[GraphicMatt]

I don't want to be too pedantic about it, but I would like a list of a few examples of extreme left policies Miller had.

 

[Eug]

Extreme in the context of the budgetary shortfalls in a generally centrist Toronto. Initially, rather than even consider any sort of realistic service cutbacks (which is something the public actually supported 2:1), he chose instead to levy a punitive land transfer tax. That alone is a pretty good example of left leaning gall.

 

[Irishmonk]

I don't want to be too pedantic about it, but I would like a list of a few examples of extreme left policies Miller had.

I second that. I haven't heard one.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Extreme in the context of the budgetary shortfalls in a generally centrist Toronto. Initially, rather than even consider any sort of realistic service cutbacks (which is something the public actually supported 2:1), he chose instead to levy a punitive land transfer tax. That alone is a pretty good example of left leaning gall.

People tend to prefer unspecific service cuts over tax increases - were there specific services Torontonians were okay with cutting? Even Ford doesn't seem to see any services that could be cut.

 

[adma]

To Eug, nearly four decades ago, David Crombie would have been extremist.

 

[MetroMan]

I just want to point out something interesting: During the election, I tried to warn my circle of friends about the dangers of Ford but some of them were too hard headed and voted for him anyway. I'd say about 1 in 10 of my friends voted for Ford. These days, I've been hearing most of them disappointed that Ford wants to cancel transit city and is stopping something that we're not even paying for but will pay for in penalties because it's being cancelled. I've been able to say "I told you so" several times this week alone.

It's completely unscientific data but I think Ford will lose at least 10% of his supporters in the next election. Maybe another 25% will be lost from the type of voter who simply wanted change and Ford was the most extreme opposite to the status quo. Given that we know that none of his policies made financial (or even logical) sense, he's not going to be able to follow through on many of his main promises. Finally, his entire campaign was based on negativity against the previous administration, a card he won't be able to play in the next election. In 2014, Ford's going to have a hard time mounting the kind of support that propelled him over the left.

I'm pretty optimistic that we'll just have to hunker down for 4 years, with city council keeping the crazy train in check and whoever the challenger is in 2014 will have a realistic chance of taking down Ford.

Things like waterfront redevelopment, arts funding and logical, affordable transit plans will be put on hold or slowed down for 4 years and picked up again by the next Mayor. In the meantime, we may be able to use Ford as an attack dog to tame the out of control unions and slim down City Hall's operating costs.

 

[SimonP]

People tend to prefer unspecific service cuts over tax increases - were there specific services Torontonians were okay with cutting? Even Ford doesn't seem to see any services that could be cut.

Exactly. Miller did make service cuts, for instance to garbage pick-up. But those cuts made everyone very upset. People like the idea of cuts, but if you announce something specific to be cut people get very unhappy.

Miller also froze non-union wage increases, slowed union wage hikes to a level lower than they've been in years, and imposed a hiring freeze. Combined these have already shaved several hundred million off city spending.

 

[archanfel]

When people say that welfare should be cut, I always hope they don't find themselves in a desperate situation where they have to turn to others for help. I've worked with welfare recipients for years. Yes, there are some who abuse the system. There are people who abuse every system. However, those folks are in the minority but they do give a bad rap to the majority who are just trying to feed their family. Welfare recipients are people who have just had lousy luck or found themselves in temporary difficulties; sometimes they are students trying to get through school. Sometimes they are young adults who have been thrown out of the family home. There are lots of reasons people find themselves on welfare, and what they receive is not enough to make ends meet. It's always easy to target welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who just want government handouts, but this is not at all the case for the vast majority.

Aside from those who are disabled which should be in a different program, there are two main groups of people who needs welfare.

The first group is as you said, young adults who are just starting out. While assistants may be necessary for this group, it should be in the form of loans rather than hand out. Young adults have great future earning potentials, so there's no reason to just give them the money. Banks also like to work with young adults since they could be future customers. The government can provide some form of loan guarantee for a fee, I don't see why the government should spend a lot of money on this group.

The second group is people who are older, but less prepared. The PBS has an article on 99ers, who are people who ran out EI after 99 weeks in the states. Pretty sad stories, but you can see they have nobody but themselves to blame. One guy worked for 22 years and earned near 6 figure salary, yet he lost his everything after only several months. There will always be tough patches in life, the trick is to be prepared for it. The left seems to think people can't be trusted with their own lives, the government has to think for them. I think the government should dispel the myth that society always has your back, then maybe people will be more responsible with their own lives.

There are certainly always exceptions, but they are not the majority.

Work hard, live well below your means, save at least 10% of before tax income, invest wisely, and one will find that when bad luck strikes, one is better prepared. I don't think welfare should just be cut, it should be reformed to target those who have been responsible and really just need a hand. The recipients should be expected to repay the system to make it self sustainable in the long run.

 

[adma]

It's completely unscientific data but I think Ford will lose at least 10% of his supporters in the next election. Maybe another 25% will be lost from the type of voter who simply wanted change and Ford was the most extreme opposite to the status quo. Given that we know that none of his policies made financial (or even logical) sense, he's not going to be able to follow through on many of his main promises. Finally, his entire campaign was based on negativity against the previous administration, a card he won't be able to play in the next election. In 2014, Ford's going to have a hard time mounting the kind of support that propelled him over the left.

Though...it may depend on the calibre of opposition, too. With another SmitherPants situation (or Harris vs "not up to the job" McGuinty in 99, or Harper vs Dion in 08, or *maybe* Harper vs Iggy in 11), voters might still opt for the-devil-you-know by default...

 

[nfitz]

Huh?

That's the weirdest leap I've seen in a while.

Hey, I'm not the one advocating starving people to death.

Honestly ... I'm tired of such evil.

 

[MetroMan]

Though...it may depend on the calibre of opposition, too. With another SmitherPants situation (or Harris vs "not up to the job" McGuinty in 99, or Harper vs Dion in 08, or *maybe* Harper vs Iggy in 11), voters might still opt for the-devil-you-know by default...

I agree. Jane Pitfield was no match for Miller and he easily sailed into his second term. Incumbents often have the "devil you know" factor and low turnout on their side. However, if Ford gets a real rebellion in council against him, he's going to have a hard time passing any of his policies and is going to come across as incompetent. A strong leader of the opposition can mount a serious offensive, specially with the absence of Ford's anti-status-quo strategy.

My bets are on Shelley Carroll over Adam Vaughan. Ford's clique is going to spend the next 4 years demonizing him as a bitter socialist while Shelley Carroll will keep low and look like a fresh, smart, competent Mayor. She was smart to stay out of the 2010 race but 2014 will be the perfect scenario for her to step in.

 

[Eug]

Hey, I'm not the one advocating starving people to death.

And nobody else is either. You're basically making strawman arguments, with a bit of hysterics thrown in.

 

[nfitz]

And nobody else is either. You're basically making strawman arguments, with a bit of hysterics thrown in.

I'm sorry, I thought I heard you making bizarre suggestions such as eliminating welfare.

 

[Eug]

I'm sorry, I thought I heard you making bizarre suggestions such as eliminating welfare.

Then you heard wrong. There are several in this thread who have suggested looking at revamping it, not eliminating it.

 

[nfitz]

Then you heard wrong. There are several in this thread who have suggested looking at revamping it, not eliminating it.

Ah, it was indeed not you who had proposed further eliminating it.

But it was archanfel who was talking about cutting it severely. I certainly wouldn't call that revamping though ... and if you don't support that kind of evil, then I apologize.