News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Who gets your vote for Mayor of Toronto?

  • Ana Bailao

    Votes: 18 16.4%
  • Brad Bradford

    Votes: 3 2.7%
  • Olivia Chow

    Votes: 58 52.7%
  • Mitzie Hunter

    Votes: 2 1.8%
  • Josh Matlow

    Votes: 20 18.2%
  • Mark Saunders

    Votes: 4 3.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 4.5%

  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Maybe I'm overblowing this as an issue in my first reaction to it, but it seems to me that staff being directed by the Mayor's office to only provide information transparency requested by councillors if it paints things in a good light is very bad and compromises the entire apparatus of City staff independence which is the foundation on which trust in the city organization and public service is built. This is a massive scandal to me if staff have become this directly an arm of the mayor's office's political direction and goals. Whatever the appropriateness of what Matlow did wrong in the details, this seems to reveal that fundamentally he is correct and we cannot trust City staff.

I want to be mindful though of not contributing to a hostile public environment for these staff and questioning their ethics and want to be clear that I am not saying the individual integrity of any member of staff is compromised.

But it seems that the entire structure of staff and its priorities exists under this overt political pressure — just seemingly an expectation — that staff will do what aligns with the Mayor's office's political interests and priorities and help support that. Not providing responsible good faith transparency with council, but specifically only providing it if it makes them look good. Under that kind of organizational pressure staff themselves are being put in an impossible position being asked to do ethically inappropriate things by the Mayor's office. This is bad for the city and trust in government and also wrong for the Mayor's office to put staff in this position.

Am I overreacting? This seems to me to be an absolutely massive issue. How can we trust anything staff reports and trust that council and the public will get transparent answers questions if the Mayor's office is privately telling them to only provide information if it's positive?
 
Last edited:
LOL.......Chris Sky is running too 😂

Fr9Dp5QXgAEHArQ
 
Last edited:
Whatever the appropriateness of what Matlow did wrong in the details, this seems to reveal that fundamentally he is correct and we cannot trust City staff.

If the Mayor's office is directing staff to cover up bad news what is their (staff or council's) best option?

Too bad Matlow didn't simply direct his attacks at Tory. I'll be interested in his response to the findings.
 
The Star story w/the poll is here:


The full list of poll numbers (from me) is below:

Chow 24
Saunders 22
Matlow 18
Hunter 12
Bailao 11
Penlosa 8
Bradford 5

Comments:

Surprised to see Saunders that high

Surprised to see Bradford that low, that'll bruise his ego.

I assume if nothing changes substantially in the first 2-3 weeks of the campaign that Bradford will drop out.

I imagine his vote splitting mostly to Bailao but maybe a point or two to Saunders.

None of the rest are likely to anywhere in the first month.

That would seem to make it a 5-way race ( I don't think Gil is a factor here)

Hmmm
 
Somehow, McGrath about Olivia feels a bit concern-trollish--actually, I'm surprised she's polling that *high*, though it's certainly through presumed name recognition.

As for Bradford: if he's got a game in this, it'd be in the quiet-team-assembling-behind-the-scenes way that put Miller & Tory on top in '03.
 
Somehow, McGrath about Olivia feels a bit concern-trollish--actually, I'm surprised she's polling that *high*, though it's certainly through presumed name recognition.

As for Bradford: if he's got a game in this, it'd be in the quiet-team-assembling-behind-the-scenes way that put Miller & Tory on top in '03.

I agree, my money is on Bradford being the centre-right establishment pick, meaning he will bring in big cash and grow his profile over the coming months.
 
Chow and Sauders benefit from name recognition but at the same time I think they have the least amount of growth potential. Name recognition gets you a lot of initial attention but as other become more known to the general population, that advantage quickly fads.

Chow is viewed as a sanctimonious elite who, despite her claims, really has no idea what the average Torontonians are concerned about and just lives in her little left-wing downtown enclave. Saunders may appeal to the "law & order" crowd but has no breath of knowledge about the other issues that plague the city and is viewed as a one trick pony.

Both these things will appeal to their hardcore base but elections aren't won by appealing to the converted but rather those in the mushy middle who generally just want effect and visionary leadership but without the strong ideological biases.
 
Chow and Sauders benefit from name recognition but at the same time I think they have the least amount of growth potential. Name recognition gets you a lot of initial attention but as other become more known to the general population, that advantage quickly fads.

Chow is viewed as a sanctimonious elite who, despite her claims, really has no idea what the average Torontonians are concerned about and just lives in her little left-wing downtown enclave. Saunders may appeal to the "law & order" crowd but has no breath of knowledge about the other issues that plague the city and is viewed as a one trick pony.

Both these things will appeal to their hardcore base but elections aren't won by appealing to the converted but rather those in the mushy middle who generally just want effect and visionary leadership but without the strong ideological biases.
If I were a 'law and order guy' I am not sure I would be too keen on Saunders. He really was not a very good police chief so why does anyone think he would make good Mayor?? Seems like a case where, if he gets elected, we will be living the Peter Principle! (The Peter principle is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.[1])
 

Back
Top