I think you might be partially wrong, though I'd agree that "One Toronto" probably won't be enough to win the election for Chow by itself. I do believe that a successful campaign against Ford needs to emphasize that a key part of Chow's mission and vision for Toronto is to connect all the diverse and far-flung corners of the city, through hard infrastructures like public transportation (that is properly planned, I pray) but also through more nebulous processes like collectively defining a direction for the city.
Ford doesn't appear to have a vision for Toronto as a whole beyond 'low taxes'. His opponent will need to have that kind of vision, but in my opinion, to win a sufficient swath of the suburbs, Chow will also have to find ways to convince residents of Scarborough and Etobicoke that they will have as much of a voice in defining that vision as the downtowners.
Fair enough. I agree with you that Chow will have to resonate with Scarborough and Etobicoke voters, but I think she's going to have to do that with specific policies and a focus on certain issues. I don't think vague assurances or schmaltzy feel-good appeals - which this "One Toronto" plan appears to be based off of MetroMan's description - will do this for her.
A lot of people on here are giving me shit, but I'm not even saying anything particularly pro-Ford. Ford won. That's a fact. You have to look at the reasons why he won. There are many, but one clear thing about the last election was that Ford's campaign was a lot more unpolished and finessed than Smitherman's, which had a lot more corporate backing and several well-polished media campaigns and websites. At the end of the day, Ford's message resonated more than Smitherman's.
Hi Dave!
(sorry, but it seems you are stuck in 2010, and with the requisite diversionary practises.)
Sorry, who's Dave? I have a hard time keeping track of all the people I'm supposed to be. Last time around I believe I was a covert operative from Ford's office (still waiting for the check, by the way).
"One city" attempts to bring the city together and bridge partisan divides that have been particularly pronounced since Ford came into power- it's not just a meaningless term.
But what does "One City" mean? What policies does this suggest? What issues does this put the focus on? Non-partisanship and compromise are not political stances - they're an approach, a means to an end.
In the end, "Stop the gravy train" is as much a slogan as "One city together." You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but fact is fact.
I don't think you understand what facts are.
What your saying is that Toronto want straight forward talk.
I agree. People want someone they can have a beer with. Chow and Miller were not that.
That's not what I'm saying, although I'm sure likability does play a factor for some voters. However, I was saying that a message which resonates with voters is very important, and, from what MetroMan has described, I do not see "One Toronto" resonating with voters.
What in the world leads you to think Chow won't have specific campaign policies/political positions or issues?
The "One Toronto" slogan. That doesn't mean she won't have
any specific campaign policies, but if MetroMan is correct, her campaign theme is going to be one of non-partisanship and compromise, which really doesn't have any implications for policies/political positions/issues. Specific campaign policies would be counter-intuitive to her theme as well.
So you don't think the division and animosity between different parts of the city is a real definable issue worthy of policy? I take it you're of a mind with Rob Ford in that you don't care about anyone else's desires for the city so long as you're getting what you want?
I think its a real issue - in fact, I've said in the past that's part of the reason Ford won in the first place. I fail to see how electing a downtown-centric NDPer is going to correct this.
Given that you're using this sentence to prop up "Stop the Gravy Train" and cut down "One Toronto", I'm pretty sure that there's no point in talking to you because it makes zero sense.
Otherwise - the campaign hasn't even started, and we don't even know who the candidates are. You can't critique a not-yet-candidate who doesn't have a platform (....because she isn't a candidate) just because the incumbent has a set of values you're already familiar with. Get real.
So I can't critique a "not-yet-candidate who doesn't have a platform"? Who exactly are you talking about, because MetroMan has apparently confirmed Chow is a done deal and detailed her platform.
Chow has been discussed ad nauseum on here for the past couple days, both in regards to her being a candidate and what her platform will be. But yeah, once someone criticizes her, it can't be discussed anymore.