picard102
Senior Member
Not sure how they remain so optimistic in the face of loss after loss for nearly a decade now.
|
|
|
- Thread starter MetroMan
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
John Tory was an electoral powerhouse. Now we have a swarm of candidates for whom lack of recognition is no longer a block.
goreckm
Active Member
The problem is the swarm unfortunately. The left has been really bad at clearly running on one or two easy to understand issues, and the right has capitalized on that with really easy to get behind slogans and campaigns, even if they bear no resemblance to the actual policies. I could see the right coalescing around one candidate early, and 2 or 3 serious left-ish candidates being on the ballot, each with their own pet issues, but having opinions on like 50, so they'll lose to a milquetoast candidate like Bradford.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
John Tory was a lawyer and Queen’s Counsel (likely now King’s Counsel). He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Trinity College at the University of Toronto in 1975. He received his Bachelor of Laws degree in 1978 from Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. He was called to the bar in Ontario in 1980.
Unlike Doug Ford, who dropped out of Humber College after 2 months, because he “was bored silly in the lectures.” He got his job at the family business because of nepotism.
So John Tory actually knows what he’s doing, picking the time when he will hand in his formal resignation letter to the city clerk. No sooner nor later.
Unlike Doug Ford, who dropped out of Humber College after 2 months, because he “was bored silly in the lectures.” He got his job at the family business because of nepotism.
So John Tory actually knows what he’s doing, picking the time when he will hand in his formal resignation letter to the city clerk. No sooner nor later.
Cambry Ardship
Active Member
If Tory felt his actions were dishonourable enough to warrant calling a press conference on short notice on a Friday evening to resign, then he should submit his resignation immediately instead of delaying to ensure his budget passes.
The budget process isn't a last minute surprise.
The budget process isn't a last minute surprise.
Fresco
Active Member
At 4:12 the reporter confirms there are more details besides the affair (which is what we all suspected).
There may be misuse of public funds and I also have a feeling he may have pressured her to keep quiet, with possible career ramifications if she didnt
There may be misuse of public funds and I also have a feeling he may have pressured her to keep quiet, with possible career ramifications if she didnt
Last edited:
picard102
Senior Member
Already seeing the infighting with Gil and the purity test on if he supports streetcars or not.
Fresco
Active Member
Can't stand Sid, but he's spot on here
concrete_and_light
Active Member
It's not "infighting" and a "purity test" to have meaningful disagreements and questions about his policy on major infrastructure issues. And if Gil wants to be mayor he needs to approach policy seriously and not just with hot take tweets and fired from the hip opinions. Someone can't expect to run for mayor and then not have anyone have questions about their policies and positions.
I find this narrative frustrating and counterproductive that if the left doesn't coalesce around Gil within the first few days from Tory's complete surprise Friday night announcement, or has any questions or criticisms of his sometimes-not-that-thought-through positions that it's just classic left purity test, infighting, etc — we haven't even had time for serious candidates to figure out the situation and announce yet! If Gil wants to be a serious candidate he needs to build serious policy and respond to questions and build support.
The only reason Gil announced right away is because he is just his own guy and doesn't take into account these broader strategic political considerations vis a vis other candidates and the political machine and fundraising, etc. required to win the office of mayor (running around wards and taking photos and posting tweets wont do it alone).
Other candidates are clearly talking behind the scenes with each other and supporters, fundraisers, campaign machines, in order to figure out who is best situated to run a viable campaign. Gil just went 'hey it's time for Gil For Mayor again' and announced he's running, but that does not mean he should be the standard bearer or is the best candidate to win in this election.
He's just the first name in and if anyone isn't being a team player here and risks vote-splitting it's Gil. If Gil was concerned about the future of the city and vote splitting maybe he should have worked with other progressive people behind the scenes to decide who is best positioned to run and win here, but he just jumped in quickly before other serious candidates could figure out what to do. That's fine and fair enough, he can do what he thinks is best for Gil and for the city, and I may still vote for him, support him, and even campaign for him — he may still be the best candidate and I voted for him last time! But nobody owes Gil support just because he's Gil and got his name out first on the weekend before serious candidates could figure things out and it's not purity test and infighting to have some questions about Gil's policies and want to see what the other options are before supporting Gil. Let's see how this plays out.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Yeah, a bit of blowhard on conservative talking points...but I have to flat out agree with him that Tory shouldn't be within 7 km of the budget debate.
Northern Light
Superstar
Forum Poll out from the The Star on whether Tory should stay/go:
From: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...hn-tory-should-resign-as-mayor-poll-says.html
From: https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...hn-tory-should-resign-as-mayor-poll-says.html
Looks like the video has been pulled
picard102
Senior Member
It absolutely is when you have already said "I'm not uniting around an anti-streetcar candidate". That's a classic (a rigid standard on a specific issue by which a politician or other figure compared) purity test.
If "we haven't even had time for serious candidates to figure out the situation", then why are you making declarations about whether or not Gil is a candidate you'd support?
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Fair point. I worded that strongly declaring it like that and maybe I am exhibiting those tendencies. But if Gil really thinks streetcars belong in a museum and that would impact his policy in a way that would move us away from streetcars and doesn't show that he can engage with the issue and points for and against them in different contexts meaningfully, yeah that's an issue for me and would probably be a dealbreaker unless he clarifies that he would keep and invest in Toronto's streetcar system and barring a lack of other good candidates.
I just think that would be really irresponsible policy to get rid of our streetcars and a historic mistake. But also I want a mayor who an consider all aspects of an issue seriously and doesn't just present simple one size fits all solutions and his opinions as the easy answer. So that's part of the issue as well. I want to see a mayor who can engage meaningfully on subjects and handle good points against his opinions and listen and integrate them into his thinking, not ignore good points against his ideas.
The left does have a problem with purity testing, and I will endeavour to be aware of it in myself! But in general and in this case I don't think it's always purity testing for people to have some issues that are big issues for them and for them to challenge potential candidates on them in order to get better more considered policy. For me infrastructure issues and thinking seriously about them are very important. We can't be messing around with half-baked plans like under Ford (subways subways subways) and Tory (SmartTrack back of the napkin plan for Tory's election taking over transit planning in this city). If Ford posted Penalosa's streetcar tweet people would be melting down. I'm still open to supporting Gil and I welcome a lot of his message and ideas, but we have to be able to challenge people on the progressive side of things on their positions, and that's not purity testing to me on subjects this big. That's making sure we have an appropriately serious candidate for mayor with realistic, considered, good policy.
Last edited:
EagleEye
Senior Member
The link doesn't work, can you tell us what it was about?