[Eug]

Well, I think it makes sense that as someone gets older and wiser, s/he may also become more fiscally responsible.

That said, that doesn't mean that same person suddenly wants Harris back, or even Ford for that matter. I just think of Ford as someone approaching one extreme, because people are so sick of the other extreme.

Personally, I like progamatic moderates, and neither Miller and Ford are pragmatic moderates. To put it another way, I blame Cherry's "left wing pinkos" for Ford's election.

 

[CanadianNational]

Miller was far from extreme. Pushing for the collectivization of agriculture is extreme.

The centre has been pushed - and is being actively pushed - to the right. This U.S.-fuelled worrisome trend was imported here wholesale courtesy of the fundamentalist religious Reform party just a few years ago. A guy like Ford would not have stood a chance to be elected even a short while back in our generally progressive culture.

Cherry being invited to insult the citizens of the city and give Ford the medal was crass and divisive though. And, in its own way, extreme. I've lived in Toronto for over fifteen years now, plus for a few years at the end of the eighties. The Miller years were good.

 

[Irishmonk]

^Well said, as always.

Decades from now, when we look back at this time, and specifically the last 2 months, it may be come to be seen as the critical moment that Toronto willfully, and perhaps irrevocably, lost its bearings and began to slowly self-destruct. From "stop the gravy train," to "transit city is dead" to "left wing kooks" to Ford's spineless minions on council stoking his ego by voting en masse to support his short-sighted measures that may cripple us down the road, this may be the time we threw it all away--and by "all" I mean the unique qualities that made this city a beacon of tolerance, sophistication and forward thinking in North America.

I hate to think this because it makes me depressed and sad, but I fear that we may now be infected with the same mean-spirited, selfish, "ignorance is strength" mind set that has plagued America for the past 30 years and is threatening to do the same up here. *shudder*

 

[archanfel]

Miller was far from extreme. Pushing for the collectivization of agriculture is extreme.

The centre has been pushed - and is being actively pushed - to the right. This U.S.-fuelled worrisome trend was imported here wholesale courtesy of the fundamentalist religious Reform party just a few years ago. A guy like Ford would not have stood a chance to be elected even a short while back in our generally progressive culture.

Cherry being invited to insult the citizens of the city and give Ford the medal was crass and divisive though. And, in its own way, extreme. I've lived in Toronto for over fifteen years now, plus for a few years at the end of the eighties. The Miller years were good.

Last time I checked, the citizens of the city elected Ford with a wide margin and a lot of people like Don Cherry, so please don't speak for the citizens of the city lightly. I am a citizen of the city and I certainly wasn't insulted by Don Cherry, although I do hate his show.

Who is pushing the center? How can you push people in a democratic country? Where was the center 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Mike Harris was elected by the "generally progressive culture", was he not?

 

[archanfel]

Well, I think it makes sense that as someone gets older and wiser, s/he may also become more fiscally responsible.

That said, that doesn't mean that same person suddenly wants Harris back, or even Ford for that matter. I just think of Ford as someone approaching one extreme, because people are so sick of the other extreme.

Personally, I like progamatic moderates, and neither Miller and Ford are pragmatic moderates. To put it another way, I blame Cherry's "left wing pinkos" for Ford's election.

Exactly. Ford is the legacy of David Miller. He is the guy doing most of the "pushing".

However, I don't think Ford or Harris is extreme in term of fiscal responsibility. I haven't seen anything responsible yet. As much as I am thankful for the $60 saved, we are in a $40 million (more?) hole right now because of him. In order to be fiscally responsible, spending must be cut. Anybody can cut taxes, it's the service cut that is the hard part. People like George Bush who cut taxes and increased spending are not fiscally responsible.

 

[toto]

In the 1970's, 19% of Torontonians lived below the proverty line. Today, 53% do. Why? Because the middle was slowly rob by conservative government policies, of cutting taxes for those with money, while cutting services for those without. It's that simple. This was Harris's tactic, I beleive it will be Ford's as well. We'll just have to wait and see. I think the honeymoon will end the day after the next budget is released.

 

[Eug]

Exactly. Ford is the legacy of David Miller. He is the guy doing most of the "pushing".

However, I don't think Ford or Harris is extreme in term of fiscal responsibility. I haven't seen anything responsible yet. As much as I am thankful for the $60 saved, we are in a $40 million (more?) hole right now because of him. In order to be fiscally responsible, spending must be cut. Anybody can cut taxes, it's the service cut that is the hard part. People like George Bush who cut taxes and increased spending are not fiscally responsible.

I agree, which is why I "blame" the Miller years. They pushed the public to become more irrational, which likely won't serve the public much, except maybe to give the Millerites a good wake up call.

Like I said before, I prefer pragmatic moderates. Ford isn't a moderate, he's an extreme populist. He uses the veneer of a fiscally responsible politician to win votes, but in real terms he doesn't actually seem fiscally responsible.

Miller was far from extreme. Pushing for the collectivization of agriculture is extreme.

The centre has been pushed - and is being actively pushed - to the right. This U.S.-fuelled worrisome trend was imported here wholesale courtesy of the fundamentalist religious Reform party just a few years ago. A guy like Ford would not have stood a chance to be elected even a short while back in our generally progressive culture.

You're speaking from the perspective of say an Urban Toronto academic, not from the perspective of actual democratic mayoral race politics for the City of Toronto.

Judging but what I see as citizens of the city, Miller is pretty extreme left. He was about as far left as one could have gone while still maintaining any hope of getting elected.

The boomerang effect has now happened, and for that I blame the Miller years.

 

[spider]

I mean the unique qualities that made this city a beacon of tolerance, sophistication and forward thinking in North America.

Oh please, a beacon already? Most of our neighbours to the south couldn't find Toronto on a map let alone judge our levels of the virtues you listed. They probably don't care about us and I am fine with not caring whether they care.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'm guessing that the money saved from the registration fee will be able to pay for one fill-up of gasoline next year in 2011. The drivers will probably need it for the one time, but as the price goes up it will eat up the savings. What then?

[video]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/markets-blog/market-view-video/jeff-rubin-on-triple-digit-oil/article1575897/[/video]

From The Globe and Mail:

The strongest manufacturing numbers coming out of the Chinese economy in a seven-month period, coupled with plunging oil inventories in the world’s largest energy consuming economy, have sent oil (CL-FT88.210.510.58%) prices to a 25-month high. With no let-up in China’s fuel demand, the world should be looking at triple-digit oil prices again within a quarter.

That may come as a shock to those who thought the bloated oil inventories that came in the wake of the last recession would provide a buffer against future oil price spikes. Suddenly, that buffer has literally gone up in smoke.

Refined oil stocks held by China’s two largest oil companies have fallen for eight consecutive months, while diesel stocks in the country fell 14 per cent in October. And the tightening oil market won’t just be felt in China. The 140 million barrels of international oil inventories sloshing around in floating storage on the high seas is also all but gone.

With oil prices within striking distance of triple-digit levels, don’t look for any price relief at the upcoming OPEC meeting in Ecuador. Venezuelan energy and oil minister Rafael Ramirez was recently quoted as saying that $100 (U.S.) per barrel was a fair price for both consumers and producers. (But not for cab drivers in Caracas, who will continue to be able to purchase their fuel at 20 cents per gallon, the equivalent of a little over $8 per barrel). Meanwhile, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has already served notice that, without triple-digit prices, there is little incentive for new oil exploration in his kingdom.

In other words, without the return of the kinds of oil prices that put the world economy into the deepest ever post-war recession, we shouldn’t expect major oil producing countries to find and develop new supply. Yet, according to the recently released World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency (IEA), world oil demand has never been more dependent on finding new supply.

How the goal posts have moved when it comes to oil prices and supply forecasts. Just as the IEA has finally recognized the reality of peak oil—at least insofar as affordable conventional oil is concerned—triple-digit oil prices have become the new normal in OPEC’s price expectations.

When both OPEC, an organization representing 40 per cent of world oil production, and the IEA, representing countries that consume roughly 50 per cent of the world’s oil, both now acknowledge the imminent return of triple-digit oil prices, perhaps it’s time our policy-makers should as well.

Our last encounter with those prices was brief but decisive. Oil demand collapsed, and, since oil powers our economy, so did GDP. What steps we have taken to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen again is far from clear.

 

[Eug]

Almost 2 fillups in my case. I drive a Prius.

 

[Tewder]

The Tories in no way eliminated the debt.

I never claimed the tories eliminated the debt. We were talking about Harris who left a budget surplus for 2001/2002 after digging out of debt and balancing the books under his leadership. It is known that Eves didn't carry on with the policies of Harris or to the degree of Harris at least, rightly or wrongly.

They did manage to balance the budget in 2001, but only by the one time cash influx from selling the 407.

Come now, that is simplistic. The Harris government made deep cuts to balance the budget over time. The sale of the 407 was only part of the strategy and would in no way have made up a $10 billion deficit. The Harris government made real cuts and not just 'lip-service' ones and reformed spending in almost every portfolio.

Look, we can argue whether the cuts ran too deep or were unsustainable but we also have to keep context in mind. From the position of 1995 the Harris approach made sense, where from the position of 2003 it didn't perhaps.

Moreover, by failing to invest in new transit, health care, energy, sewers, and other items the Tories created an infrastructure deficit of tens of billions. One that still causes huge problems today.

I agree. All governments should invest in these things to one degree or another... again, depending on context such as levels of debt, the economy etc. That said, where was all the investment in these things that the liberals have made over the ensuing two terms??? We also have to understand that reform to healthcare under Harris was within the context of major downloading by the federal Liberals.

This wouldn't be so bad, if those weren't also years of unprecedented economic growth. Rather than stock up when times were good, Harris threw all of the new money into tax cuts. He let transit and power plants crumble, and left nothing for worse economic times, like we are dealing with today.

He didn't balance the budget over night. It took years of digging out of debt during these golden days you speak of... and wasn't there a global downturn/recession in the early 2000s? Canada avoided sliding into recession but the economy slowed nonetheless.

^Indeed, great post SimonP. The Neo-con revision of history continues unabated, esp. when it comes to the fiscal policy of their predecessors. Conservative governments tend to be the most fiscally imprudent of all the major parties since their constant mantra of lower taxes with no service cuts is mathematically impossible and always leaves gov't budgets in a shambles. Ford has promised the same and the results will be the same.

Revisions of history happen on all sides of the spectrum, I find. Perhaps not 'revisions' so much as attempts at interpretation... at least from a non-partisan point of view.

 

[CN Tower]

In the 1970's, 19% of Torontonians lived below the proverty line. Today, 53% do. Why? Because the middle was slowly rob by conservative government policies, of cutting taxes for those with money, while cutting services for those without. It's that simple. This was Harris's tactic, I beleive it will be Ford's as well. We'll just have to wait and see. I think the honeymoon will end the day after the next budget is released.

That would be interesting if it were actually true:

http://www.toronto.ca/homelessness/

Looks like the number has gone from 19% to 25%, assuming your 19% number was a blatant lie as well.

Housing and Homelessness Report Card 2003
Despite Toronto's strong economy, many people in need of affordable housing are being left behind, according to the Toronto Report Card on Housing and Homelessness 2003. Findings of this third Report Card include:

* 552,000 Toronto households have incomes below the poverty line
* 250,000 Toronto households pay more than 30 per cent of their incomes on rent
* 71,000 households are now on the municipal waiting list for affordable social housing, and
* 31,985 homeless individuals (including 4,779 children) stayed in a Toronto shelter at least once during 2002.

 

[CN Tower]

Miller was far from extreme. Pushing for the collectivization of agriculture is extreme.

The centre has been pushed - and is being actively pushed - to the right. This U.S.-fuelled worrisome trend was imported here wholesale courtesy of the fundamentalist religious Reform party just a few years ago. A guy like Ford would not have stood a chance to be elected even a short while back in our generally progressive culture.

Cherry being invited to insult the citizens of the city and give Ford the medal was crass and divisive though. And, in its own way, extreme. I've lived in Toronto for over fifteen years now, plus for a few years at the end of the eighties. The Miller years were good.

If Cherry is such a menace to society then why do the Canadian taxpayers foot the $1,000,000+ bill for his CBC Hockey Night in Canada salary? Where's the outrage over that?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Hockey Night in Canada is likely a profitable show, even with Cherry's expensive salary.

 

[toto]

That would be interesting if it were actually true:

http://www.toronto.ca/homelessness/

Looks like the number has gone from 19% to 25%, assuming your 19% number was a blatant lie as well.

Housing and Homelessness Report Card 2003
Despite Toronto's strong economy, many people in need of affordable housing are being left behind, according to the Toronto Report Card on Housing and Homelessness 2003. Findings of this third Report Card include:

* 552,000 Toronto households have incomes below the poverty line
* 250,000 Toronto households pay more than 30 per cent of their incomes on rent
* 71,000 households are now on the municipal waiting list for affordable social housing, and
* 31,985 homeless individuals (including 4,779 children) stayed in a Toronto shelter at least once during 2002.

CBC Radio

The report found that the proportion of neighbourhoods — what Statistics Canada refers to as census tracts — considered to be middle income was 29 per cent in 2005, down from 66 per cent in 1970.

The proportion of low income neighbourhoods, meanwhile, rose from 19 per cent in 1970 to 53 per cent in 2005. Low income neighbourhoods are defined as those with average individual incomes at 20 per cent of the city average or lower.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/12/15/three-cities-report542.html#ixzz18TlziQ3N

I might have misunderstood a report I heard on the radio last week. But the divide between the rich and poor at the expense of the middle, has increased considerable.