News   Nov 13, 2024
Mattamy and QuadReal Launch The Clove, Pioneering Cloverdale's Transformation
 428     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
News Roundup for November 13, 2024
 398     0 
News   Nov 13, 2024
CN Tower and the Seventyish Dwarfs
 789     0 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanos said:
And how many who voted for Ford regret doing that? Do they not have the right to be mad at him?
Click to expand...
I don't think they do. They knew exactly what they were getting, or they would have if they'd paid any attention to municipal politics before they voted. Ford has done pretty much what those who spoke up about how terrible a person he is (and I'm not saying this from right-left, but from simple competence-incompetence or intelligence).

They only have a right to be mad at themselves. Ford has lived up to expectations.
 
jje1000 said:
400 and 802 seem like fairly small sample pools, though.

Here's the link to the Nanos Poll:

www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLGTA-W12-T556.pdf

Support seems to peak around the 30-39 age group at 30.5%, while support is lower for those older and younger. Makes sense, given that this is the baby boom group which was born into an age of prosperity.

The highest disapproval comes from the 60+, at 62.6% wanting change. These are people who really know what fiscal conservatism and Red Toryism is.

Also interesting is the fact that 31.3% of the 18-29 age group is still unsure whether or not they want Ford or not.
Click to expand...

Actually Baby Boomers are now in their 50s and 60s.

The 30-39 age group was born in the mid- to late-70s and early 80s, when the big shift to the right started. E.g Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney. So they've mostly known boom-and-bust economies (early 90s recession, dot-com bubble, housing bubble), public service cuts, bootstrapping and so on. So Ford's appeal to them makes sense, though it's still less than a third - not a ringing endorsement.

Boomers at least have the memory of an expanding economy, enough good jobs, relatively generous social programs, worker protections, etc. They can compare it to the result of 30 years of tax and spending cuts, and perhaps don't like what they see.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Well, here is another case, thanks again to his worship's inability to control what he say in public:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cit...lk-pub-libel-lawsuit-case-begins-against-ford

AoD
Click to expand...

I think just because Ford is being sued for libel does not mean that he is in fact guilty of libel in fact if you look at what Ford actually said I think the case against him is very weak. Rob Ford said: " “I truly believe†someone is getting money under the table in connection to the contract".

Notice he didn't say that someone was getting paid under the table - only that he believed they were. This is an important distinction because opinion is protected free speech. You are entitled to an opinion and whether you are right or wrong it is not considered defamation. Now if Ford had claimed that Fouldis paid off someone to get the contract that would be defamation (unless of course it could be proven as true).

Rob Ford's stated opinion that someone must have been paid under the table was reasonable considering the fact that the city approved a 20 year lease at a lease rate that was 20% LESS than offered by Fouldis and 20% LESS than what had been previously approved by the city. Whether it was a result of corruption or just extreme incompetence on the part of the David Miller administration - there can be no denying that the deal with Fouldis' Boarwalk Cafe was a rotten one, and Ford - to his credit - was not afraid to stand up and say so.

I think this is what we should want in a politician - someone who is not afraid to speak out against a very questionable contract lest they get sued for libel.

http://www.torontolife.com/daily/da...gs-owner-gets-an-earful-from-local-candidate/

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/sueann_levy/2010/06/07/14300266.html
 
Peepers:

Speaking out about the content or the process of how the contract is one thing, insinuating that there is illegality, specially bribery involved, without ANY shred of evidence provided to support that "opinion" is another. Note that he himself said, "it’s confidential and I wish you guys knew what happened behind closed doors." So what happened behind closed doors that is so illegal and yet so confidential such that it can't be revealed? It's a typical tease statement, and spinning it all by the way of wordsmithing, knowing full well that citizens will interpret it in only one way, i.e. someone (presumably those who benefited from the contract) bribed to get their way - is typical attempt to radicalize the conversation. And just how does speaking out against the terms of a contract requires insinuation that there is illegality? Is his worship so verbally incompetent that he couldn't make that point across otherwise? Nice try attempting to portray it as an issue of "free speech".

And lest you go on and on about sole sourcing, you aren't the only one who can drag up old articles:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tor...-for-sole-source-contract-called-hypocritical
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/elections/article/878624--the-smell-test-ford-s-sole-source-vote
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-holder-tussles-with-council/article4198229/

And yes, I haven't even gotten started - recall the sole sourced contracts at the supposedly arms length TPLC?

Funnily enough, the outcome of Foulidis affair is actually *exactly* the kind of thing his worship would wanted:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/12/05/foulidis-spends-millions-to-renovate

AoD
 
Last edited:
Haven't read the articles yet, but on the front page of the Star it says that 77% of those who voted for Ford would do so again. This number I find surprising, since most people I've talked to who voted for Ford would not do so again. This includes those who voted foolishly not listening to the warnings of what he is really about, and some who are fiscally conservative. The ones who would still vote for him are those who are Sun readers and just repeat the lines of pundits.
 
canmark said:
Royson James in the Star: Mayor Rob Ford’s allies sink to a new low
Click to expand...

And the funny thing here is: it reminds us of what's been buried under the previous few pages of Crean-debunking--it was a unanimous endorsement of the ombudsman's report. And endorsed by *Doug Holyday*, to boot--which places him distinctly apart from the Ford/Mammo yahoo crowd.

And re the Star poll re Ford's approval ratings: remember that a lot of that front-page 77% is probably more generic than it appears, i.e. approving more of a right-of-centre mayoralty than necessarily of Ford himself. IOW, simply by being Mayor, he defaults into taking credit for what the Milczyns and Thompsons and Stintzes and, yes, even Holydays really deserve credit for. *They're* the ones who, by proxy, have salvaged an incompetent Mayor.

And given all this, I wouldn't be surprised if one of *them*--not so much Stintz, as a hitherto reliable team-player like Michael Thompson--winds up running *against* Ford for Mayor in 2014, and winning with the support of most of Ford's onetime council allies...
 
Some labour unrest for Mr. Ford incoming:
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...group-of-toronto-paramedics-refusing-overtime

Letter writing and lobbying has proved ineffective, nobody listens so here we go.
And just to clarify this is voluntary overtime coming in on days off. This "group" should include everyone within another couple days.

The schedule issue is a smokescreen to deflect from staffing. Senior medics already work nights and weekends so I'm not sure what their talking about there.
 
Electrify said:
Haven't read the articles yet, but on the front page of the Star it says that 77% of those who voted for Ford would do so again. This number I find surprising, since most people I've talked to who voted for Ford would not do so again. This includes those who voted foolishly not listening to the warnings of what he is really about, and some who are fiscally conservative. The ones who would still vote for him are those who are Sun readers and just repeat the lines of pundits.
Click to expand...

I bet the 77% figure is correct only in a vacuum. I think any other right of centre politician from provincial or federal politics could run and draw almost all his votes.
 
I agree with Jonny5. A lot of those Ford voters are simply Conservative voters who saw him as their best shot to get a Conservative in office. In a head to head with another Consevative, I'm convinced that Ford would lose in a total old fashioned trouncing 10-1. Most Conservatives just want Conservative policies implemented and little to anything has been achieved by Ford in that regard. But if no other Conservative runs against him, they'll either vote Ford again or not vote at all.

Yesterday at Thanksgiving, I found out that my uncle voted for Ford. The whole family couldn't believe his idiocy but when looked at from a perspective of Ford vs Miller's status quo (even though he didn't run), my uncle's options were limited. He hated Smitherman, didn't want Miller (Joe Pants) and the closest to a Conservative was Rocco Rossi who had no chance of beating Smitherman or Joe Pantalone. Ford just bumbled in as the Conservative choice by default.

My uncle got what he wanted and could care less that Ford is an embarrassment. I asked him if he would vote for Ford again and he said yes if there were no other viable Conservative on the ballot.

So this all just comes down to a poor selection and a best pick of the junk pile for some.
 
The real solution to this problem is ironically more gravy. A Mayor (and Councillors) need at least double the salary and perks that will attract the CEO type, not the I don't know how to do anything else but politics type or a rich person with nothing better to do than stroke their ego in the Mayor's chair and pay to shape the world around them to their liking.

A $200K salary for Mayor should be the absolute minimum for a city of Toronto's size. There are really smart people in the private sector who if given a proper salary would jump at the opportunity to run the city. As it stands now, it's totally not worth giving up your life and being submitted to the public scrutiny and negativity for what a Mayor makes.

For reforms, I'd like to see $200-$300k salary for the Mayor, a cushy retirement after 2 terms and accountability like in the private sector where if a Mayor performs very poorly, they can get booted from office by the "board" (Council). The standard for performance would be set by the candidates themselves during the election. A platform would be a legally binding document submitted with goals that meet objective criteria. If they meet their established goals then they get a bonus, if they don't they will be held to account by the Council which could include a salary cut or in more extreme cases, removal from office.
 
For reforms, I'd like to see $200-$300k salary for the Mayor, a cushy retirement after 2 terms
Click to expand...

Often they pretty much get the cushy retirement in the form of post-Mayoralty appointments to boards and the like.
 
MetroMan said:
A $200K salary for Mayor should be the absolute minimum for a city of Toronto's size. There are really smart people in the private sector who if given a proper salary would jump at the opportunity to run the city. As it stands now, it's totally not worth giving up your life and being submitted to the public scrutiny and negativity for what a Mayor makes.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure this is how it works. Plenty of people are happy to step away from private law firm gigs in order to satisfy their egos via being able to lay claim to running a city for a term or two. Then they go back to their board positions and lucrative lawyering. Federal-level pols do this all the time - and being a pol almost always translates to less dough than the private sector. Yet there's no shortage of people who want to run big cities, or take a run at being premier or prime minister.

Paying the mayor more dough will not at all guarantee a better class of city manager.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee, youre probably right....but i cant see any hardcore leftie having much of a chance in TO anymore
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "hardcore leftie". And David Miller was far less hardcore a leftie than Rob Ford is a rightie--in fact, it may be more apt to say that in '03, Miller was as hard-left as John Tory was hard-right. Which ain't "hardcore" at all.

Perhaps it can just as well be said that post-Ford, there isn't much chance for a hardcore rightie, either. In the end, his winning in 2010 was more like if Tooker Gomberg won in 2000...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top