Talk:Tim Hudak

What is the policy/procedure for replacing Infobox portrait images?

I realize this is a general question, but I'm asking it now because time is of the essence, I think, since an election is in the works in Ontario. The current image of Tim Hudak isn't the best portrait, particularly with the superimposed blue background. Although my photos are a bit grainy, I have just uploaded six portraits of Mr. Hudak, any of which I believe would be an improvement. I don't wish to break the Wikimedia Commons rules, nor do I wish to offend anyone. Thanks for any assistance. Laurel L. Russwurm 02:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Laurel L. Russwurm 02:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

'Right wing' as PoV

Perhaps we should take this discussion to the Canadian discussion board, rather than getting caught in a revert war.

Until then: the term "right wing" is commonly used on Wikipedia, including on the Conservative Party of Canada page. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that Hudak is on the right-wing of the Tories. CJCurrie 02:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, some do not consider Tim Hudak to be right-wing at all, and in fact more moderate than some of the other Tories out there. This is why the description Blue Tory with a link should be provided, as there is a whole article on exactly where his political views are in relation to other tories. --Snickerdo 05:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Attending a Canadians for Bush rally and proposing the idea of chain gangs is pretty right-wing. Maybe this wasn't the case in 2005 when Hudak was first on the political scene but he's definitely a right-winger today.TurtleMelody (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Who are these people who do not consider Hudak to be right-wing? Please provide some references for this claim. Or are these just some guys down at the pub? Ground Zero | t 10:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hudak self-identifies as a "purple" Tory. MohammedMohammed^محمد 07:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disputed passages

(i)

[Hudak] was re-elected with a 5,878 vote margin in the redistributed riding of Erie—Lincoln in the 1999 provincial election, and was named Minister of Northern Development and Mines on June 17, 1999. The Globe and Mail noted that Hudak was given this position, in part, because of a lack of representation from Northern Ontario in the Progressive Conservative caucus.(cite: "Ontario Cabinet", Globe and Mail, 18 June 1999, A6.)

Comments: I'm not certain why this is controversial. Tim Hudak represents an electoral division in the Niagara peninsula, far removed from Northern Ontario. He was appointed Minister of Northern Development and Mines at a time when the Ontario PCs had only two members from Northern Ontario: Premier Mike Harris and Deputy Premier Ernie Eves. (One could quibble that only half of Eves's Parry Sound-Muskoka division is in the north, but this is beside the point of the present discussion). It's unusual for a Niagara representative to be named as the minister for Northern Ontario; this fact was noted by the Globe and Mail at the time of Hudak's appointment. Where exactly is the problem here?

(ii)

In April 2003, [Hudak] accepted an invitation to take part in a "Canadians for Bush|Bush" rally organized by Tristan Emmanuel in support of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. While attending the rally, he nonetheless distanced himself from Emmanuel's controversial remarks about gays and Muslims. (cite: Andrea Baillie, "Ont. cabinet ministers to attend rally; organizer has called gays 'deviant'", Canadian Press, 11 April 2003; "Numbers down at peace rallies across Canada", Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 14 April 2003, A7; Corey Larocque, "Former battleground to be site of rally: Demonstrators to support Bush", Niagara Falls Review, 4 April 2003, A5.)

Comments: I can understand why Hudak would be disinclined to highlight his support for the invasion of Iraq, but the fact remains that he (and Jim Flaherty) accepted Emmanuel's invitation to attend the rally. The presence of two Ontario ministers at the "Canadians for Bush" event was noted in the national press; so to was Hudak's rejection of Emmanuel's rather disturbing opinions on gays and Muslims.

For a more complete context, please consider this passage from a Canadian Press report filed by Andrea Baillie on 11 April 2003:

In the July 8, 2002, issue of the Edmonton-based journal The Report, which bills itself as an ``independent newsmagazine, Emmanuel refers to gays as ``sexual deviants.

In the Dec. 12, 2002, edition of the California-based Web magazine Razormouth, he wrote: ``Islam is as far from peace, as hell is from heaven.

Despite such writings, Consumer Minister Tim Hudak and Enterprise Minister Jim Flaherty still planned Friday to attend the event.

``(Minister Hudak) totally disagrees ... and distances himself from any of those comments, said Chris Eby, a spokesman for Hudak.

``The rally is not about supporting this individual _ the rally is about showing support for our neighbours and the troops in Iraq.

I would suggest that Tim Hudak's public support for George W. Bush's most important foreign-policy decision is worthy of inclusion on our project, and I would remind other contributors that we don't remove information simply because it might inconvenience the subject. (Btw, I notice that a number of IPs tried to remove the "Canadians For Bush" reference just before the Ontario PCs held their vote on John Tory's leadership. I'll refrain from drawing the obvious conclusion.)

Incidentally, I suspect that it might constitute a conflict of interest for someone working on Hudak's campaign to enter into an edit war over "Canadians For Bush". CJCurrie (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept the fact that he attended the rally, but the reference to Emmanuel is dragging up mud necessarily. I recall around that point that while the Iraq War was very unpopular outside of the US, there are also some concern that this could damage trade relationships.[1] GoldDragon (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing ... I was just going to say that I was willing to drop the reference to Emmanuel. I don't have a problem with your revised version of this paragraph.

Now, can you tell me why you're opposed to including the G&M's observation about a Niagara-area MPP being appointed Northern Affairs Minister? This doesn't strike me as controversial, and I'm genuinely curious as to why you would raise an objection. CJCurrie (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the event was organized by Tristan Emmanuel has no place on a description page of Tim Hudak. If it where on a page for Tristan Emmanuel or a page for the event itself it would be fine, but its unnecessary and very poor form to link the two. (Especially if you knew the circumstances behind the event/invitation) Also, you said you would be willing to drop the referance to Tristan, so stick with your word :) KoDeNichols (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the last edit is that it removed some citations, in addition to the Emmanuel reference. I have no problem with removing the latter, provided the former is retained. Incidentally, I'm aware that Hudak made an effort to distance himself from Emmanuel in the buildup to the event (he isn't that kind of right-winger), but I'm not familiar with the circumstances behind the actual invitation. Please enlighten me. CJCurrie (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to my understanding, certain guests weren't informed as to who they would be sharing the stage with. Seemed like kind of a bait-and-switch to me the way I heard it. Sorry for the clumbsy edit, I'm rather new at this :) KoDeNichols (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Progressive Conservative Party Leader

Hudak is now leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. However there is little in this article about his views. Could someone please add to the article what his stated positions are. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just saw Hudak speak last night at a function in Richmond Hill, although brief he was inclined to state that he was concerned about the vast majority of unnecessary organizations in Ontario who are primarily funded through taxpayers. He also spoke about the excessively beaurocratic nature or parliamentary positions, some of which he would like to see eliminated and funding redirected to front line services at provincial levels.

POV tag

Added a tag. This article reads like a collection of press releases. Removed a couple of the worst examples of POV under 'official opposition.'Blotto adrift (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-added the tag, the section of his time in opposition is filled with weasel word, I will clean it up later. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Marijuana

Added the fact that he smoked marijuana like a cigarette to the personal life section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.137.135 (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Seems pretty trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate dump of information. Ground Zero | t 10:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

POV-Background

I have added and cited the information that Tim Hudak completed his masters degree on a full scholarship to the University of Washington. I have also removed the phrase "put himself through university" by working as a border patrol agent. The issue here is very simple. Whoever keeps removing the fact that Hudak got a full scholarship to a U.S. school is doing so for partisan reasons. Mr. Hudak has condemned the government for offering scholarships to international students, even though he himself benefited from an international scholarship. It is therefore very clear why the editor in question has removed the scholarship info and used terminology about Hudak putting himself through university, which I find to be biased language. PLEASE HELP ME STOP THIS EDITOR FROM ALTERING TRUE AND CITED INFORMATION FOR POLITICAL REASONS. Thanks. Atswoyc (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have once again added the information that Tim Hudak received a full scholarship to attend the University of Washington. This info was deleted for reasons I cannot understand. I ask the editor who has been removing this info to explain why Hudak's full academic scholarship is not relevant to his background information. Please make your case. Thanks. Atswoyc (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Riding" vs "Constituency"

I would suggest that the word "riding" be replaced in this article in the information panel and elsewhere as it is a Canadianism that is not widely used elsewhere. The word "constituency" is more standard English in an international setting.

While one might argue that most people interested in this article would be Canadian and not find "riding" unusual, surely the more widely used term would be appropriate for Wikipedia. 95.209.131.107 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The words riding and constituency are not synonymous, nor even similar. A person's constituency may be within their riding, but their riding is a geographically defined political boundary while their constituency is their voter base. Although I see it far too often, Wikipedia is not supposed to be "dumbed down" to appeal to terms "not widely used elsewhere", despite the fact that riding is a term very widely used in the countries comprising the old British Empire. Ark Royal Toronto 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmayall (talk • contribs)

I agree, in Canada the term "riding" is used for the electoral district. MohammedMohammed^محمد 07:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed POV tags

Two NPOV tags had been put up, in 2010 and 2011, and the article seems to have been corrected since then. I see no POV in the article now.Closedthursday (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Person-years math in Hudak's jobs plan

"Economists say bad math led to Tim Hudak’s million jobs projection" http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario_election/2014/05/28/hudak_brushes_aside_criticism_of_jobs_numbers.html

But Paul Boothe, a professor with the Ivey Business School and a former deputy minister in the Harper government, suggested the plan might create as few as 75,000 new jobs. Writing in Macleans magazine, Boothe noted the new jobs are outweighed by Hudak’s pledge to cut 100,000 public service jobs in his first four years as premier.

At some point in Hudak's plan the calculation involved a hokey conversion from person years to jobs by multiplying by a factor involving the number of years when the jobs would be created. These jobs were theoretical "if plans worked out"--these jobs should materialize.Oldspammer (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic outlook if Hudak elected

The economic outlook for most nations is that their debt is ever climbing as is the interest payments due each year to carry that debt. Ontario 2014 debt was high and that is why Hudak wanted to cut Ontario government spending by laying off workers. Increasing debt comes from yearly deficits, and reduced tax revenues when there is high unemployment, and results in commodities price inflation when more money is borrowed to pay the yearly interest owing. Some naive students of economics (possibly Hudak himself) believe that jobs are created by fostering a nice environment for employers, but this is a fallacy without domestic customers with money (an income from a job) willing to pay for the goods or services offered. Without enough gainfully employed customers, the result is forgone--company bankruptcy, money gone down the drain.

Fiat money comes from a customer borrowing it from a bank and promising to pay it back plus interest--it does not come from depositor's cash, but from "credit." Countries like Canada are also borrowers of money from the private banks. The bank creates the money out of nothing and provides the customer with the funds. When all money is borrowed at interest, then money is debt as well as a means of exchange.

At the early stages of the 2014 election campaign Hudak was making speeches saying that he was going to eliminate the debt. If the debt is the money supply or some large component of it, eliminating the debt would require eliminating the money supply or most of it plus any interest owing. It would have been more appropriate if Hudak had said that he was going to shrink the debt to more manageable levels given the employment situation being unable to sustain current spending levels with existing tax revenues. When the money supply is shrunken to minimal levels, market liquidity is eliminated so the stock market goes down, unemployment skyrockets, and an economic depression happens.

If 2014 voters realized the various logical fallacies involved in Hudak's platform, it was likely the cause of his party losing the election since early polls had his party ahead of the others. Oldspammer (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)