How Ford won the campaign on the ground, and not in the media
"I think reporters have gotten away from trusting what they hear on the street because it's considered unscientific," Ms. Lindgren said.
But even the subtler signals of public intentions proved hard to read. Mr. Ford's overt decision not to court the mainstream media, and in some cases to shut writers out entirely, obscured what is often the best litmus test: the body language inside a leading campaign team.
"[Ford's team] basically gave the finger to the traditional media," Mr. Strashin said.
And some, including Globe and Mail columnist Marcus Gee, speculated that a spate of recent endorsements Mr. Smitherman garnered from public figures, including former mayors David Crombie and Art Eggleton, may have created a false sense of momentum.
Ultimately, Mr. Strashin thinks many journalists misjudged Mr. Ford's huge stable of campaign workers, many of whom "weren't seasoned politicos in any sense."
"One thing everyone underestimated was Ford's ability to get the vote out on election day," he said.
Some NDP long-beards, such as Brian Topp, are bemusedly repeating sophomore lessons on marketing 101, and the benefit's of Ford's repetition of a "simple" mantra and staying on message in the wake of Ford's massive landslide win. But an analysis of the Pantalone campaign that ends with a glib "It wasn't there" for Pantalone doesn't cut it. The reality is that Ford was no better served by the media than Pantalone, but Ford still managed to drive through to victory. True, the Star did its best to set up Ford as evil incarnate and bury the Pantalone story at the end of the campaign, but in the early going Ford was also being treated as an "also ran", and a wacko outsider.
Progressive organizers must answer the question: what did Ford have in the early going that Pantalone did not have? The real lesson that the left needs to learn from this election is about activating and empowering and mobilizing grass roots support through direct marketing and old style glad-handing. This formula carried Ford through despite a hostile press.
Why the pollsters didn't get it right
Reliance on technical analysis of polling, think tank style politics and managing campaigns solely through the media messaging paradigm are only reinforcing the disconnect that lies between the progressive left, the NDP, and the grassroots of the electorate. Worse it is leaving the left at the mercy of a hostile press. In short, we have become too clever by half. Volunteers organization, not ideas were the key to mobilizing around Ford's simple message.
Pantalone had no clear message and he was seen as a tired insider who had been around for 30 years. Its hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.
This is another reason the NDP, I don't think, can deliver anything other than downtown councillors anymore (and only in a few places): their volunteer organization in Etobicoke, parts of Scarborough and North York is almost non-existant.
Pantalone had no clear message and he was seen as a tired insider who had been around for 30 years. Its hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.
Does your buddy Layton know that you litter the internet with anonymous posts issuing crass insults about his long time friends and allies?
Pantalone had no clear message and he was seen as a tired insider who had been around for 30 years. Its hard to make a purse out of a sow's ear.
Ford is a drunken, racist, wife-beating lunatic who can barely put together two words. Either everybody in Toronto is insane, or maybe your analysis is lacking.
I'm not insulting anyone. I'm giving a frank assessment of why Pantalone's candidacy was a flop. He may agree himself for all I know.
There are books to be written on why people voted for Ford - but I'm looking at why they DIDN'T vote for Pants - I think he had a very vague uninteresting status quo oriented message and he was a very undynamic and uninspiring stump performer. Its too bad - he is a very capable intelligent man - but I don't think he was ever cut out for being a mayoral candidate.
Your so mired in cynical denial you don't even realize that calling someone a "sows ear" is an insult. It's not surprising that someone as dellusional as that would also think that their value set fits in with progressive politics, and the left.
So, I guess that is it for inspired critical thinking from the sages of NPD analysis, the tea leaves weren't their for Pantalone, according to Topp, and the NDP has no viable talent to run for mayor of Toronto, from Stockholm, here. I guess the stars wont be aligned for some time, for the NDP given this level of insight.
I think there is one conclusion leftish candidates will have to draw from this: screw the mainstream media. Outside of the Sun and AM radio, Ford was beaten up daily. Drug charges, spousal abuse, drunken outbursts, sober outbursts... Giambrone text's a mistress and he runs away.
Of course, you can only do that if you have an "on-the-ground" volunteer base, which the NDP no longer has anymore.
It is hardly going to be able to build such a base when its bigest supporters seem to spend all their free time trashing the people who represented it during the mayors race. But I doubt they really care, as long as their relatives can still keep feeding at the public trough, and a few political consultants can keep the fundraising engine going long enough to keep them in chips and beer.
I notice that one of the most likely and winnable possible candidates for mayor in 2014, Adam Vaughan has assidiously kept his distance from being to close too the quick sand. A smart move.
At the rate the party is kicking out young people, that might happen sooner than they realize.
Young people don't donate, so who cares? Nor do the homeless, and most other people on marginal incomes.
Here's a telling graphic from the Torontoist on Ford's new "united" Toronto:
How Toronto Voted For Mayor
Cueball, Stockholm may be insulting, but you are slanderous. This is helpful how?
Meanwhile in the real world:
Ford's campaign strategist Nick Kouvalis said his camp ran a simple campaign that appealed to the average voter.
"Identify your voters, raise money and lock them in. Get five bucks from everybody and they're all committed to you instead of trying to get 2,500 bucks from a few people," Kouvalis said. "People switch their votes but once they make that donation even if it's 50 bucks they are with you."
The Star's view. (Did the first graphic change?)
I remember being told in Psychology class in first year that the big reason candidates want to put a cheap sign on your lawn is not because you're so influential that people will follow your support, but because, psychologically, it won't make sense to you to NOT vote for the person you've already supported. I call Jedi Mind Trick on this one!
We know how Toronto voted. The point is to discern how it was that they voted for whom. Again, on the Ford Campaign, and Nick Kouvalis:
Read Carefully:
Dismissed as ill-fit for public office when he entered the race, Mr. Ford has become the man to beat without the help of any of Toronto’s big-name political strategists, all of whom flocked to George Smitherman, Rocco Rossi, and, to a lesser extent, Joe Pantalone.
With a little more than three weeks to go until election day, veteran Conservative and Liberal strategists such as Warren Kinsella, Bernie Morton, Bruce Davis and John Laschinger are now panicking to figure out how to keep Mr. Ford from becoming mayor.
Mr. Kouvalis, a no-name by comparison, is prepping his candidate for what will undoubtedly be the fight of his career, especially if the others drop out and coalesce around Mr. Smitherman.
“Another poll will come out that shows us with a strong lead,” he said. “They’ll have no choice but to go negative and we expect that they’ll throw everything but the kitchen sink at Rob in the last two weeks.”
Nick Kouvalis, the man behind the Ford campaign
The funny thing is that all of Kouvalis's tactics are all street smart direct marketing rock promoter moves -- but this leaves the egghead media specialists in the Liberal and NDP camps in the dust.
I remember being told in Psychology class in first year that the big reason candidates want to put a cheap sign on your lawn is not because you're so influential that people will follow your support, but because, psychologically, it won't make sense to you to NOT vote for the person you've already supported. I call Jedi Mind Trick on this one!
It is pretty simple Snert, this is all about getting a person to do what we call taking ownership of the candidate by making them personally invest in the candidate.
This is the essential quality that must be understood about networked grass roots campaigns. Any "investment" is good, including putting up signs, or any small task is good enough.
Now the problem with the populist campaign, as opposed to a true grass roots campaign is that it replace real empowerment generated by having ownership of the candidate or movement with a "feeling" of empowerment generated by having ownership of the candidate or movement, in the same manner that one becomes emotionally involved with a sports team.
But, the chief lesson to be learned is that an important factor in both a grass roots campaign, and a populist campaign, ownership of the movement of candidate is an essential element of being successful.
Significant in the Rob Ford campaign is that he is bringing into play many persons who are not normally active politically, and empowering them through giving them ownership of the process inclusively. And this is working in segments of the population that traditionally the left would like to think it represents.
This is not to say the Mr. Ford is really going to do anything for these people in the long run, but it does underscore the fact that they are not being mobilized by the left, and it is also clear that they are not satisfied with being on the outside looking in, and they are looking for solutions. To my mind the fact that there is this movement for "change" among marginalized people, is an excelent sign, even if the results are not what we would expect or want.
I also think that Pantalone was never really in it to win. I don't think he started campaigning until September and I never got the impression that he really wanted to make the effort. It was like he had already decided to retire and decided to go on a farewell tour.
You can't expect people to vote for you when you don't look like you're taking yourself seriously as someone who is in it to win.
I remember being told in Psychology class in first year that the big reason candidates want to put a cheap sign on your lawn is not because you're so influential that people will follow your support, but because, psychologically, it won't make sense to you to NOT vote for the person you've already supported. I call Jedi Mind Trick on this one!
It is pretty simple Snert, this is all about getting a person to do what we call taking ownership of the candidate by making them personally invest in the candidate.
This is the essential quality that must be understood about networked grass roots campaigns. Any "investment" is good, including putting up signs, or any small task is good enough.
My only qualifier on this one, is that there is a history of candidates winning sign wars and still getting obliterated. The NDP has a history, in Parkdale-High Park, for example, of doing well in sign wars and still losing badly. The municipal candidate who came a distant second in Ward 6 had way more signs than votes.
Cueball, you go on about how "the NDP sages" around here have nothing to say. Who wants to 'engage' with insults? Anyone can beat up on soft targets: toss off comments from Stockholm who is thick skinned enough to ignore the insults, and repeatedly going after Brian Topp's "analyis" of Pantalone's campaign when there is not even an attempt at analysis. Good grief, Topps column is a few paragraphs saying Ford did what you are supposed to do.
Progressive organizers must answer the question: what did Ford have in the early going that Pantalone did not have?
Pretty simple. Ford had an impressive campaign machine that had been built for months. The Pantalone campaign organization was slapped together.
The real lesson that the left needs to learn from this election is about activating and empowering and mobilizing grass roots support through direct marketing and old style glad-handing. This formula carried Ford through despite a hostile press.
All I have knowledge about is that Ford had a really good old fashioned voter contact and E-day machine. How they did that would interest me, but it isnt rocket science either. Even in Toronto, election machines for successful mayoral candidates have always come together around the candidates, not the parties. As out of the mould as Ford is, he still fits into that. And who he was going to be running against turned out to be an unending farce of failures around one or another individual candidates.
But I'm very curious where direct marketing fits in. Direct marketing as in delivered to peoples doors? The Ford campaign put that to a lot of use? And/or you see it as central? How so?
Reliance on technical analysis of polling, think tank style politics and managing campaigns solely through the media messaging paradigm are only reinforcing the disconnect that lies between the progressive left, the NDP, and the grassroots of the electorate. Worse it is leaving the left at the mercy of a hostile press. In short, we have become too clever by half. Volunteers organization, not ideas were the key to mobilizing around Ford's simple message.
The emphasis on mistaken polling, etc, is the medias navel gazing schtick. I see no evidence it substantially distracted any of the campaigns. Its just that nobody except Ford had a serious rival to his conventional boots on the ground campaign.
Significant in the Rob Ford campaign is that he is bringing into play many persons who are not normally active politically, and empowering them through giving them ownership of the process inclusively. And this is working in segments of the population that traditionally the left would like to think it represents.
I'm skeptical about this. So much has been made about Ford the outsider, and about the partipation of immigrants in the campaign.
Ford himself is a veteran campaigner. And the small c conservatives have LOTS of veteran campaigners... who have never had a chance to go this big. Plus there would have to be a lot from Lastman's machine. Pull all of these people together and you've got impressive potential and VERY extensive networks of campaigners for all levels of a campaign.
When they started, they would have known they were the underdogs. But with huge potential outside the city core. Then, icing on the cake: starting with Gambrione's immolation, their putative opponents went into dissaray.
"bringing into play many persons who are not normally active politically". How many is 'many'? In any strong campaign you have a combination of veteran volunteers that you knew to tap, and people who walk through the door because you are happening. If you dont have the people walking through the door you dont have a strong campaign. But they are not the dominant numbers. If they were, you'd have severe coordination problems: campaigns who get most of their volunteers late are flameouts. Campaigns like to emhasise 'all the new people', and when they do, it makes good copy and sound bites. But that doesnt mean its what it is cracked up to be.
I would agree that no matter what, its impresive how many people the Ford campaign organized and how effectively. Wherever exactly they came from, for purposes of lessons, is kind of beside the point. But I'm skeptical that many of them really did come from 'unexpected sectors'.
[Not that the potential attraction of immigrants to social conservatism should be unexpected.]
Ford was polling 50% in immigrant communities, compared to Smitherman's 32%. So how do you know that immigrants have a "potential attraction" to social conservativism? And even if they do, is that really the most important issue for them? Personally, my experience is that even socially conservative types care more about their wallet's then whether two guys are allowed to kiss in public.
In any case, it doesn't matter since the Mayor can't do anything about gay marriage, except be publicly against it.
I disagree with your analysis that his opponents were "an unending farce of failures". Sorry, but he was up against a former Deputy Mayor and the former Deputy Premier. That hardly qualifies as a farce. Giambrone's immolation had nothing to do with Ford winning. If anything, it should have made it harder, since there would be less of a vote split on the left.
I will share something with you that not a lot of people have discussed: the first poll that showed him in the lead showed that nearly half his support came from self-identified Liberals and New Democrats. I think a lot of those people feel alienated from the political establishment, including groups like the Labour Councils and downtown acitivisty types. They see the corporate world, public sector unions and the mainstream political establishment as one big party that they are cut-off from. The more the establishment mocked Ford, the more they saw him as their man.
I didnt say that social conservatism is the most important thing to immigrnats. But it does have purchase.
And my point about the farce of the opponents is them pulling together campaigns. That was Fords strength. Gambrione's immolation did not have to be defining. But it had to be reversed by somebody. Being deputy Mayor or Deputy Premeir means squat for decisively pulling a team around you. And no one else did that. I think its possible Ford could have beat even a well organized opponent. But the opposing campaigns he faced made it easy.
It doesnt surprise me at all that half Ford's support came from self-identified Liberals and New Democrats.
I didnt say that social conservatism is the most important thing to immigrnats. But it does have purchase.
I doubt that very much. IMO most new immigrant communities are still struggling with getting themselves established and making politicians listen to them. This is not to say there are no progressives or conservatives in immigrant communities, but that we simply cannot yet afford to draw lines based on social ideologies. For Immigrants whoever appears (or pretends) to be listening, gets the vote. It was also an anti-establishment vote in some communities where the majority of community leaders are Liberal party lackeys, and a sense of dissatisfaction with those leaders may have pushed many members of the community in the opposite direction.
I agree. Whining about how the media is out to get us doesn't change anything and it sounds like sour grapes. It's a huge opportunity Judy Wasylycia-Leis had and failed to take advantage of.
Cueball, you go on about how "the NDP sages" around here have nothing to say. Who wants to 'engage' with insults? Anyone can beat up on soft targets: toss off comments from Stockholm who is thick skinned enough to ignore the insults, and repeatedly going after Brian Topp's "analyis" of Pantalone's campaign when there is not even an attempt at analysis. Good grief, Topps column is a few paragraphs saying Ford did what you are supposed to do.
Progressive organizers must answer the question: what did Ford have in the early going that Pantalone did not have?
Pretty simple. Ford had an impressive campaign machine that had been built for months. The Pantalone campaign organization was slapped together.
The real lesson that the left needs to learn from this election is about activating and empowering and mobilizing grass roots support through direct marketing and old style glad-handing. This formula carried Ford through despite a hostile press.
All I have knowledge about is that Ford had a really good old fashioned voter contact and E-day machine. How they did that would interest me, but it isnt rocket science either. Even in Toronto, election machines for successful mayoral candidates have always come together around the candidates, not the parties. As out of the mould as Ford is, he still fits into that. And who he was going to be running against turned out to be an unending farce of failures around one or another individual candidates.
But I'm very curious where direct marketing fits in. Direct marketing as in delivered to peoples doors? The Ford campaign put that to a lot of use? And/or you see it as central? How so?
Reliance on technical analysis of polling, think tank style politics and managing campaigns solely through the media messaging paradigm are only reinforcing the disconnect that lies between the progressive left, the NDP, and the grassroots of the electorate. Worse it is leaving the left at the mercy of a hostile press. In short, we have become too clever by half. Volunteers organization, not ideas were the key to mobilizing around Ford's simple message.
The emphasis on mistaken polling, etc, is the medias navel gazing schtick. I see no evidence it substantially distracted any of the campaigns. Its just that nobody except Ford had a serious rival to his conventional boots on the ground campaign.
1) Ford was not campaigning for months. He was campaigning for years.
2) You are right it is not rocked science to build the kind of organization that Ford put together. That is why Topp's apparent inability to recognize the evident fact that it was organization based on good old fashioned glad handing that propelled Ford to victory sticks out like a soar thumb, and indicates a serious incapacity of analysis that certainly can not be good for the NDP electoral results. In short, I agree about the "media naval gazing". My point is that Topp doesn't seem to be able to get beyond it.
He did make an analysis of the Pantalone campaign, he said: "It wasn't there"! He didn't say, the Pantalone organization failed to get the boots on the ground fast enough.
3) It was quite evident to me that the media strategy applied by Laschinger and co. was just fine. The problem was that the organization that was supposed to put the boots on the ground did not show up for the fight, or was incapable of doing so. That should at the least have been the NDP. On the ground the labour unions were visible if not overwhelming.
My conclusion is that where the right has successfully spent the Miller years building up alliances within the communities of the marginalized of Toronto, the left, and in particular the NDP, has failed to successfully build those same relationships. What should be a natural strategic alliance between those who preach diversity, and those who are "diverse" (this term is really beginning to bother me) does not exist, in part because the labour unions, and the party that many imagine represents them only plays lip service to diversity in theory and not in practice.
This is best exampled, by the race in Ward 19 where the NDP chose to back the son of the NDP leader against a well known non-white social activist who had been building up her ward organization for many years, and was clearly capable of putting up a good fight to win the ward, as can be seen because she actually came in second, with about 3/5ths of the vote share of the NDP establishment candidate.
If the NDP really wants to be the party of diversity, it had better walk the walk. The left leadership of the immigrant communities needs to be nourished and fostered, if the NDP wants to foster the alliance with progressive new Canadians. Not fostering the progressive leadership in immigrant communities only dis-empowers them and will result in making their communities open terrain for the right to move in and mobilize through the conservative elements in those communities.
This is one of the things that has occurred in the recent campaign and helped Ford. Ford has been building this movement for a lot longer than a few months, and the NDP had better take a look at this campaign closely and understand that it has to give more than lip-service to diversity, and build for the long haul as opposed to short term electoral gain, based in what seems politically expedient.
If it does want to make progress in this department, one thing it could look at is putting the needs of the communities it wants to represent, above and beyond the immediate political aspirations of the party insider apparatus, once in a while. Suggesting that non-white folks don't flock to the NDP because they are more homophobic is not going to cut it.
Notice that Ford favourite and Black evangelical social conservative minister Wendell Brereton in Ward 6 only managed 605 votes . If there was any truth to the slur that people of Caribbean decent are flocking to the right because of they are driven by social conservative values, the truth of that lies there. Frankly the assertion itself sounds like a bit of a prejudiced slur.
I remember when Steve Ashton ran for the Manitoba NDP leadership last year he continually referred to Manitoba's ethnic diversity and had a broad base of support within those communities.
Steve Ashton doesn't sound like a very diverse name. Here is his policy page, I couldn't find the word diversity in it once. Anyway I don't really know that much about Manitoba.
Ashton actually lost the leadership race, and that's the policy page for the NDP, not Ashton. He may not have used the word diversity, but his support is that strong in ethnic communities that he doesn't have to.
As every thing. Ford won because ofthe economy.
The leaders of the working class, a long time ago, sold us out.
Ford won when the ruling elite were able to make the City workers look like over paid lazy fucks that were taking the tax payers for a ride.
Ashton actually lost the leadership race, and that's the policy page for the NDP, not Ashton. He may not have used the word diversity, but his support is that strong in ethnic communities that he doesn't have to.
I don't really care about the word "diversity". The problem is confronting real live issues of social mobility for immigrant populations. And we are talking about Toronto, where there seems to be a big disconnect.
Fair enough, I was basically holding up somoene who had successfully done what you advocated in regards to mobilizing the immigrant community.
I think the point I am trying to get across is that it is not enough to represent a particular constituency but to help build political space where they can represent themselves.
Interesting insights, everybody!
I agree that Ford was campaigning for years. I'm thinking Ford's victory was basically bought and paid for by the Ford family, who purchased the best lawyers to help Ford beat his criminal charges over the years, and also helped buy the most effective political organizers who helped a weak candidate win against a field of poorly-organized competition.
Ford is in 'way over his head - we're in for a few years of stagnation, IMV. It's the career of Nick Kouvalis that is one to watch.
I'm trying to think of another Cdn politician who has been as badly underestimated as Rob Ford in recent times. For starters, he was smart enough to be elected mayor. His re-election campaign has already begun.
Stephen Harper.
I'm trying to think of another Cdn politician who has been as badly underestimated as Rob Ford in recent times. For starters, he was smart enough to be elected mayor. His re-election campaign has already begun.
Chretien was constantly underestimated as well. But I think Ford is in a bit of a class of his own in that no one (even people on the right who agree with his politics) believes he has much upstairs or that he has any real agenda beyond stopping the so-called "gravy train" - what happens once he stops having $70,000 a year spent on having plants watered at City Hall and all those plants die of thirst? The what?
Because this is municipal politics with no party structure - it is a totally different situation from federal or provincial politics. One of two things will happen:
Scenario 1 - Ford follows the Mel Lastman model. He quickly gets a couple of his pet issues through (ie: reducing councillors office budgets and getting rid of the vehicle registration tax) - then he goes "wobbly" (not hard since he clearly has no policies beyond the above), appoints councillors from across the ideological divide to executive and to head committees and keeps them busy - and basically Ford ends up as sort of a glad-handing mascot for the city while the real work of city government continues as usual.
Scenario 2 - Ford follows the Larry O'Brien model and tries to ram his people and policies down council's throat, makes no attempt to build any alliances and the result is that he turns the centre and the left against his and start losing vote after vote on issue after issue and becomes a virtual prisoner in his office.
Which will it be?
I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been noted, but if you haven't seen it check out the map in this post at torontoist. Smitherman won downtown Toronto. Ford won the 'burbs. Thank Mike Harris.
Edited to add: That should in no way be interpreted as an endorsement of Smitherman. If I expressed my opinion of him in a thread title, the mods would likely edit it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we want to elect a progressive mayor in the future, it won't happen with a stereotypical downtown counter-cultural media scribe like Adam Vaughan (much as i like him now). It has to be someone who can appeal to the suburban voters. Someone like Shelley Carroll from North York would fit the bill.
I'm betting on Lastman, mark II. I'd prefer the second scenario, but even his handlers know that if he goes off the deep end, he's a one-term mayor who damages the conservative (big and small C) brand in Toronto for years afterward. Either way, if Shelley Carroll runs in 2014, she'll either beat him by an inch or a mile (first and second scenarios, respectively). She's smart as hell, she's got financial nous, and she's from the suburbs. Vaughan for deputy mayor.
I didnt say that social conservatism is the most important thing to immigrnats. But it does have purchase.
I doubt that very much. IMO most new immigrant communities are still struggling with getting themselves established and making politicians listen to them. This is not to say there are no progressives or conservatives in immigrant communities, but that we simply cannot yet afford to draw lines based on social ideologies.
Its not an either/or. Clearly, people can be more concerned with daily on the ground issues of getting on, and devote themselves to whatever concerns they have. Lefties make the assumption that it is the populist message that is the defining resonance with immigrants who supported Ford. That is true to a very big degree. But it is also what we prefer to think. And for a significant chunk of communities, a nebulous free floating conservatism is as much there as it is anywhere else in Canada. It can resonate in immigrant communities, and to a substantial degree it did with the Ford campaign.
Immigrants are no different than anyone else: part of the appeal is the content/issues of the populist appeal, and part of it is the free floating 'aura' of alienation.
Again, when it comes to municipal politics, the NDP is not this machine that autonomously chooses where it will go and what it will do.
It takes what individual candidates there are, and as a machine, or part of a machine, works for them, through them, whatever. And nowhere is that more true than the race for Mayor. When it comes to the race for Mayor, the NDP is just a part of the left [which is turn a part of the amporphous politics of municipla coalitions]. Its the biggest single piece of that picture, but is not and never will be THE driver.
Here are some of my own thoughts about the top three mayoral candidates:
Pantalone was the a Miller mini-me. He represented the status quo when voters wanted change. Had Pantolone offered some ideas that would have differentiated himself from Miller, he probably would have received a few more votes.
Smitherman gave a first impression that he wanted to become the mayor of Toronto because he wanted to become the mayor of Toronto. His mayoral race was about him--not the voters. It was only later in the race that he had to define himself vis-à-vis Rob Ford. By then, it was too late. His message seemed to be, "Vote for me; I'm not Rob Ford."
Ford knows the city well outside the downtown core. He knew that a simple message geared toward suburban voters that he would take care of their basic services resonated with the surburban voters. He could ignore the arts and social organiztions such as those who support the arts and Pride Toronto because their voters from the burbs are less likely to benefit from City Hall funding the arts community and Pride Toronto. The suburbs are not hotbeds of street performers.
How does the Toronto mayroal election translate to federal and provincial politics? For the NDP, its problem is right now is how to preach to the proletariat when the Conservative Party has them in their grasp. The NDP preaches to the working class. However, the working class voted for Ford in the mayoral election. The working class will likely vote for the Conservatives. Unionists will vote for the Conservatives. Unionists who are also moose hunters will vote for the Conservatives. The NDP works strongly for the environment and women's rights. The party strongly supports Canada's aboriginals. However, based on Pavlov's hierarchy of needs, these issues are not basic (unless one belongs to a group supporting the environment, and rights for women and aboriginals). The Conservatives talk about lowering taxes for homeowners so that homeowners can pay for food, shelter, and clothing (basic Pavlov needs).
The Liberal Party will get into trouble in the next election if they complain about the F-35 aircraft purchases by the Conservative government. The NDP will also get into trouble if they complain about human rights abuses during the G20 weekend in Toronto. While these issues are very important, they do not deal with the basic needs of Canadians unless these two parties can translate that households will lose or have lost several hundreds of dollars because of the Conservatives' ineptitude. As for the Liberals and their views about the F-35 purchases, I believe that if Ignatieff's Liberals were to form the next government, they would likely not change a thing.
Messaging will be extremely important in the next federal election. If the Liberals and NDP can't express basis messages to voters living in Toronto's suburbs, the Conservatives may close their donut hole centred in Toronto's downtown core.
Unionist is going to vote for the Conservatives. Who knew?
I dont know whether Unionist hunts moose. But it sounds like hes going to vote for the Conservatives even if he doesnt bag a moose.
As us proletarians say, "rack em and stack em."
Yee haw.
"George Smitherman wants to be mayor because George Smitherman wants to be mayor"-Parkdale Councillor Gord Perks
The NDP actually has a chance to test this out in Manitoba. The constituency of Dauphin is open. The former MP actually tried to run for mayor of Dauphin and lost, so that is more evidence to me that traditional voting patterns can no longer be taken for granted. The NDP should send resources to Dauphin because it would provide an excellent petri dish for strategies the Party could take to beat Harper in his own back yard.
It should be pointed out that in Toronto the Conservatives beat the NDP in most ridings, so they could certainly ride a rising tide and win.
A map of the mayoral vote, this time on the basis of polls rather than wards
Results? Well, the gays and U of T students really really don't like Rob Ford.
That includes Scarborough Campus students.
A map of the mayoral vote, this time on the basis of polls rather than wards
Results? Well, the gays and U of T students really really don't like Rob Ford.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride. The argument that the city shouldn't be helping to support Pride is an odd one, given that the event and associated activities have been a boon for many local businesses, and money spent by the city on the event reaps many more times the amount put in (not to mention the additional taxes). Would Ford really want to be opposing local businesses?
Skinny Dipper I think you meant to refer to Maslow who postulated the heirarchy of needs, I can understand the confusion though when thinking about Ford supporters and Pavlov with his dogs salivating on the sound of the bell.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
At the heart of Ford's election promises is the supposed dedication to fiscal responsibility. If Ford wants to pull the city's funding for Pride, when you consider the MILLIONS of dollars Pride brings into the city, Ford would be betraying his base.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Last night I was out with some friends, two of them small business owners here in Parkdale. Now that the initial shock of having Rob Ford as mayor is fading, there seems to be more of a "well, at least we didn't get Smitherman" feeling; a sense that we dodged a bullet in terms of the potential damage to this city that has been avoided by electing a fool rather than a crook.
It was interesting reading the Star report on the positions of the various councilor. Number one and two on the list were privatizing what remains of public service curbside garbage collection, and turning the TTC into an essential service. With all the Ford v Smitherman v Pantalone strategic voting hubib, I am sure many people forgot the actual issues at stake. I can't remember many articles on these two leading issue in the last couple of weeks of the campaign at all.
In anycase, that is what people voted for, regardless if they voted for Smitherman or Ford, so there is the story. My councillor, Vaughan, a "hip downtown leftist: is undecided on the issue.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Give it a rest already. Someone asked a specific question and I gve a specific answer. As for whether garbage collection will get contracted out - nothing can happen for at least a year and a half when current contracts expire. There is clearly a swing segment of councillors who are open to being convinced one way or another on this issue. I suggest that if you want to prevent garbage collection from being contracted out - you start crafting some common sense, pragmatic, non-ideological arguments for why its a bad idea and try to win over those critical votes.
I crunched the numbers by former municipality (that is, in wards that are in multiple boroughs, I sorted it out by poll):
Toronto: Smitherman 51.5%, Ford 28.2%, Pantalone 16.5%
East York: Ford 43.1%, Smitherman 36.1%, Pantalone 14.5%
York: Ford 47.1%, Smitherman 30.2%, Pantalone 14.8%
North York: Ford 52.5%, Smitherman 30%, Pantalone 10.4%
Scarborough: Ford 57%, Smitherman 27.7%, Pantalone 8%
Etobicoke: Ford 65.2%, Smitherman 24.2%, Pantalone 7.7%
And the explanation for that outcome, again, having taken all of the variables into account, is.........?
No kidding.
Well, when I finally bag that big beast, I'll need some dippy skinner to help me make it presentable.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride. The argument that the city shouldn't be helping to support Pride is an odd one, given that the event and associated activities have been a boon for many local businesses, and money spent by the city on the event reaps many more times the amount put in (not to mention the additional taxes). Would Ford really want to be opposing local businesses?
I don't think all funding will be pulled, that would just be too much and too ugly of a fight. I do think it's quite likely that some chunk of the funding will be pulled as part of the larger drive to save money (that is - all other such city-funded events are for the chop too). That still places Pride Toronto in a difficult position because they're carrying a large loss from this year's festivities.
If Pride funding is pulled Pride will be so corporatized we will barely recognize it.
Anyways, people have said the media did not help Ford. I think it most certainly did help Ford. Talk radio was huge in the Ford factor, as were both the Sun and the National Post.
I agree. Ford got millions in free advertising from them. I remember one day that Ford boycotted on of the public debates. That become newsworthy. The result? Rob Ford gets some private time on 1010 to explain why he didn't attend the debate.
I'm just wondering how long it's going to take Ford to pull the city's funding away from Pride.
In today's Star there is a survey of city councillors on where they line up on various Ford proposals. Only TWO city councillors out of 44 support eliminating funding for Pride - Rob Ford's brother Doug and perenial clown Giorgio Mammoliti. Ain't gonna happen.
Thank god for that! As long as Cairibbana and Gay Pride are safe all is good. We don't need to worry about subcontracting out garbage collection and employees in the newly privatized workplace being paid 30% less than the present CUPE members, or forcing them into no-strike contracts.
Give it a rest already. Someone asked a specific question and I gve a specific answer. As for whether garbage collection will get contracted out - nothing can happen for at least a year and a half when current contracts expire. There is clearly a swing segment of councillors who are open to being convinced one way or another on this issue. I suggest that if you want to prevent garbage collection from being contracted out - you start crafting some common sense, pragmatic, non-ideological arguments for why its a bad idea and try to win over those critical votes.
Heh. I am getting a little tired of this routine where people talk and act as if the labour movement, and the left, and people like Pantalone who represent that movement are discussed as if they had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of gay rights in this city and this country. That is why the City of Toronto recognized same sex spousal benefits before same sex marriage was guaranteed in law. It is true that Gay people themselve were the primary motivators of the recognition of their right, but outside of that community it was the left and the labour movement who frist recognized the legitimacy of their movement, and supported it and made allinaces with it, on principle.
The ability of the left and the labour movement, and people like Joe Pantalone to be effective as supporters of that movement was embedded in the power that had been won by the labour movement over many generations of activism. It is foolish beyond belief to believe that diminishing the rights and power of unionized labour is not going to have an negative impact on the ability of the left defend gay rights from the forces of reaction. Same with pay equity for women.
Wong Tam made a similar point when reacting to the suggestion that the "fair wage" policy be abolished: "what next pay equity?"
I am sorry if you think defending the rights of people to be allowed to have free collective bargaining and the right to withhold their labour in order to ensure they are paid a fare wage for doing a shitty job like sorting through your slimey waste products is merely "ideological", and is contrary to common ssense pragmatism. Maybe people shouldn't be "ideological" about same sex marriage, either? Can you think of any non-ideological common sense and pragmatic common sense arguments for having an enforced minimum wage, or a "Labour Code", I mean other than common decency?
I'm talking about what strategy will be effective. There is not now, nor has there ever been anywhere near a majority of Toronto City Council that was NDP/pro-labour (or whatever you want to call it). If you want to LOSE the vote, go to centrist councillors with backgrounds in the Liberals or Conservative parties and start bellowing "workers of the world unite" and see how far it gets you.
According to the Star survey - there is almost no support for getting rid of the 117-year old fair wages policy - so that's a non-starter anyways. But there will be a fight over contracting out. You better have some solid arguments against it or you will LOSE. I suggest finding evidence that it will be inefficient or will cost the city more money in the long run etc....
Heh. I am getting a little tired of this routine where people talk and act as if the labour movement, and the left, and people like Pantalone who represent that movement are discussed as if they had absolutely nothing to do with the defense of gay rights in this city and this country.
Remind of who ever saiud that in the first place or are you just making up bullshit because you feel like it?
Well gee Stockholm can you think of any non-ideological reasons for supporting same sex marriage rights? I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should have to find any reasons to support those rights on the basis that they would be economically efficient, or some such.
Yes, many:
Court rulings mean that trying to fight it will cost more than just going along with it
It will save the government money since someone on welfare with a same sex spouse who works will no longer be able to collect
It is actually socially conservative to encourage gays to marry - so that they stop being so promiscuous (sic.)
Its libertarian to let people make their own choices about who to marry.
...there are many arguments in favour of SSM that have little or nothing to do with "gay liberation" theory.
Wouldn't it be so much cheaper just to stop allowing the courts to make the law, and end the practice of having all these frivolous "human rights" cases by abolishing the charter, and at the same time cease funding any welfare programs?
Cueball, for a while there I was wondering what happened. You were actually making sense, I see things are getting back to normal now.
Every immigrant I've met were not social conservatives.. I don't know what immigrants you're talking about because they're mostly progressives. Ford won because his message was clear, cut taxes.. What's Joe message? "I'm David Miller lite." Political suicide!!
Cueball, for a while there I was wondering what happened. You were actually making sense, I see things are getting back to normal now.
Did you read the new Babble policy statement yet? I noticed that the new version still prohibits trolling and personal attacks. A few personal attacks once and a while is understandable, but at least you could do people the courtesy of attaching them to some vaguely intelligent on-topic commentary.
^This.
Also something for most of the other commenters on Babble to think about in other contexts as well (media issues, the enviroment, etc.)
Bollocks. Rights do not need to be justified in pragmatic terms. Rights are part of entirely different discourse about the shape of the society we want to inhabit.
I can make arguments that show definitely that labour unions, free collective bargaining (which is a natural right the stems from the right of free association mind you) and the right to withhold ones labour, have greatly improved the overall standard of living beyond the sector of unionized workers by setting standards upon which the entire economy runs.
Even the basic fact that unionized labour spends most of their disposable income directly in the economy, whereas corporations often remove their profits from the local economy, speaks to the fact that fare wages for workers benefits the economy far more than corporate tax cuts, and reduced social service. Real stimulus for the real economy is far better served by expansion of the unionized workforce, and better pay for ordinary working people. Furthermore, good wages and good jobs are a natural deterrent against crime.
These are all practical considerations that support the argument against sub-contracting out labour.
Fact: Subcontracted curb side garbage collection in the city of Toronto is paid $18 an hour (wage and benefits), city workers doing the same job make $24 an hour (wage and benefits).
The above is what we are really talking about.
But that is really neither here nor there in a discussion of "rights" per se. The idea that rights need to be justified in micro-economic terms is an attack upon the fundamental principles of rights and democracy.
I think that pay scale assumes they are following the rules and is probably for employees of the companies. When I did it a few years ago as day labour it was more like $9.50 an hour.
Bollocks. Rights do not need to be justified in pragmatic terms. Rights are part of entirely different discourse about the shape of the society we want to inhabit.
That's all very well, but we are not talking about how to win an Oxford Union debate in front of an audience of academics and students - we are talking about how to sway middle of the road members of Toronto city council to vote a certain way on an issue.
Simply going up to them and saying, "if you vote for contracting out, we will spare no effort to see you defeated in 2014" should do the trick.
The threat needs to be credible. How many councillors are vulnerable? Which ones?
The trouble is that contracting out of garbage collection would probably be quite popular with the general public - especially after that IDIOTIC strike last summer to protect being able to get paid extra for not getting sick. The councillors who are at all vulnerable to a "threat" from CUPE are almost all people who are already pro-labour who you don't have to worry about.
I really have to question your motives. It's one thing if you provide reasons why the public may not be on-side with a particular strike action by a public sector union. What you are doing here is accepting the media spin on the garbage strike without question. Surely if you are involved in the progressive community you would have at least heard the perspectives of CUPE?
By the way, why is it just CUPE that was idiotic? There are always 2 sides to every story. Miller had the option to negotiate. He didn't. He chose instead to be confrontational and sealed his own fate. That CUPE should just accept what the city offered without question is something I'd expect from a Conservative or Chamber of Commerce type, not a progressive.
CUPE was right. Miller was wrong. Miller easily could have averted the strike and no one would have noticed. However, som quick thinking Liberals, probably those in the NDP convinced him it was time to look like he was not soft on "big labour".
The issue has been explained to Stockholm numerous times. And he knows that CUPE didn't like the clause in the contract that was because it punished workers who were sick because they wouldn't receive as large a pension as those who could bank all their sick days. The union was willing to get rid of the clause in the contract as long as workers under contract were fairly compensated for change in the pensions plan, as per their existing contract.
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He has had more than enough time to understand the union perspective on the issue, but he continues to use the same line as Rob Ford would use.
So much guff about some guys getting paid enough to support a family and live without begging for handouts. A lot of the intelligenzia resent it when the people who get their hands dirty have the audacity to demand entry into the world of financial respectability.
I don't want to rehash all the issues in the strike last summer - but suffice it to say that since any communications or information from the CUPE locals in Toronto about their justifications for the strike were virtually non-existent - its hard not to accept the narrative from the city. BTW: Joe Pantalone was 100% supportive of the city's position in the municipal workers strike last summer - I can't imagine that he - being so pro-labour - would been so unswervingly supportive of the city's position in the strike unless the union was being really intransigent and inflexible.
Getting back to the issue of what happens if there is a vote on council to contract out garbage collection. To stop it, you would need 23 votes - mind you there must be a reason why Lastman never tried to do it when he was mayor given that he would have had just as many votes for it as Ford would have now. There may be some good pragmatic arguments for why its a bad idea that might win over councillors who are not particularly leftwingt - but who can be reasoned with. By my count there are about a dozen rock-solid votes on council against contractiing out - those would be people who have NDP affiliations or were labour council endorsed. Getting another 10 councillors onside will mean having to lobby people like Josh Matlow or 3M from the Beaches or Ana Bailao and some new people elected in Scarborough. Better yet, let a year go by until Ford gets unpopular and then get people on council into a "Ford says black, we say white" mood.
Simply going up to them and saying, "if you vote for contracting out, we will spare no effort to see you defeated in 2014" should do the trick.
The way we spared no effort to keep Rob Ford from winning??
I don't want to rehash all the issues in the strike last summer - but suffice it to say that since any communications or information from the CUPE locals in Toronto about their justifications for the strike were virtually non-existent - its hard not to accept the narrative from the city. BTW: Joe Pantalone was 100% supportive of the city's position in the municipal workers strike last summer - I can't imagine that he - being so pro-labour - would been so unswervingly supportive of the city's position in the strike unless the union was being really intransigent and inflexible.
Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor. It would have been a serious break were Pantalone to undermine the chief player on the executive. Surely with all your years of observing politics you must understand this. Pantalone, free from such restrictions during the election was subtly critical of Miller's handling of the strike, saying that he would have "intervened" in the process earlier.
I believe that.
"Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor."
Well, then if you are a person of principle - you resign and join the picket line.
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He has had more than enough time to understand the union perspective on the issue, but he continues to use the same line as Rob Ford would use.
Now that made me laugh out loud. Stockholm a Liberal or Conservative who infililtrated the NDP. What makes you think any libs or cons would want to infililtrate!
"Being deputy mayor does not allow one the latitude to go against the mayor."
Well, then if you are a person of principle - you resign and join the picket line.
However, Stockholm routinely and continuously reverts to Toronto Sun talking points for some unknown reason. Perhaps he is one of the Liberal, or conservative guys who has infliltrated the NDP. Who knows? He certainly doesn't sound like someone who supports the NDP.
huh? I think you are the one who is a closet Liberal since you are such an apologist for Pantaloine refsuing to stand up for the municipal workers during the strike last summer - just because he might have lost a few perks associated with being deputy mayor!
I checked out the new Rabble user policy. I don't see the place where the section on trolling was removed. Do you? Maybe... uhhh... get a life as they say?
Call it what you want - I have yet to hear an explanation for how Pantalone can be such a great "champion of the workers" when he never took the opportunity to express any support for the municipal workers during the strike last summer and instead was 100% unswervingly supportive of the city's position.
Obviously, anytime you have clearly lost an argument you go crying to the "authorities" to complain. Your definition of "trolling" is someone having better arguments than you. Why don't you just admit you're wrong (I guess there's a first time for everything) and then we can move to more fruitful discussions.
Wrong about what? That Pantalone said he would have intervened in the process earlier? That you can't seem to remember the content of the CUPE argument against giving in to mangagment, even though it has been explained to you over and over and over again numerous times, and that rather than taking into account the unions position you see fit to repeat Toronto SUN and Royson James talking points over and over again like an idiot?
Either you are an idiot or you are trolling. Hard to decide which, frankly. Even idiots can eventually learn to regurgitate simple talking points, if they read them enough times. CUPE went on strike "so that workers could get paid for not being sick". Hit the button Koko here is a banana for you!
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
Upon further reflection, I think Ford got in because he looks like Mike Holmes, albeit larger, but still people equate that look with trusting that said person with that look, will do what is best for them.
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
It could mean all kinds of things. And it is pretty much irrelevant to anyone but you and Barry Wieslader. But stupidity makes strange bed fellows.
Pantalone had a choice - he could have said NO to the city's position on the strike and marched with the strikers. Instead he fully supported the city's position on all issues. What exactly does he mean by "intervening earlier"? That could mean intervening by hiring replacement workers to break the strike, it could be intervening by asking the province to bring in back to work legislation...what he meant is a mystery. What we do know is that he never expressed any support for the union's position and given his position asa deputy mayor - if he had done so - it would have been powerful.
It could mean all kinds of things. For example, he might have put a motion in council to have the Metro Police drag the leadership of CUPE out into the streets and order to have them shot. And it is pretty much irrelevant to anyone but you and Barry Wieslader. But stupidity makes strange bed fellows.
So, we are still left with no answer to the question of why Pantalone went along with the city's anti-union position during the strike last summer. So far the only explanation anyone has given is that he didn't want to give up the perks associated with the being deputy mayor.
Yes we do. The deputy mayor does not set the policy of the adminstration.
If the Deputy Mayor disagrees with the policy of the administration on such a fundamental issue - he has a choice - he can resign and denounce the administration and join the picket line.
I suspect that the real reason is that Pantalone was 100% supportive of Miller's strategy during the strike. They are very close confidantes and Pantalone being very much a pragmatic centrist in the NDP who has always been willing to be the token "lefty" in rightwing administrations on Metro Council becasue he gets along with everyone and never pushes for anything that the establishment doesn't like.
He was just the more skillful politician - he divided the City up - Us versus Them. Never really defining who us were, just the outraged citizenry who wanted City Hall to pay for not fighting back against them. Also, nobody had the vision to articulate a different way. Also, let's face it, while many of us were out there - how many of us are there?
Social movements, political parties, unions, all stayed relatively silent at the beginning of the election campaign. Never moving beyond endorsements. We don't see people out on the streets in Canada. This is the real shame.
So Rob Ford was able to mobilize each one of us - because we might have a individual grievence against one of: "Them". Again, it comes back to a politics of hate that I wrote back earlier.
If the Deputy Mayor disagrees with the policy of the administration on such a fundamental issue - he has a choice - he can resign and denounce the administration and join the picket line.
I suspect that the real reason is that Pantalone was 100% supportive of Miller's strategy during the strike. They are very close confidantes and Pantalone being very much a pragmatic centrist in the NDP who has always been willing to be the token "lefty" in rightwing administrations on Metro Council becasue he gets along with everyone and never pushes for anything that the establishment doesn't like.
Which is precisely why I highly doubt that what Pantalone means that he would have agressively acted to bust the strike when he says he would have intervened earlier. It is entirely his style to proactively involve himself in a negotiation between all the parties, as opposed to brinksmanship which is what Miller was not doing. The Miller adminstration management handed the union a fait accompli as opposed to negotiating. Negotiation and mediation is a hallmark of Pantalone, which is why he "gets along with everyone".
There was a big debate about Miller not intervening between city management and CUPE, and once Miller intervened and serious negotiations were begun, after a three week strike, the issues were actually quite easy to resolve. That is the context of what Pantalone means by "intervene". Miller refused to, until the strike was going into its third week.
So no. Pantalone saying that he would have "intevened" earlier is not saying that he was lock step in line with Miller's strategy for dealing with the negotiation.
If Pantalone was an absolutely totally pure 100% supporter of labour in 100% of cases without exception - as some have suggested - the only honourable thing for him to have done was to denounce David Miller, resign as Deputy Mayor, join the picket line and then run for mayor having distanced himself from Miller on a totally pro-labour platform. He might have had more than 12% of the vote that way.
Instead he backed the city's negoatiating strategy - just like he supported the police conduct during the G20 riots.
Cueball and Stockhom-this is getting tedious.
You're right - its water under the bridge if ever there was such a thing.
Yep, especially when it was the "Holmes" factor that got him elected.... ;)
I disagree remind (for the people I spoke with anyways). There exact words about Ford was that he looked like a creepy child toucher (not that he was one, but that he looked like one). And he does look creepy.
I disagree remind (for the people I spoke with anyways). Their exact words about Ford was that he looked like a creepy child toucher (not that he was one, but that he looked like one). And he does look creepy.
If Pantalone was an absolutely totally pure 100% supporter of labour in 100% of cases without exception - as some have suggested - the only honourable thing for him to have done was to denounce David Miller, resign as Deputy Mayor, join the picket line and then run for mayor having distanced himself from Miller on a totally pro-labour platform. He might have had more than 12% of the vote that way.
Instead he backed the city's negotiating strategy - just like he supported the police conduct during the G20 riots.
Again, just a bunch of straw men. Who are these "some" who suggested that Pantalone, or anyone here, saying that he is a "100% supporter of labour in 100% of all cases without exception". Did he say that? No.
What he said is that he would have intervened in the negotiation process earlier than Miller did. Miller refused to intervene in the negotiating process for the entire period of negotiation, before the strike, and into the strike for three weeks. Pantalone expressed variance with Miller on a variety of issues throughout the campaign, this being just one of them. The more obvious one being elimination of the car registration tax, which was a regressive tax, as he pointed out.
Miller's strategy was a failed one. Obviously, the city probably could have gotten a very simillar result, had Miller bothered to intervene, and negotiate toward the proposal that was finally agreed to, without all the silliness of the strike. Pantalone seems to agree.
When i look at Ford, he reminds me more of a big fat uncooked breakfast sausage. I see that his campaign manager is getting into trouble with his big mouth again. Today, he bragged about how he used dirty tricks and fake identities to make sure john Tory didn't get back in the race at the end of August. Lots of campaigns do this sort of thing - but bragging about it is pretty self-destructive and indiscreet. If this guy is going to be a key figure in the Ford administration - I'm even more confident that this regime will be a flop.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/886530--did-ford-campaign-s-tricks-k...
When i look at Ford, he reminds me more of a big fat uncooked breakfast sausage.
Maybe you should post your fatphobic trolling on free dominion or something, if that is still in business that is. As if red-baiting, and anti-union blather isn't enough.
I'm surprised all this didn't come out before the election, Ford would have won by even more:
With less than one month left until current city councillors wind up their terms, the Toronto Sun has published a list of interesting ways some spent taxpayer money through their office budgets.
The list includes $400 for a permit for a fetish party in a city-owned park, $320 for a SpongeBob SquarePants inflatable party bouncer and about $3,000 for more French lessons for Adam Giambrone.
Giambrone charged taxpayers a total of $10,898 for French lessons over his four-year term.
Stockholm, don't ever use fat phobic language again or you'll earn a 3-day time out from babble. Or longer.
I didn't notice how long this thread is, so closing for length.