Ford: A real "cracker"?

[Innsertnamehere]

#1, you are quoting a tabloid.

#2, you have to remember that municipalities do not have equal treatment as the province and the feds. municipalities are a sort of crown corporation for the province, which is implemented to administer local issues. the province could, if it wanted to, and completely legally, eliminate municipalities. Wynne absolutely has a right to come in and kick Ford out, or even just say "🞵🞵🞵🞵 it, the city of toronto will no longer exist and issues will now become a provincial matter only". now the last one would never happen, but that is completely democratic. Municipalities are not a true 3rd level of government, they are a way for a province to deal with local issues, and hold no "democratic" rights.

[niwell]

^^I agree. I actually don't want him to be removed. Council should ignore him that's good enough. The province won't remove him I am pretty sure of that.

He may be arrested before his term is up, but we'll see.

And yeah, what insertnamehere said about municipalities is 100% correct. They have no power really. The Province could desolve any municipality if it wanted to. It won't obviously, especially in this government. If Toronto council asks the province to remove Ford I highly doubt they will comply.

[Steveston]

Originally Posted by subdude

And if he doesn't meet your particular definition of decorum he should be kicked out of his democratically-elected office? Do any of you actually believe in democracy? I'm starting to wonder...

My standard for "decorum suitable for a Mayor of a major Canadian city" obviously differs from yours.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by subdude

Good to know there are so many people on here harbouring such anit-democratic values. Scary, actually.

Here, QFT:

Originally Posted by subdude

And if he doesn't meet your particular definition of decorum he should be kicked out of his democratically-elected office? Do any of you actually believe in democracy? I'm starting to wonder...

Being democratically elected doesn't give a license to spend the term doing whatever the hell you want with the only possible consequence is the possibility of not getting re-elected. If you've convinced people you're able to represent the office you were elected to, then you actually need to follow through. If you don't, you've mislead the electorate, broken your agreement, and you need to step down or be removed.

The thing that's anti-democratic is not the act of removing someone who's shown himself incapable of holding office, it's the very act of his convincing the public to elect him for office under false pretences by not sharing a great deal of relevant information. When agreeing to public office, you're at the very least agreeing to respect the laws your society is governed by (which doesn't include committing felonies and cavorting with criminals) and to represent the will of the whole electorate rather than just attempting to impose your personal whims on everyone else despite getting under 50% of the popular vote.

If you really cared about democracy, you'd want to give the public a chance to decide for itself when major revelations came to light. You'd want to have him removed long enough to allow a mid-term election to see if the electorate still wants him in office or if it wants to change its mind.

But of course this whole "don't you care about democracy???" bit is just a gimmick to provide cover for Ford apologist who don't have much else to try at this point. It isn't really possible to defend him based on his record, so all that's really left is the 'Well he was democratically elected, so you're stuck with him now" route. Not a very convincing sell I'm afraid.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Being democratically elected doesn't give a license to spend the term doing whatever the hell you want with the only possible consequence is the possibility of not getting re-elected. If you've convinced people you're able to represent the office you were elected to, then you actually need to follow through. If you don't, you've mislead the electorate, broken your agreement, and you need to step down or be removed.

The thing that's anti-democratic is not the act of removing someone who's shown himself incapable of holding office, it's the very act of his convincing the public to elect him for office under false pretences by not sharing a great deal of relevant information. When agreeing to public office, you're at the very least agreeing to respect the laws your society is governed by (which doesn't include committing felonies and cavorting with criminals) and to represent the will of the whole electorate rather than just attempting to impose your personal whims on everyone else despite getting under 50% of the popular vote.

If you really cared about democracy, you'd want to give the public a chance to decide for itself when major revelations came to light. You'd want to have him removed long enough to allow a mid-term election to see if the electorate still wants him in office or if it wants to change its mind.

But of course this whole "don't you care about democracy???" bit is just a gimmick to provide cover for Ford apologist who don't have much else to try at this point. It isn't really possible to defend him based on his record, so all that's really left is the 'Well he was democratically elected, so you're stuck with him now" route. Not a very convincing sell I'm afraid.

I kind of see your point (ex. how much weight would democracy hold if the mayor blows 60% of the city budget on muffins for his office against the will of the residents?). However, I think that the principle of upholding democracy is important enough that we can't start a precedent of throwing them out, even in the grey areas like the rob Ford saga. Who determines if a future mayor is fit to hold office? The ever-bickering righties and lefties?

You're right that he has to uphold the laws. That's what the courts are for.

Your idea of a mid-term election is worth considering, though that isn't what you're promoting.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by White Pine

I think the Ford situation is much different. His whole tenure has been a circus, and the idea of forcible removal seems tempting, but can't you see how dangerous that is?

Yes, because he will make himself out to be a martyr and milk it for all it's worth.

The councillors (or the Premier) should not have the right to remove a democratically elected mayor. The mere potential of partisan abuse is reason enough to let him stay.

I don't agree, because this is a bipartsan effort. In fact, the councillor who is planning to bring forward the motion for the province to intervene, Minnan-Wong, is a conservative and long-time ally of Ford's with no known mayoral aspirations.
If one is in a situation where the mayor has become such a liability that his presence and ongoing scandals are impeding city business, which is the case here since nothing was accomplished this week, then I think there's a good case for removal. Best of all would be for the province to introduce recall legislation, to avoid this travesty in the future.

You guys have put up with Ford for a long time now. You have less than a year to go. You're not going to die.

He has been far worse than expected, and I was already aghast when he was elected. Before that, he was a bellicose, Neanderthalian councillor who, in my wildest dreams, wouldn't have been elected mayor. Heck, at his induction he had that clown Don Cherry there railing against "pinko commie cyclists". It has been a circus since day 1.
Thankfully, in the last couple of years leftists and moderates on council have banded together to stop most of his (and his brother's) crazier ideas, but they chickened out recently when it came to the Scarborough subway, which Ford will of course exploit to the max as a wedge issue when he runs next year.

And if council really hates him, maybe they should vote against things they don't like rather than joining the circus, ranting and raving, and making feuds.

There are no overt feuds. Everyone has remained surprisingly temperate given the litany of outrages. If he hangs on stubbornly by his fingernails, council will marginalize him, paradoxically handing him yet another martyrdom issue.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by White Pine

I kind of see your point (ex. how much weight would democracy hold if the mayor blows 60% of the city budget on muffins for his office against the will of the residents?). However, I think that the principle of upholding democracy is important enough that we can't start a precedent of throwing them out, even in the grey areas like the rob Ford saga. Who determines if a future mayor is fit to hold office? The ever-bickering righties and lefties?

You're right that he has to uphold the laws. That's what the courts are for.

Your idea of a mid-term election is worth considering, though that isn't what you're promoting.

Umm, yes, I suggest that he be removed long enough to have another election (which he'd be allowed to run in as long as he wasn't convicted of any crimes). When did I say otherwise?

[rbt]

Originally Posted by subdude

And if he doesn't meet your particular definition of decorum he should be kicked out of his democratically-elected office? Do any of you actually believe in democracy? I'm starting to wonder...

Are you trying to tell us that recall elections are not democratic?

Do you believe the United States is not democratic because the president can be impeached? That California is not a democracy for terminating Gray Davis? How about British Columbia? How about Switzerland? It's not an unheard of feature of democracies.

Yes, if the majority of constituents would like to fire the person they hired, then that person should be fired. That is the most democratic way of dealing with a problematic elected official.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by amor de cosmos

unauthorized used of official toronto logo + spelling mistake:


https://twitter.com/sophielui/status/398978457306013696/photo/1

sounds familiar

[Antigonish]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

sounds familiar

This thread wins the internet. Can't. Stop. Laughing.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by White Pine

I kind of see your point (ex. how much weight would democracy hold if the mayor blows 60% of the city budget on muffins for his office against the will of the residents?).

He couldn't do that unless a majority of city councillors are for it...

As the Star (or Sun, don't remember which) columnist quoted last page said, it's not like him being mayor will be a make-or-break factor for decisions by businesses to install their offices in Toronto vs somewhere else... "Elected to do his job", his job is to be one vote on a city council. Personally, I'd be OK with a proper, official recall mechanism, but not with the province stepping in to mess with municipal democracy. (I'm saying this FWIW as a non-Torontonian, non-Ontarian. JMO.)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

sounds familiar

LOL. Thanks for sharing!

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Umm, yes, I suggest that he be removed long enough to have another election (which he'd be allowed to run in as long as he wasn't convicted of any crimes). When did I say otherwise?

Ok then, I think I read that wrong.

[White Pine]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Yes, because he will make himself out to be a martyr and milk it for all it's worth.

I don't agree, because this is a bipartsan effort. In fact, the councillor who is planning to bring forward the motion for the province to intervene, Minnan-Wong, is a conservative and long-time ally of Ford's with no known mayoral aspirations.
If one is in a situation where the mayor has become such a liability that his presence and ongoing scandals are impeding city business, which is the case here since nothing was accomplished this week, then I think there's a good case for removal. Best of all would be for the province to introduce recall legislation, to avoid this travesty in the future.

He has been far worse than expected, and I was already aghast when he was elected. Before that, he was a bellicose, Neanderthalian councillor who, in my wildest dreams, wouldn't have been elected mayor. Heck, at his induction he had that clown Don Cherry there railing against "pinko commie cyclists". It has been a circus since day 1.
Thankfully, in the last couple of years leftists and moderates on council have banded together to stop most of his (and his brother's) crazier ideas, but they chickened out recently when it came to the Scarborough subway, which Ford will of course exploit to the max as a wedge issue when he runs next year.

There are no overt feuds. Everyone has remained surprisingly temperate given the litany of outrages. If he hangs on stubbornly by his fingernails, council will marginalize him, paradoxically handing him yet another martyrdom issue.

1. He might well do that.

2. Ford's case isn't all that political in the traditional sense. My point was more that this could be used in the future for political ends.

3. Never said he was doing a good job. Unrelated, but what was wrong with the Scarborough RT (never took it)?

4. I seem to remember some criticism of him in the media by some councillors (Honestly I forget what about, it probably wasn't the crack though). I've dealt with a lot of city and town councils, and I get the impression that this sort of thing is rather unproductive. Mostly since if you bash someone in the media, you still have to sit beside them the next day in Council and work with them, which gets awkward very quickly once somebody thinks you hate them. The correct way to deal with that would be in council, or in private.

Of course, if a reporter walks up and says "What do you think of Ford smoking crack?" what are you going to do?

I will admit, however, that the councils I've seen have all been very small cities/towns (population from 4,000-16,000) and so here there is the added factor that councillors are very likely to see each other outside of work, and everybody in town knows the people fighting in the media on a personal level. It gets really awkward depending who lives near who, and even who's related to who. In a city of millions of people, this isn't nearly as big a problem, and you don't see quite that level of scrutiny. So maybe they feel that they can take more verbal liberties since they can separate work from personal life.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by White Pine

3. Never said he was doing a good job. Unrelated, but what was wrong with the Scarborough RT (never took it)?

You mean the current system? I have never taken it myself, but apparently it's on its last legs. Under The Big Move, the province's $50 billion blueprint for transit in the GTA and environs, Scarborough was to get a new LRT, which was deemed more than sufficient for Scarborough's current and expected future population densities. It was funded and shovels were ready. In fact, I think some work may have already been done. Then Ford blustered in with his subway plan and cynically got Scarborough residents to back the glittering Ferrari over the more practical Honda. Councillors, who had previously passed the LRT, now voted for Ford's more-costly, less wide-ranging plan.

[subdude]

Originally Posted by rbt

Are you trying to tell us that recall elections are not democratic?

Do you believe the United States is not democratic because the president can be impeached? That California is not a democracy for terminating Gray Davis? How about British Columbia? How about Switzerland? It's not an unheard of feature of democracies.

Yes, if the majority of constituents would like to fire the person they hired, then that person should be fired. That is the most democratic way of dealing with a problematic elected official.

I'm not talking about the US president, or California or BC or Switzerland. As far as I know there is no recall mechanism in TO civic elections. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, yes, in this case it would be against democracy to remove the sitting mayor. It seems many are perfectly fine with that. The citizens of TO should vigorously oppose such ideas.

[subdude]

Originally Posted by White Pine

The Lib/NDP coalition was a bit different, nobody was to be removed from office; all the existing MPs would have remained in their place, and the balance of power would remain relatively unchanged. I would have had no ethical problem with this.

I think the Ford situation is much different. His whole tenure has been a circus, and the idea of forcible removal seems tempting, but can't you see how dangerous that is? The councillors (or the Premier) should not have the right to remove a democratically elected mayor. The mere potential of partisan abuse is reason enough to let him stay. There are only two ways in which the mayor should be able to be removed, imo, and those are elections, and the criminal justice system. If neither casts him out, then who are the councillors to defy the will of the people? If this is not respected, Toronto will simply become another version of Egypt.

You guys have put up with Ford for a long time now. You have less than a year to go. You're not going to die. And if council really hates him, maybe they should vote against things they don't like rather than joining the circus, ranting and raving, and making feuds. I hope there's actually a good candidate for mayor who's willing to run. For now, though, I'm just glad I don't live there.

The best way to end this is to vote the guy out.

Thank you White Pine.

I predict he'll win again. Probably at about the same margin, maybe slightly less. All of this is going to backfire big time against his opponents. Feel free to laugh at me next fall if he loses. But when he wins I won't say told ya so, promise.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by subdude

Anyway, message to obviously everyone here who is just dripping with hatred for the man (careful with hatred, it's not healthy): He's not resigning and there's nothing you can do about it. Quit trying to subvert democracy.

Kind of ironic considering the guy you support has been spewing hatred for his whole political career. Hatred is Rob Ford's M.O.

[MolsonExport]

Billboard supportive of Rob Ford being probed by Toronto over logo use

[MolsonExport]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/08/rob-ford-crack-tattoo_n_4239448.html