News   Nov 12, 2024
 869     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 571     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
 684     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Anyway, for those of you who think he's the devil on earth I really think that's far from the truth - he does listen to both sides on many occasions, he comes off as brash / harsh.

Will I vote for him? No ... I still don't think he'll make a good Mayor, but at the end of the day he's not going to cause the apocalypse.

Admittedly, I too have watched him when he's calm and talks with a softer demeanor, and I think, he can be quite personable. And when he came up in the polls and was responding to reporters saying "we're humbled by it, and are just going to continue to work hard" I thought, he should always take that approach... but he's got that Jeckyll and Hyde in him... hard to tell which one you're going to get...

That and his old, out dated thinking, its not leadership material.
 
What I find most interesting here is that 500 provincial civil servants are being tasked to spend their Monday afternoon campaigning for Smitherman - at the taxpayer's expense.

Yep! Somewhat surprised that hasn't got more coverage as of yet .
 
What bothers me in these contests is how policy can be lost in the sound bites. E-health and the sponsership scandal are examples. These are completely ligitimate rallying points to criticise the character or performance of people involved but my problem is that the policy gets lost in the drama.

How many people pumping their fists about e-health recognize that underneath the "scandal" e-health is about saving taxpayers money and creating efficiencies in the system? Infact the policy, however badly or well implemented, is about Ontario playing catch-up with better systems around the world. My fear is that these initiatives then become politically tainted, especially when those claiming to champion fiscal prudence and waste in the system are turned into their biggest detractors. Want to tar and feather Smitherman for it? Sure be my guest but don't hate the policy because of the man.

An example at the municipal level is the incongruence of people, such as Ford, who claim to be fiscally prudent but want to expand the police force. This is totally incongruent. If you are interested in maintaining the status quo in police services or interested in expand their mandate you cannot claim to be fiscally prudent. Period.
 
How many people pumping their fists about e-health recognize that underneath the "scandal" e-health is about saving taxpayers money and creating efficiencies in the system? Infact the policy, however badly or well implemented, is about Ontario playing catch-up with better systems around the world. My fear is that these initiatives then become politically tainted, especially when those claiming to champion fiscal prudence and waste in the system are turned into their biggest detractors. Want to tar and feather Smitherman for it? Sure be my guest but don't hate the policy because of the man.

Yes an efficient electronic record keeping system is in the public interest. The problem with e-health is not only did we spend over a billion dollars and have little to show of it, even if it was completed it should not have cost that much. Too many people lose site of this. As long as the cause is good they will continue to overlook major issues in implementing them. That is the problem. With money flying out of the till, he should have, at some point, needed to see some progress. We are seeing the same thing repeat with the Samsung deal.

Criticising the e-health scandal is not the same as criticising e-health.
 
Will I vote for him? No ... I still don't think he'll make a good Mayor, but at the end of the day he's not going to cause the apocalypse.

It's true.. he's much LESS harmful than Sarah Palin will be, or GWB was, or Stephen Harper is.

That said, in a discussion regarding the future direction of our city, we're presented with two substantially different narratives. We (Smitherman supporters) have chosen the one which we believe will lead to our ideal vision of Toronto.

We have no interest in the vision presented by Rob Ford. We disagree with many (most) of his premises; how can we accept any of his conclusions?
 
Yes an efficient electronic record keeping system is in the public interest. The problem with e-health is not only did we spend over a billion dollars and have little to show of it, even if it was completed it should not have cost that much. Too many people lose site of this. As long as the cause is good they will continue to overlook major issues in implementing them. That is the problem. With money flying out of the till, he should have, at some point, needed to see some progress. We are seeing the same thing repeat with the Samsung deal.

Criticising the e-health scandal is not the same as criticising e-health.


Taking a step back - who are you to say 1 billion was too much or too little for that mater - do you know everything that was involved. Too often articles in the media, to grab attention (their sole purpose) use these magic numbers - 1 million / 1billion ... so on so forth - again if you know the details and everything that was involved - sure, please comment. If not though, again, what exactly should this have cost? Corporations spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure all the time. But again if you know the details - and can state an appropriate amount - okay, that's a valid argument.

Another popular media grab is the salary of some high level government officials (hydro / ...) outrange typically follows when their salaries are states but the majority of the time they get paid less then what one would in the corporate world ... and why should that be the case ?
 
"What I find most interesting here is that 500 provincial civil servants are being tasked to spend their Monday afternoon campaigning for Smitherman - at the taxpayer's expense."

They're very much at risk of breaking the law while doing this, as this activity is strictly regulated under the Public Service Act of Ontario. They would have to receive prior permission under very limited circumstances in order to do this, which suggests that this was something planned well in advance. See part V of the Act:

Link
 
Last edited:
Taking a step back - who are you to say 1 billion was too much or too little for that mater - do you know everything that was involved. Too often articles in the media, to grab attention (their sole purpose) use these magic numbers - 1 million / 1billion ... so on so forth - again if you know the details and everything that was involved - sure, please comment. If not though, again, what exactly should this have cost? Corporations spend hundreds of millions on infrastructure all the time. But again if you know the details - and can state an appropriate amount - okay, that's a valid argument.

Another popular media grab is the salary of some high level government officials (hydro / ...) outrange typically follows when their salaries are states but the majority of the time they get paid less then what one would in the corporate world ... and why should that be the case ?

The software itself is not that expensive. I do know some people who have worked on similar sized projects for the Provincial government. The real cost is in the training. One friend of mine, an extremely competent and experienced developer, suggested that the software itself would cost less than 80 million. Terek Fatah made similar comments on CFRB recently. He has experience both in IT and health. Here is an alternative that is free ..........

http://oscarservice.com/

As to your second point, if we compare executive compensation levels to those in Germany, both public and private ones looked vastly over compensated here.
 
"What I find most interesting here is that 500 provincial civil servants are being tasked to spend their Monday afternoon campaigning for Smitherman - at the taxpayer's expense."

They're very much at risk of breaking the law while doing this, as this activity is strictly regulated under the Public Service Act of Ontario. They would have to receive prior permission under very limited circumstances in order to do this, which suggests that this was something planned well in advance. See part V of the Act:

Link

When i read the Star article, I noticed it said they were "provincial Liberal staffers". That didn't sound like prov gov employees to me - it sounded like political staffers - surely political staffers are not paid for by taxpayers? Presumably these are the same people who will be "mobilized" by McGuinty to help him win another term next year.
 
Yea I noticed it just now as well ... prepare for a spin on that one by both opponents though ...
 
They are provincial employees.
 

Back
Top