News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     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 .
Admiral Beez said:
What would a left leaning mayoral candidate promise? Higher property taxes, road tolls, lower police budgets, more social housing and shelters, bike lanes and transit? What’s a left leaning candidate?
Click to expand...
I think you answered your own questions in a peculiar way...
 
Admiral Beez said:
What would a left leaning mayoral candidate promise? Higher property taxes, road tolls, lower police budgets, more social housing and shelters, bike lanes and transit? What’s a left leaning candidate?
Click to expand...

Campaign needs to be simple. In my mind, focus should be on two issues. Housing, and "fixing the city", but a better slogan.

Critically, fixing the city cannot be more specific than that. We need to let Torontonians imaginations and frustrations fill that in. For one example, fixing the city downtown might mean fixing the overflowing garbage cans. A surbanite might not care about that, since they're always in their car. But, they do care about fixing the potholes on their streets, etc.

The campaign cannot get into policy weeds or cut taxes will just win by default of being easy to understand, and being able to divide the electorate into thinking they're not getting anything out of any increased spending. If you want to spend people's money, you need to sell it, but there has to be something in it for everyone.
 
Blovertis said:
The left has to unite around a credible candidate -- and that means either Layton or Matlow. In a short campaign, you've got to be able organize and fundraise fast. Only an experienced politician can pull of that kind of effort. As well meaning as he is, Penalosa won't be able to pull it off. He should drop out now, or else he's going to split the progressive vote and hand it to a Ford-backed candidate.
Click to expand...
TBH when it comes to these "splitting the left" concerns, it depends on where one draws the line--particularly when "Ford-backed" doesn't necessarily equate with "Ford-populist"; and for all one knows, the splitting could wind up at *that* end of the spectrum. IOW if the prospect is that of a Mayor Mark Saunders, then the likes of Brad Bradford or Ana Bailao would be part of that so-called "left split" making that actuality possible--or would such figures split the *right* on behalf of a *left* candidate?

Remember that in 2014, the potential split everyone was concerned about wasn't in the left, or in the right, but in the "anti-Ford" camp. And that Olivia Chow finished third simply reflected that she was incapable of offering a compelling excuse for people across all corners of the city to vote for her. Yet the "Ford-backed candidate" (i.e. DoFo himself) lost anyway, to John Tory--yeah, maybe wolf-in-sheep's-clothing; but still, he *wasn't* DoFo.

Politics--and political affiliations, and campaigns, and electoral decision-making--can be "complicated". And there's a big pool of 2014-style "John Tory progressives" of the sort who'd have earlier been amenable to David Miller--just as their Calgarian equivalents were amenable to Naheed Nenshi. But they'd also be presently amenable to Brad Bradford; and a Bradford vs Saunders vs Penalosa race could well be like Tory-Ford-Chow all over again, if you get my drift...
 
goreckm said:
Campaign needs to be simple. In my mind, focus should be on two issues. Housing, and "fixing the city", but a better slogan.

Critically, fixing the city cannot be more specific than that. We need to let Torontonians imaginations and frustrations fill that in. For one example, fixing the city downtown might mean fixing the overflowing garbage cans. A surbanite might not care about that, since they're always in their car. But, they do care about fixing the potholes on their streets, etc.

The campaign cannot get into policy weeds or cut taxes will just win by default of being easy to understand, and being able to divide the electorate into thinking they're not getting anything out of any increased spending. If you want to spend people's money, you need to sell it, but there has to be something in it for everyone.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately (or fortunately) politics is complicated and though making general statements like "I will fix Toronto" sounds great; it will not be long before someone asks for examples of how you will achieve this utopia and, as you point out (and we see from comments on UT), we all have our own priorities - some of which are direct opposites. I might want to see better transit and more money spent on housing and infrastructure - and thus accept higher taxes. Others might want lower taxes and no multi-residential buildings in their neighbourhood and building more and wider roads so that I can drive downtown as fast as possible. A good politician will be able to negotiate this minefield and win enough support to be elected by the vast number of people who generally fall somewhere in the middle.
 
goreckm said:
Campaign needs to be simple. In my mind, focus should be on two issues. Housing, and "fixing the city", but a better slogan.

Critically, fixing the city cannot be more specific than that. We need to let Torontonians imaginations and frustrations fill that in. For one example, fixing the city downtown might mean fixing the overflowing garbage cans. A surbanite might not care about that, since they're always in their car. But, they do care about fixing the potholes on their streets, etc.

The campaign cannot get into policy weeds or cut taxes will just win by default of being easy to understand, and being able to divide the electorate into thinking they're not getting anything out of any increased spending. If you want to spend people's money, you need to sell it, but there has to be something in it for everyone.
Click to expand...
Tory said he would look at term limits and accountability in the wake of the ford debacle. The city is being occupied by Metrolinx and it's friends, what can a candidate say? "elect me and I will continue to roll over?" it is interesting that Tory fell after a big property tax increase - the sacred cow of local politics. Big problems with the ruling about homeless encampments, if you see what has happened in the US it does not bode well. A recent statement by CMHC said up to 20% of households in Ontario were held as investment or second properties was basically ignored. It's sad that Canada's biggest city has such a lot of problems that could be dealt with if not for political grand standing.
 
DSC said:
Unfortunately (or fortunately) politics is complicated and though making general statements like "I will fix Toronto" sounds great; it will not be long before someone asks for examples of how you will achieve this utopia and, as you point out (and we see from comments on UT), we all have our own priorities - some of which are direct opposites. I might want to see better transit and more money spent on housing and infrastructure - and thus accept higher taxes. Others might want lower taxes and no multi-residential buildings in their neighbourhood and building more and wider roads so that I can drive downtown as fast as possible. A good politician will be able to negotiate this minefield and win enough support to be elected by the vast number of people who generally fall somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

Politics is actually simple, and yes, you want to be supported by those in the middle, hence simple message.

If someone asks you for an example, you could give two simple examples which works for two different constituencies, like I gave above, then pivot immediately to the general message. Don't answer questions in specifics. As someone who is interested in policy, I hate it, but policy details on the campaign trail are a loser.
 
Rufus8 said:
Tory said he would look at term limits and accountability in the wake of the ford debacle. The city is being occupied by Metrolinx and it's friends, what can a candidate say? "elect me and I will continue to roll over?" it is interesting that Tory fell after a big property tax increase - the sacred cow of local politics. Big problems with the ruling about homeless encampments, if you see what has happened in the US it does not bode well. A recent statement by CMHC said up to 20% of households in Ontario were held as investment or second properties was basically ignored. It's sad that Canada's biggest city has such a lot of problems that could be dealt with if not for political grand standing.
Click to expand...
Tory 'fell' because of his PERSONAL behaviour and the fact that this coincided with a higher than usual tax increase was, well, coincidental! (Unless the idea of higher taxes 'inflamed him'.:->)
 
Rufus8 said:
Tory said he would look at term limits and accountability in the wake of the ford debacle. The city is being occupied by Metrolinx and it's friends, what can a candidate say? "elect me and I will continue to roll over?" it is interesting that Tory fell after a big property tax increase - the sacred cow of local politics. Big problems with the ruling about homeless encampments, if you see what has happened in the US it does not bode well. A recent statement by CMHC said up to 20% of households in Ontario were held as investment or second properties was basically ignored. It's sad that Canada's biggest city has such a lot of problems that could be dealt with if not for political grand standing.
Click to expand...

Of course you have to run as the change candidate, even if you are for the status quo.
 
DSC said:
Tory 'fell' because of his PERSONAL behaviour and the fact that this coincided with a higher than usual tax increase was, well, coincidental! (Unless the idea of higher taxes 'inflamed him'.:->)
Click to expand...
N’ah, no one else cared enough about the mayor’s office side piece to demand his ouster. He fell because he wanted out.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Er, not really true.
Click to expand...
Tory didn’t break any laws, all he had to do was admit he’d shagged a staffer and that he’s admitting it now because he wants to reconcile with his wife, and he’s taking a few months off. He had the support of the premier and there’s no recall mechanism at council, so Tory could have stayed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top