’s response to the issue of foreign ownership interesting.

At first he made me cringe by saying "I don't want to say that foreign ownership isn't a factor (in the decay of the steel companies)." Why can’t you say that? How has foreign ownership harmed the steel industry? The Liberal Party has a tendency towards economic xenophobia that I always find worrisome.

Then Mr. Ignatieff continued, "All I'm saying is when I talk to a foreign owner, he gets it. He understands that Hamilton has been a good location to make steel for a very long time and there isn't any very good reason why it shouldn't be a good location in the future."

That is to say that foreign ownership operates with the exact same incentives as domestic ownership. They want to make money. Profit is the sole goal of any business no matter where in the world it comes from. A domestically owned company is therefore just as likely to shut down factories as a foreign owned company.

Mr. Ignatieff’s statement suggests that he understands this at least somewhat, but such an understanding contradicts the first part of his statement. He refused to rule out foreign ownership as being a contributor to the decline of the Canadian steel industry. This was a politically prudent thing to do, considering the audience that he was trying to reach. Yet this political prudence indicates that he is willing, if the political situation calls for it, to fuel the fires of Canada’s not latent enough economic xenophobia.

PC Leadership race: announcement videos

For everyone who may be interested, here is the one stop place to see the announcement speeches from all the leadership contenders.

Randy Hillier's announcement speech

Part 1



Part 2



Here is Tim Hudak's announcement speech



Christine Elliott Part 1:



Part 2:



Couldn't find one for Frank Klees.

Question the Hype: The Climate Changes Constantly

Here is a video released by the Fraser Institute. There will soon be more videos that can be found here.



I will add to this that it has been argued that climate change was a factor in the fall of the Roman Empire. The northern regions of Europe were getting colder and this forced migration southwards. This in turn put incredible pressure on the frontiers of the Roman Empire. Climate change is something that has had a great affect throughout our history and is nothing new.

PC Leadership race: new debate question at Election Goggle

I mentioned before the interesting Facebook application Election Goggle. They are tracking Facebook support for the various candidates and have lately posted questions for debate.

The latest question is:

Should the PC Party elect its next leader based on electability or policy?

I encourage everyone to join the debate.

New standings for Facebook support

Tim Hudak: 787
Christine Elliott: 339
Randy Hillier: 196
Frank Klees: 154

Randy Hillier to abolish the Municipal Property Assesment Corporation

Randy Hillier, candidate for the PC leadership, has come out today with another policy. He wants to place the power to assess property worth into the hands of the municipal government. For years the property assessments have been seemingly random. Often going up and down dramatically depending on what changes are made to the formula. If nothing else this proposal will ensure that the tax rate is responsive to the actual value of a home.

Here is the backgrounder that the Hillier campaign has provided. Here also is a Western Standard posting that provides a few quotes. The greatest of these quotes comes from Randy Hillier:

“Getting rid of an out of control bureaucracy is exactly why I got into politics in the first place.”

The MPAC is without a doubt an out of control bureaucracy and Randy Hillier is out to get rid of it.

PC Leadership Race: Grassroot's review of the websites

Paul Synnott at the Grassroot's Voice (formally Draft a Leader)has reviewed each candidate's website and given them a score out of ten.

Christine Elliott - 6.75

Randy Hillier - 6.25

Tim Hudak - 5.5

Frank Klees - 0 (doesn't exist)

In general I agree with the scores and the comments that Mr. Synott made. I would have marked Tim Hudak lower but that's only because I am a vindictive person. The splash page really pissed me off the first time I went to the site.

You can't tell much about a candidate by how good their website is, but it does tell you a lot about how good their team is. I am pretty disappointed in Tim Hudak's site. This is not the site of a front runner.

I am also curious about why Mr. Klees does not yet have a campaign website. It supports my personal theory that Mr. Klees decided last minute that he wanted to get into the race. Still, the Internet is a fundamental communication tool of our time. He really should be working quickly to correct the situation.

PCPO Leadership Race - Policy Rankings

As I said before the leadership race began, my support is going to be largely based on policy. So now that we have four declared candidates, I'll do a ranking based on their policies.

#1 Randy Hillier
The Freedom of Association and Conscience Act
Re-Opening The Spring Bear Hunt
Abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission
Senate elections in Ontario

N/A Tim Hudak
Tim Hudak does not have any policies

N/A Frank Klees
Frank Klees does not have any policies

N/A Christine Elliott
Christine Elliott does not have any policies

Well this was easy. Hillier has four specific policies, the other three candidates have zero combined. If the vote were to be held today, I would be voting for Hillier as my #1 choice, and leave the other 3 boxes blank. Let's see if any of these other candidates actually have something they care enough about to put forward. I know it is still early in the race, but when they decided they wanted to become the Premier of Ontario, there must have been some type of issue that they cared about... right? Or did they decide they wanted to be the Premier of Ontario and then think policy is something that comes later? (And no, Tim Hudak, creating a social networking site is not policy. Less flash, more substance.)

Here are some ideas for candidates that they are free to steal and use as they wish:
- Privatize the LCBO and open The Beer Store up to competition
- Allow people to purchase private health insurance
- Consumers pay the market price for electricity
- Drastically cut spending
- Remove the liquor taxes, extend last call, remove price floor on beer, etc
- Casinos can open up wherever they want
- Remove smoking bans in bars
- Legalize drugs, raw milk, and all other victimless crimes
- No more subsidies for private companies
- Eliminate payroll taxes, cut income taxes, or just cut all taxes... just take less of my money

Daniel Hannan Member of European Parliament

PC Leadership Race: Election Goggle

There is an interesting new Facebook application that allows you to track the number of declared supporters for each candidate. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I believe that it looks at all the various Facebook groups and cut out the repeat people.

As it stands at the time that I wrote this

Tim Hudak: 730
Christine Elliott: 289
Randy Hillier: 187
Frank Klees: 141

This application was created by Bo Chen who has a consulting business called WhiteBoxSolutions. Though I'm sure that Ken would insist that I try and claim that he had the original idea.

Tim Hudak is running...

I’ve been trying to think of something interesting to say about Tim Hudak’s announcement that he is running for leader of the PC Party. I feel compelled to say something because this site has for the other candidates (Frank Klees, Randy Hillier, and Christine Elliott). Yet I am at a loss for anything to write about. We knew that he was going to run and now he is running. Thus far he has not said anything substantial. The only message that can be found on his website is that the Liberals are bad and that a sucky economy sucks.

It is early yet. I can still hope that he will outline specific policies in the way that other candidates are doing.

Number One Threat Eliminated?

When Stephen Colbert points out a threat, Randy Hillier springs to action. Randy Hillier plans to re-open the bear hunt. As we all know, bears are godless killing machines, so it is great that Hiller plans to take swift action to.

But seriously, it is good to see a leadership candidate actually have a pro-freedom proposal to help northern Ontario. Usually when a politician says they want to help northern Ontario, you have have to ask how much will it cost taxpayers.

Also, have to give credit to the Hillier campaign team for the backgrounder. A good section of the page is implicitly attacking Hudak for his work as a minister to do this ban. Here is the relevant section (bolding mine):

• The International Fund for Animal Welfare launched a pressure campaign against the Progressive Conservative government in the run-up to the 1999 provincial election. Fund spokesman Rob Sinclair was quoted in the November 27, 1998 Toronto Star: “We want to hurt the government on this. We want Bart Maves and Tim Hudak to go to Mike Harris and say: ‘Do something about these hunting laws.’”
• The government refused to reconsider the bear hunt ban, even after seeing the effect it was having on the people and economy of the north. “Despite a perceived increase in the number of nuisance bears since the cancellation of the spring bear hunt, Northern Development and Mines Minister Tim Hudak said the decision to end the hunt won’t be revisited. “That decision stands,” he said, when questioned by media about whether recent reports of nuisance bears - including one in the Temagami Public School playground earlier this year - had changed the province’s views. Hudak said it’s important that the province work with “partners” to ensure public safety, but rejected the notion of revisiting the decision to end the spring bear hunt.”

Announcing my candidacy for for the PCPO leadership

After weeks of consulting with my friends and families I have decided that Now is When and it is time for a true conservative leader. Ontario has drifted from the greatest economy in the country to the worst. Ontarians are growing tired of the poor management and nanny state activism of the Dalton Liberals. The people are crying out for a hero, and I can no longer ignore their pleas. It is with this in mind that I have decided to put my name forth for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

The foundation of my campaign shall be despair and status quo with a bit of ‘no we can’t’ thrown into the mix.

You will hear from other candidates, great solutions to all the modern problems of our times. I on the other hand will not mislead you. We are all doomed and it is time that we simply accept that. The global economy is collapsing and throughout the world there is nothing but pain and destruction. Love is dead, dreams are gone, and humanity is nothing but an empty shell of its lost potential.

It is with that message that I will go out to the Ontario people. I will tell them to cast away their optimism and to give up any thoughts of improvement.

A MacIntyre government will not change a single thing. To make improvements would only put off the inevitable and would be a lie. Reforms will mislead the people into thinking that they can be saved. I do not believe that government should mislead the people, thus when I am Premier the status quo shall reign supreme.

I admit that this won’t be a popular message with the people of Ontario. But the great advantage of my campaign is that it does not matter if I win or not. The end is nigh. I merely wish to watch the fall from a commanding height.

Twitter says Elliott is entering the PC leadership race

According to Twitter Christine Elliott is officially entering the race. Her campaign kick off will take place on April 3rd at the Centennial House in Whitby.

This is an interesting way to launch a campaign. I take from this that Ms. Elliott will be trying to pioneer social media as a way to camaign in a leadership race. Should be interesting to watch.