[Long Island Mike]

The short answer is no - a motion of no confidence makes little sense under our municipal system.

The long answer has to do with how very distinct the municipal government is from its federal and provincial counterparts. Most notably, there are no parties permitted in municipal politics, nor is there a municipal 'government' alike those at the provincial and federal level. As its name suggests, a no confidence motion represents a lack of confidence in the government of the day. While the mayor of Toronto has their own executive committee (per the City of Toronto Act), the executive is more comparable to provincial and federal cabinets. The 'government' of Toronto refers to the entirety of council - that is, 44 councilors and the mayor. Effectively, then, were councilors to move a motion of no confidence, they would be expressing a lack of confidence in themselves.

A motion of no confidence only really makes sense at the federal and provincial levels. This is especially true in the case of a minority government, wherein the majority of parliament/the legislature are represented by opposition members. The opposition members do not belong to 'the government', despite having a seat in parliament/the legislature. There is no such distinction at the municipal level, where being a councilor makes you a member of the government, full stop.

Does that make sense?

MWM: THANK YOU for answering my question...You make perfect sense to me...

I did not realize that the Toronto City Council is basically non-partisan meaning that a no-confidence vote would not work in this matter...

LI MIKE

 

[Tulse]

I'll be very happy if all of Ford nation were to stop consuming DHMO.

I think Rob replaced it with C2H6O.

 

[milkywaymusings]

MWM: THANK YOU for answering my question...You make perfect sense to me...

I did not realize that the Toronto City Council is basically non-partisan meaning that a no-confidence vote would not work in this matter...

LI MIKE

No problem! I hate to be a pedant, but Councillors are definitely partisan--everyone is a partisan to some degree--they just don't belong to municipal parties because none exist.

 

[requiem]

Just like he spins building the subway all by himself.

Remember, he transformed the city into an economic powerhouse!

 

[sno man]

Remember, he transformed the city into an economic powerhouse!

(within a statistical 'meh' of the national numbers, actual National, not Ford National)

 

[junior43]

"Unelected" is definitely overstating the case. Wynne is clearly elected on the basis of being elected in a party based electoral system. However, there is legitimate criticism to be made, regardless of PC precedent in Ontario, about switching leaders almost immediately after the election.
It takes almost equal sophistry or naivete to deny that people vote for leaders, regardless of what they're punching in at the ballot box. That absolute. literal interpretation is incredibly simplistic.

There's a reason the Liberals under Ignatieff flopped beyond the party or it's policies. There's a reason the Progressive Conservatives flopped under Hudak when by all accounts they should have won given frustration with the Liberals. There's a reason the Liberals will do better in the next federal election beyond Conservative political scandals. Trudeau raised Liberal numbers almost immediately.

People do in fact vote for leaders, consciously or not, officially or not, at the ballot box.

Can you please provide an example, I just went through wiki and maybe I missed something, but the last person prior to McGuinty to server only 1 year (or less) of their term after getting elected was Anthony Sturgis Hardy (Liberal) in 1899. Sir James Whitney (Conservative) only served around 2 weeks after getting elected in 1914, but that was because he died, so I think he gets a pass for that one.

It's one thing to change leaders half way or later in an elected term, it's another to do it within one year of being elected. I can understand people's misplaced concern over it, since it hasn't happened this quickly in Ontario in over a century. I'm fine with Wynne as Premier, that's the rules (and a hockey puck would be better than McGuinty), but transit taxes were not mentioned during the last election (which I'm also fine with, under certain conditions.)

 

[requiem]

Now Magazine has a photo shoot of Ford taken the evening of the barbecue with Harper. A whole series of pics where it's rather undeniable that His Oafship got increasingly fucked up - whether on booze or "something else" - as the event progressed. Linky:

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=195459

I'm not really seeing it. But damn, he's unphotogenic.

 

[pattycakes]

I think the worse the police look for not arresting Ford, the closer we are to it actually happening. By a certain point they'll have to arrest him just for damage control.

I'm sure MM is right. Blair has more than DUI charges in mind.

 

[Parker]

It's one thing to change leaders half way or later in an elected term, it's another to do it within one year of being elected. I can understand people's misplaced concern over it, since it hasn't happened this quickly in Ontario in over a century. I'm fine with Wynne as Premier, that's the rules (and a hockey puck would be better than McGuinty), but transit taxes were not mentioned during the last election (which I'm also fine with, under certain conditions.)

I'm legitimately curious, is the difference between changing after one year and changing after two years that significant? Does that extra year somehow magically garner a legitimate mandate vs an "unelected" leader?

I can't see how one is legitimate and the other not, especially when both are part of standard Westminster style parliamentary representative democracy.

It kind of remind of the old joke "we both know what you are; we're just dickering over the price."

 

[Les Nessman]

the links continue....


http://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j...PcXuBtIPuS7ivt_A3jsUl83w&ust=1385254658123418

 

[Coltaine79]

Why is the distinction being made between land lines and cell phones regarding telephone surveys?
Are robots not capable of dialing area codes that are largely used for cell phones or are they programmed to ignore "647" etc because they are not specific to small definable geographic areas and for that reason considered less likely to provide useful responses than "416"?

In some ways, I am glad the robots ignore cell phone exchanges. I, and many others with cellphone plans, don't have "unlimited" use of our cellphone during the day. I only have 250 minutes and some months I come very close to using it all up! As it is, I can't stand telemarketers and usually just hang up without saying anything (why waste precious minutes asking them to remove my #, when I know they probably won't even bother!). So I'd hate for 15-20 minutes of my monthly allocation be wasted on some ridiculous poll.

 

[Tricker]

More international fallout. Rio breaking ties with TO.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...oronto_in_wake_of_rob_ford_crack_scandal.html

 

[Johnny Au]

I think Rob replaced it with C2H6O.

Not just C[SUB]2[/SUB]H[SUB]6[/SUB]O, but with C[SUB]17[/SUB]H[SUB]21[/SUB]NO[SUB]4[/SUB] (also known as benzoylmethylecgonine) as well.

 

[pattycakes]

The Agenda - Civic Institutions on Mute?

Talking about Rob.

 

[requiem]

Basic and everyone: I feel that if Chris Farley were alive today that he would have a "field day" with a caricature of Mayor Rob Ford...

Bobby Moynihan did a good impression of Ford on SNL but I also wonder if Lorne Michaels had also noticed that Farley would have been
perhaps the perfect former SNL cast member to play Ford on a regular basis...

Remembering how much of a partier Chris Farley was makes me feel that Rob Ford should further watch his health and with the stress
of all that is happening around him that he not suffer the fate of Farley and for that matter John Belushi taking substance abuse to an extreme...

LI MIKE

This has been a very common observation. Farley's own brother even tweeted about it.