[Admiral Beez]

Gil is dead in the water, and Chloe, while strongly opinionated doesn't have the ground game to win.

Reading of Chloe Brown here https://storeys.com/toronto-mayoral-candidate-chloe-brown/ I can’t see how she would appeal to the suburban voters of Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York and North York. With downtowners more trending towards non-voters (poorer, renters, younger and often non-citizens), candidates need to remember that the city is more than pre-amalgamation Toronto. If you don’t appeal to the strong-voting boomer home-owners of East York and Forest Hill, you’re going to lose.

Of course that’s why Harris amalgamated the city, to dilute urbanist, progressive ideals. But here we are.

 

[toaster29]

I watched The Agenda segment this week with Brown. She seemed to me to be a little negative, didn't want to be there, and everything seemed to be reactionary (The way we do this is bad because XYZ..) instead of presenting ideas, it's much easier to be a policy analyst, and just criticize what's wrong or right with policy, than to create/come up with your own ideas. Compare that to energetic Morley, who was energized, optimistic, community oriented, happy to be there, is someone I'd like to see go on to be Mayor after a few terms as councillor (maybe in 10+ years). Maybe it's because Morley won (and Brown didn't), but I don't think this is how you gain support.

Also Re: Matlow and Holyday, these are two men who have several times been the SINGLE lone vote against the rest of council on several issues. For Holyday, there have been numerous but the one that comes to mind was bike lanes (I forget where). Matlow was the single vote against appointing Nunziata as speaker. If you want someone who is going to work with others and try to get some kind of consensus on issues, I don't think these two men are up for it.

 

[Pacer]

Reading of Chloe Brown here https://storeys.com/toronto-mayoral-candidate-chloe-brown/ I can’t see how she would appeal to the suburban voters of Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York and North York. With downtowners more trending towards non-voters (poorer, renters, younger and often non-citizens), candidates need to remember that the city is more than pre-amalgamation Toronto. If you don’t appeal to the strong-voting boomer home-owners of East York and Forest Hill, you’re going to lose.

Of course that’s why Harris amalgamated the city, to dilute urbanist, progressive ideals. But here we are.

Chloe's appeal is her straight talking no-nonsense style. She comes across to be the anti-politician from burbs, which as a policy analyst is surprising. The more she spoke, the more people connected with her and her style, but the problem is getting her in front of people. Chloe doesn't play the game, so doesn't get the very thing she needs media attention.

 

[concrete_and_light]

Matlow was the single vote against appointing Nunziata as speaker.

Not Matlow's biggest fan, but to me this is something to put on the resume as an asset. Nunziata has always been a terrible choice for speaker and I respect Matlow for recognizing that and not just voting yes for whatever appointments of the worst councillors on council that Tory put forward. And Tory appointing someone so antagonistic and abrasive is not really indicative of building coalitions and consensus either.

Holyday votes like an aggressive, cruel buffoon on policy and constantly against the interests of the city and its people. I don't think that's comparable to Matlow voting his conscience against the appointment of the speaker nor do I think that speaker vote is indicative of how he'd function as mayor in building coalitions. In that speaker vote it was not Matlow's role to build coalitions and consensus, it was Matlow's role to vote based on what he thinks is right. Should everyone always vote yes on speaker votes? What's the point of the vote then? I respect that he voted as he thought was best and didn't just fall in line. And I agree with him Nunziata should not be speaker. It hurts our politics that people who claim to be reasonable, kind, responsible like Tory support appoint such overtly negative influences on our politics and society like Nunziata, Holyday, DMW, etc.

To me Tory appointing such clearly awful and hostile people and then everyone else being expected to just go along with it is much more distressing. I'm glad Matlow voted against the grain there and I think it maybe speaks well to his ability to see outside of the "this is just how things are done" respectability box that often traps us from both moving forward and also from strongly saying no to things that aren't right.

 

[toaster29]

Not Matlow's biggest fan, but to me this is something to put on the resume as an asset. Nunziata has always been a terrible choice for speaker and I respect Matlow for recognizing that and not just voting yes for whatever appointments of the worst councillors on council that Tory put forward. And Tory appointing someone so antagonistic and abrasive is not really indicative of building coalitions and consensus either.

Holyday votes like an aggressive, cruel buffoon on policy and constantly against the interests of the city and its people. I don't think that's comparable to Matlow voting his conscience against the appointment of the speaker nor do I think that speaker vote is indicative of how he'd function as mayor in building coalitions. In that speaker vote it was not Matlow's role to build coalitions and consensus, it was Matlow's role to vote based on what he thinks is right. Should everyone always vote yes on speaker votes? What's the point of the vote then? I respect that he voted as he thought was best and didn't just fall in line. And I agree with him Nunziata should not be speaker. It hurts our politics that people who claim to be reasonable, kind, responsible like Tory support appoint such overtly negative influences on our politics and society like Nunziata, Holyday, DMW, etc.

To me Tory appointing such clearly awful and hostile people and then everyone else being expected to just go along with it is much more distressing. I'm glad Matlow voted against the grain there and I think it maybe speaks well to his ability to see outside of the "this is just how things are done" respectability box that often traps us from both moving forward and also from strongly saying no to things that aren't right.

See for me, I think Holyday and Matlow both act and vote like aggressive "baffoons" (your words, not mine). When both do similar things, but you find ways to justify it for someone you agree with, and not the other, for me, is hyper partisan. Re: the Nunziata vote, Matlow didn't nominate anyone else (or put himself forward) for the job, so to just vote no and not provide an alternative is an issue. It's contrarian, it's wasting time. Also the optics aren''t great, a seemingly healthy, white strong straight man, coming down on this frail older woman wasn't a good look. His first vote on the new council, a chance to work together and the other 25 people were able to come together, but him, the 1 out of 26 seemingly thinks he knows better, it's anti-intellectual to me, it's contrarian. This "I know better than these other 25 people" and to not question it, or question the optics of it. Every other progressive on council voted in that way. Anyway, just how I saw it.

 

[goreckm]

Reading of Chloe Brown here https://storeys.com/toronto-mayoral-candidate-chloe-brown/ I can’t see how she would appeal to the suburban voters of Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York and North York. With downtowners more trending towards non-voters (poorer, renters, younger and often non-citizens), candidates need to remember that the city is more than pre-amalgamation Toronto. If you don’t appeal to the strong-voting boomer home-owners of East York and Forest Hill, you’re going to lose.

Of course that’s why Harris amalgamated the city, to dilute urbanist, progressive ideals. But here we are.

Yeah, hence any progressive should run a more generic "fix what's broken" campaign, which can be justified into anything later. There was an article in the star the other day about someone in Forest Hill breaking their ankle due to improper snow clearing. I'm sure this is noticed across the city and can be used in a positive and hopeful campaign.

 

[goreckm]

Though I voted for Gil last year, he ran a poor campaign and I will not do so again. (Or only if nobody better come along). Matlow looks like a better bet to me - at the moment!

Gil is definitely wacky, but, maybe in a good way. I don't know if he ran a poor campaign, or the media concluded the race was over before it began. Would definitely shake things up and make things interesting. Maybe we need that after the boring Tory times.

For now, still undecided between Gil and Matlow, but don't know who else is running yet.

 

[adma]

See for me, I think Holyday and Matlow both act and vote like aggressive "baffoons" (your words, not mine). When both do similar things, but you find ways to justify it for someone you agree with, and not the other, for me, is hyper partisan. Re: the Nunziata vote, Matlow didn't nominate anyone else (or put himself forward) for the job, so to just vote no and not provide an alternative is an issue. It's contrarian, it's wasting time. Also the optics aren''t great, a seemingly healthy, white strong straight man, coming down on this frail older woman wasn't a good look. His first vote on the new council, a chance to work together and the other 25 people were able to come together, but him, the 1 out of 26 seemingly thinks he knows better, it's anti-intellectual to me, it's contrarian. This "I know better than these other 25 people" and to not question it, or question the optics of it. Every other progressive on council voted in that way. Anyway, just how I saw it.

Somehow, you're framing Matlow a little too much in Rob Fordish terms, right down to the "coming down on this frail older woman" part (thinking back to RoFo & Pam McConnell).

And besides, judging from her close call in the last election, Matlow's not the only one "coming down" on Frances Nunziata.

 

[SJD_Toronto]

Encouragement for Ana Bailao to run.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634265340484935680

 

[toaster29]

And besides, judging from her close call in the last election, Matlow's not the only one "coming down" on Frances Nunziata.

She got 48% of the vote.... more than 8 other councillors (Including Perks, Malik, Morley, Crawford, Saxe, etc). Just because the opposition was 1 person, doesn't make achieving 48% of the vote any less of an accomplishment. Anyway, I'm not here to defend Nunziata, the point was to show that Matlow will choose to go against/vote against an issue the rest of the entire council can agree and work together on. Couldn't even convince people he helped get elected (Morley) vote with him.

 

[Pacer]

Gil is definitely wacky, but, maybe in a good way. I don't know if he ran a poor campaign, or the media concluded the race was over before it began. Would definitely shake things up and make things interesting. Maybe we need that after the boring Tory times.

For now, still undecided between Gil and Matlow, but don't know who else is running yet.

Who ever becomes mayor, council is going to become more "fun". The city needs to raise revenues to pay for so many projects including state of good repair, but they don't have the means currently.

Gil seems out of his depth in politics, and isn't very good at making friends. Case in point was him putting out the edited voting figures. It also doesn't help that his campaign manager last time around now works for Matlow.

 

[ShonTron]

See for me, I think Holyday and Matlow both act and vote like aggressive "baffoons" (your words, not mine). When both do similar things, but you find ways to justify it for someone you agree with, and not the other, for me, is hyper partisan. Re: the Nunziata vote, Matlow didn't nominate anyone else (or put himself forward) for the job, so to just vote no and not provide an alternative is an issue. It's contrarian, it's wasting time. Also the optics aren''t great, a seemingly healthy, white strong straight man, coming down on this frail older woman wasn't a good look. His first vote on the new council, a chance to work together and the other 25 people were able to come together, but him, the 1 out of 26 seemingly thinks he knows better, it's anti-intellectual to me, it's contrarian. This "I know better than these other 25 people" and to not question it, or question the optics of it. Every other progressive on council voted in that way. Anyway, just how I saw it.

“Frail older woman?” LOL. Nunziata is no Pam McConnell. She’s a mean, vindictive politician who has been in office since 1988.

 

[Richard White]

“Frail older woman?” LOL. Nunziata is no Pam McConnell. She’s a mean, vindictive politician who has been in office since 1988.

Wasn't she the Mayor of York at one point?

 

[Admiral Beez]

“Frail older woman?” LOL. Nunziata is no Pam McConnell. She’s a mean, vindictive politician who has been in office since 1988.

Whatever their condition, I do wish politicians had term limits. It’s supposed to be a temporary calling to serve, not a career.

 

[Pacer]

Whatever their condition, I do wish politicians had term limits. It’s supposed to be a temporary calling to serve, not a career.

I know term limits were discussed a little in the last election, but I hope it gets brought up in this by-election.

Has it ever been put to a vote before council?