News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Calrissian said:
The debate was forgettable and will fade into the background (with all the rest of the garbage) by the time the weekend rolls around, and (hopefully), by Monday, people will come to their senses enough to know that Ford plainly is not fit for this job and the only alternative to keep him out is Smitherman, who has more of a vision. (i'm not saying its the best vision, but better than Ford)
Click to expand...

The debate may be forgettable, but Smitherman needs to continue the momentum he had going. He was looking like a winner, Ford was looking like a man on the fall, and Pants looked like a candidate in the distance trying unsuccessfully to get attention. That was the perfect storm for Smitherman to win it. I'm not sure now. Let's see how the polls look like later this week.
 
MetroMan said:
The debate may be forgettable, but Smitherman needs to continue the momentum he had going. He was looking like a winner, Ford was looking like a man on the fall, and Pants looked like a candidate in the distance trying unsuccessfully to get attention. That was the perfect storm for Smitherman to win it. I'm not sure now. Let's see how the polls look like later this week.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but this would assume everyone was tuned into the debate, and that's probably a very small number and hopefully the prior momentum will continue...
 
Glen said:
Joe had his best performance. Rob did well. George seemed defensive and unhappy. This debate was certainly a win for Rob Ford in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Curios Glen, are you supporting Ford ?
 
Ford will win this election handily.

You people really do underestimate his silent supporters, you know, the ones who prefer to remain anonymous behind the voting curtain? After all, who would publicly admit to backing a fat, racist, blowhard right?
 
taal said:
Curios Glen, are you supporting Ford ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Let me explain why....

Rob Ford, and recently George Smitherman have both indicated that property taxes need to be lowered (not raised more slowly as the current administration has done) in order to facilitate job creation in the city. During an election campaign I don't think that they would be shouting this from roof tops as it implies that the residential class will have to make up for it. Which would translate into a platform of, we will raise your taxes. Not something that is conducive to getting elected.

No one has championed this issue. Toronto has an embarrassing level of unemployment, with a trend that is alarming. I cannot unequivocally say that that Rob Ford would be better than George Smitherman. I can easily speculate that both would be better than Joe Pantalone. With the opinion that any meaningful re-balancing will not take place in the current climate, there is some practical reasoning that the candidate that proposes to spend the least will produce the greatest benefit regarding this issue. As a side effect though, not as a direct policy. Now if we look at the financial platforms (which all leave much to be desired) we still see that Smitherman's is predicated on many on time sources of revenue*. If I, as someone who worries about the long term fiscal health of Toronto, would like to see growth in the area of assessment that drives revenue, not the side that drives expenditures (residential) , my choice whittles down to one. Is it perfect? Far from it. Is it rational? IMHO, yes.

*For 2011, 391 million dollars of Smitherman's plan is explicitly unsustainable. 100 million from selling Enwave, 65 million from selling city land and 76 and 150 million from prior year budget surpluses. That does not include the 100 million in wishful thinking to come from the province to help pay for the TTC. In 2012, 391 million dollars will not be recurring. If the province will not come through with the 100 million for TTC funding his 2012 budget will start off with a 491 million dollar hole to fill.
 
cgguy said:
Ford will win this election handily.

You people really do underestimate his silent supporters, you know, the ones who prefer to remain anonymous behind the voting curtain? After all, who would publicly admit to backing a fat, racist, blowhard right?
Click to expand...

Just like the increase in unreported crimes, there's all kinds of things us people just don't know and understand. Thanks for filling us in.

You people. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
I don't know about the Ottawa experience but it IS possible to cut taxes AND increase services IF you eliminate waste. .
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd you have disqualified yourself from the converstation by promoting this myth.

Name one person in the history of the universe who, through the reduction of "waste", cut taxes and increased services.

Go:

In reality, "waste" represents an almost negligable amount of potential savings. Most "waste" is inherent in ANY form/size of government. It's just a stupid gimmick. Look at the US. Every potential Presidential candidate has vowed to pay for their campaign promises by going through the budget "line-by-line" to target wasteful spending. Does it happen? No.

Any candidate in any election anywhere, who is faced with a deficit, and pledges to cut or freeze taxes, is full of shit. Yet time and time again, people like you eat it up and elect them. As a recent example, Larry O'Brien was elected on Rob Ford's platform, and failed miserably.
 
Last edited:
Glen said:
Yes. Let me explain why....

Rob Ford, and recently George Smitherman have both indicated that property taxes need to be lowered (not raised more slowly as the current administration has done) in order to facilitate job creation in the city. During an election campaign I don't think that they would be shouting this from roof tops as it implies that the residential class will have to make up for it. Which would translate into a platform of, we will raise your taxes. Not something that is conducive to getting elected.

No one has championed this issue. Toronto has an embarrassing level of unemployment, with a trend that is alarming. I cannot unequivocally say that that Rob Ford would be better than George Smitherman. I can easily speculate that both would be better than Joe Pantalone. With the opinion that any meaningful re-balancing will not take place in the current climate, there is some practical reasoning that the candidate that proposes to spend the least will produce the greatest benefit regarding this issue. As a side effect though, not as a direct policy. Now if we look at the financial platforms (which all leave much to be desired) we still see that Smitherman's is predicated on many on time sources of revenue*. If I, as someone who worries about the long term fiscal health of Toronto, would like to see growth in the area of assessment that drives revenue, not the side that drives expenditures (residential) , my choice whittles down to one. Is it perfect? Far from it. Is it rational? IMHO, yes.

*For 2011, 391 million dollars of Smitherman's plan is explicitly unsustainable. 100 million from selling Enwave, 65 million from selling city land and 76 and 150 million from prior year budget surpluses. That does not include the 100 million in wishful thinking to come from the province to help pay for the TTC. In 2012, 391 million dollars will not be recurring. If the province will not come through with the 100 million for TTC funding his 2012 budget will start off with a 491 million dollar hole to fill.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot Glen,

Curious though ... when did anyone other then Sarah (from what I recall) mention commerical property tax directly? Smitherman has mentioned freezing property taxes! One could only assume he's only referring to residential tax rates?
Anyway, my issue with Ford is some what echoed in your post - I really don't see much of anything in his platform that directly targets improving the business climate - all I see is a blanket attitude of let's save money / cut services - which clearly is necessary to a certain degree to achieve my goal - but there's been no hint of this long term vision whatsoever. Ford has directly mentioned cutting the land transfer tax and car registration - again, he'll need to make up for this, and more likely then not it won't come from residential tax rates.

I just don't see him addressing anything - it's true we may come out with a slightly more balanced budget and a new mayor may be able to a lot with that.

On the other end of the spectrum - I don't think blanket cuts to all services is desirable - countless times we've heard the lines (so what services will be cost? "Nothing, we'll improve services by making them more efficient") which is all well and good for an election platform but clearly far from the truth.

I won't begin to touch some of his other platforms - a.k.a removing streetcars and the like - I'll chalk a lot of this up to 'I want to grab attention in the media to help my cause' and all the candidates of done this to a certain degree.
 
Kelly McParland of the National Post summed up the campaign perfectly in this article just posted:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...us-justin-trudeau-and-the-unions-your-choice/

"So there you go. Mr. Smitherman is gaining ground because people of widely varying political views all figure he can be persuaded to do the kind of deals politicians always do. They don’t like Ford because they figure he’ll likely try to stick to his promises.

There’s your choice."


Pretty much what I said at post 4113
 
Peepers said:
Kelly McParland of the National Post summed up the campaign perfectly in this article just posted:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...us-justin-trudeau-and-the-unions-your-choice/

"So there you go. Mr. Smitherman is gaining ground because people of widely varying political views all figure he can be persuaded to do the kind of deals politicians always do. They don’t like Ford because they figure he’ll likely try to stick to his promises.

There’s your choice."

Pretty much what I said at post 4113
Click to expand...

Sure, because Ford's promises are frightening. I'd take the wild card, in that scenario.
 
MetroMan, GraphicMatt: I really wouldn't worry about last night's debate. I didn't see it, though it sounds like George had a bad night. So what? We election obsessives tend to put way too much emphasis on micro-data; what matters are the underlying fundamentals. Those are broadly positive for George and negative for Ford and Pantalone. Joe still can't win, and Ford still hasn't been able to grow his support beyond what he got by August. I think a 'Rob Ford: yes or no?' ballot question is also extremely dangerous for him, since he is--after all--a right-wing extremist with an extremely checkered personal and political resume running in a broadly centrist or centre-left city. The macro-trends are broadly positive for George and remain so after last night.

As for the debate itself, let's say for the sake of argument that it will sway some people (for instance) to Pantalone and not George. How many? Well, they would have to have actually watched it, since every news account I read, including that of The Sun, was generally neutral and descriptive. They would also have to have concluded (as you did) that George came off poorly. That conclusion would also have to be sufficient to convince them to ignore the fundamentals noted above (Ford an extremist, Joe can't win, George assembling a broad coalition etc) and change their voting intention as a result. I won't make a guess as to the absolute number of individuals who satisfy these conditions, but I would bet good money that it is smaller than the number of notional Pantalone supporters who are appalled by his cozying up to Ford.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top