NDP: Slithering to Slitherman

Its also probably no coincidence that McConnell, Smitherman and Hall are all from the same geographic base having represented the same wards/ridings over the years (when Hall was city councillor for Cabbagetown, McConnell was her running mate as school trustee) - so there has to be some sort of mutual support/non-aggression pact between them. Though I believe that McConnell did endorse Cathy Crowe in the recent byelection.

Cueball wrote:

Buzz Hargrove was nothing but a notable member of the party when he advised CAW workers to vote strategically for the Liberals or the NDP. He neither was running for office, or an employee of the NDP. He was an ordinary member of the party, just like McConnell, and she like Buzz is a notable figure in politics in Canada.

And like every other "ordinary member" of the NDP, he had signed on the dotted line that he was not a member or supporter of any other party.

Now, had his treason been nothing more than advocating "strategic" voting, that would have been one thing.  In fact, Prominent Liberal Party Supporter Basil Hargrove spent ten solid years doing everything in his power to serve his Liberal masters by trying to undermine the NDP from within.  He spent ten solid years routinely encouraging people to vote Liberal in constituencies that were Liberal - NDP marginals and where the prospect of a Conservative winning was simply non-existent.  He even advocated voting Liberal in constituencies that were Conservative - NDP marginals and where a Liberal vote was a wasted vote - thus delivering those seats into the hands of the Tories he pretended to despise.

The only problem with the expulsion of this quisling from the NDP is that the ONDP took ten years to do what should have been done immediately.

Cueball wrote:

I didn't dispute the justice of taking away Buzz Hargroves membership. I asserted it as a precedent. Here we have an NDP member supporting a Liberal party member who is running against an NDP member for an relatively important political position on a platform that includes advocating removing collective bargaining rights for manual labourers. Your personal opinion is that that doesn't warrant any action?

It's already been explained to you in this thread that the terms and conditions of provincial and ferderal membership in political parties do not apply municipally as these political parties have no standing at the municipal level, and that if said councillors are not members of the NDP then the issue of the NDP taking action is moot anyways.

Cueball wrote:

What I was explaining is that the NDPr's around here don't seem to give a fuck if some other members are going around using their political influence to smash unions and REMOVE the collective bargaining rights of manual labourers. What if, for example, Smitherman was advocating for the return of indentured slavery, and Pam McConnell endorsed that? What if he was babbling on about ZOG?

Would you care?

As I said, I wouldn't necessarily agree with NDP councillors endorsing Smitherman, but other than to contact them and persuade them otherwise (a moot point since I live one province over from you anyways) what else would I really be able to do about that situation? And I think you've read a bit much into what some of your fellow Torontonians have said on the mayoral campaign.

Smitherman is a candidate for which party?

Oh.  Right.

When she was on the Police Services Board Pam McConnell hd the fortitude to put the knife intoe Fantino and prevent his reappointment as Chief of Police. This was when Fantino had evryone in the media and on council bullied and afraid to stand up to him.

I live in her ward and for this alone she gets my vote.

You are not understanding me. When I read:

Quote:

What I am reading is a lot of excuses about why NDP member Pam McConnell endorsing a candidate who is openly advocating for smashing the civic garbage workers union and REMOVING their right collectively bargain, is not a concern for them.

... with no acknowledgement that other perspectives have, in fact, been expressed. You are erasing me. It feels like I don't fit your theory, and so I don't exist. You marginalize me in order to forward an argument. You did the same by "making" Adam Vaughan magically a member of the NDP. And again by asserting that only one NDP-associated councillor is supporting Pantalone.

I don't think this is a good fit with your politics. I wish you wouldn't generalize quite so much, and announcing as fact what, in fact, isn't.

jrootham, I challenged both Miller and Pantalone for their public statements about policing and the G20. They said what they said. It is their responsibility for rationalizing, justifying and papering over a descent into collective punishment, thought crimes and random state brutality. It's not about holding the left solely responsible. It is about holding them accountable for positions taken - positions that don't hold true to progressive politics. Otherwise, what's the point?

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/10/02/15558796.html]Time for "restraint" at City Hall, Smitherman says[/url]

Quote:

He’s behind in the polls but that didn’t stop George Smitherman from issuing a blunt warning to the city’s bureaucrats, unions and elected officials about what the landscape will look like should he come from behind and win the civic election.

“I’ve set a tone,” Smitherman said at a meeting of the Toronto Sun’s editorial board.

“Sacrifice is to be expected for people in the public service — this is a time of restraint.”

The former deputy premier has said restoring “fiscal credibility” at City Hall would be his first priority if he can defeat Councillor Rob Ford in the Oct. 25 vote to replace outgoing Mayor David Miller.

To do that, he’s promised a one-year property tax freeze, the loss of 1,300 jobs through attrition and a line-by-line budget review he will lead personally as budget chief.

“I’ve met with every one of these councillors and I know more about their frigging budget than they do,” Smitherman said.

Portable subsidies would help people move out of housing stock that is falling to pieces.yes new

housing stock should be built but nobody seems to have the will to do it.The fire showed how

vunerable the tenants of public housing are.I was there for the first few nights and it was a very bad situation

for the old and disabled.By the way I am Connie and all of the candidates lost me when there was very little response

to the fire and its inplications for displacement.

The problem with municipal politics in Toronto is that the NDP-related candidates can only really be considered progressive on issues of labour and unions.  In my opinion, the biggest issue of the Toronto municipal election is the future of public transit in the city.  As someone who supports the NDP on the federal level, I can't get behind Joe Pantalone's "stick to the Transit City plan" argument because Transit City is a half-assed plan.  In Toronto municipal politics, the left is always arguing for streetcars/LRTs instead of subways, because they are cheaper. Streetcars suck!  It is that simple.  Even with dedicated lanes like Spadina and St. Clair, they are slow and have to wait at traffic lights.  I can walk faster than most downtown streetcars during rush hour.

Why is it that when it comes to PUBLIC transit, the so-called left of Toronto municipal politics are not willing to think big?  They have no bold vision.  Sarah Thomson was willing to build a world class transit system including expanded subways, financing it by tolls on the DVP and Gardiner.  That is a double-benefit to the environment (less cars +  more transit).  This was more progressive than Transit City, but people called her centre-right. Cities like Madrid have built amazing subway systems mostly during the time when David Miller was mayor and complaining about not getting more money from the province/feds.  Well we have the city of Toronto Act, let's do something with it! Let's see tolls on the highways, municipal gas taxes (like Vancouver and Montreal), a HIGHER vehicle registration fee (instead of $60 per year = half the price of a monthly Metropass).

To me, transit is the issue that matters. The issue that we will look back on in years (or decades) and say what the *#@% was Toronto thinking.  Thomson is out of the race now, but she backed Smitherman and he is talking about a "Transit City Plus", the cheapo streetcar/LRTs along with more subways.  This is better than Pantalone, and way way way better that Ford.

The reason that the streetcars with dedicated lanes are slow is because there is no proof of fare system, and no signalling priority for transit vehicles.  The new street cars that are coming online in 2013 will have more compacity and will operate on a proof of fare system, allowing people to enter and exit at any door.  This will speed up the trip time even for those lines not operating on dedicated right-of-ways.

In regards to subways, the main priority for subway construction is the DRL (downtown relief line) which would run in a U-shape between Dundas West and Pape.  That line would do much to relieve downtown congestion and facilitate expansion of the TTC Yonge line North.  Eglinton and Sheppard are nice to have, but the reality is that neither line actually has the ridership in order to support a subway. Why not build a line that supports the current transit needs, now and for the forseeable future, as opposed to building something that we might not need ever?  Remember, the TTC operates without subsidy from other levels of government so if the Eglinton line doesn't have enough ridership, then that cost is passed directly onto those on other lines to pay for it.

No arguments on road-tolls, although if you've followed the earlier posts in this thread, the idea that the NDP, municipally at any rate, is pro-labour is rather suspect.

Cueball wrote:

aka Mycroft wrote:

Tbat's a shame. I would have thought Connie had more sense than to fall for Ford's faux populism or the pro-landlord "voucher" idea (why build proper social housing when you can subsidise the profits of private landlords).

Well, Connie, we know what you think of the NDP...

[link deleted by moderator]

this is what I think of the NDP

Hi Roberteh, welcome to babble.

That link (which you did not post correctly anyway) is totally inappropriate for a public discussion board, as I'm sure you know. So, don't do it again. Great.

Cueball wrote:

We were ignoring the fact that you were trying to compare being a white European immigrant with being a non-white immigrant. Why did you bring it up again ferchristsakes?

Worse, comparing a white immigrant from an English speaking country to a non-white immigrant from a non-Anglo country. Or are we now going to hear arguments about the uphill struggles Tony O'Donohue faced winning a council seat? Although in O'Donohue's case the Orange Order was had only recently been a powerhouse in Toronto. Might as well mention being a Catholic as if it was a disability in modern Toronto.

Perhaps by that token Adam Vaughan could talk about the struggles he faced as the son of immigrants from the global South since being Australian is probably just as much of an "obstacle" as being Irish in Toronto politics today.

Of course, if one's going to use identity politics to suggest that Vaughan benefitted from his Canadian born privilege against Kennedy's immigrant status then it would also be fair to say Kennedy benefitted from her pivilege as a white, native English speaker against a non-white immigrant whose first language was not English.

the animal kingdom is sometimes like the human one.Gosh Roberteh you are so mean spirited you sound like my

ex the progressive dude that hasnt paid child support in years.Do you like Otters

so what do you suggest be done in the interim while housing is being built.they cant all go to shelters.what is the

answer to this problem.Its complicated

Catchfire wrote:

Hi Roberteh, welcome to babble.

That link (which you did not post correctly anyway) is totally inappropriate for a public discussion board, as I'm sure you know. So, don't do it again. Great.

Sorry, I thought it was quite funnny too.  And, quite appropiate for people who speak out of two sides of their mouths. 

Much as Slitherman is doing...painting himself: "as anybody but Ford" is hardly a progressive position.  Which is why I have such trouble selecting who to vote for.

As for the matter of housing subsidies, Rob Ford, has no plan what to do with the hundreds of homeless that this policy would eventually create. 

It would lead to a short term gentification but long ruination.  However, no candidate for mayor or otherwise cannot do anything for housing save privatize it or keep the miserable status quo. 

One can only hope if there is privatization (which like it or not is coming) then hopefully the residents would have first right to the units** or at least the sale of said units could fund that housing subsidy. 

But, Ford is just another rich kid who plays the politics game...and just because money knows how to make bullshit smell sweet...we should hardly be surprised that people do "fall for it". However, I give the poor much more credit than you do.

**so that they could actually sell them for what they are worth.  As the fire proved...these are diasters waiting to happen...

Roberteh wrote:

 

One can only hope if there is privatization (which like it or not is coming) then hopefully the residents would have first right to the units** or at least the sale of said units could fund that housing subsidy. 

 

Ah yes, the Thatcherite "right" to buy your council flat. 30 years on that policy has created a major shortage of affordable housing in the UK.

aka Mycroft wrote:

veronika desnic wrote:

so what do you suggest be done in the interim while housing is being built.they cant all go to shelters.what is the

answer to this problem.Its complicated

I think the old CityHome model of publicly owned mixed housing is better where middle class people pay market rates and poor people pay subsidized rate. Because the housing is mixed it won't turn into a ghetto and the quality is likely to be maintained. Even today the ex-CityHome buildings are the best ones in the TCHC portfolio. It's the same idea as with universality, if a social service is only for the poor it will end up being inferior, marginalized and the first to be cut. If it includes the poor and at least the middle class - as say public housing in much of Europe is - it will be of much better quality for everyone.

I haven't been to Europe...but it seems that everywhere in Europe...there is a predominance of private housing owned by individuals.  And, Europe has not avoided creating slums just look at the riots in France a few years back.  Only, when people take responsibility can things change.  Furthermore, Europe continues to build...Canada has not...so it is comparing Apples & Oranges both are fruity but they are equally loopy.  So, I would argue that the models that you need to use are in the Americas.

And, before you cite Cuba...there we see universally poor housing because it is the equality of making everyone poor instead of rich.

aka Mycroft wrote:

Roberteh wrote:

 

One can only hope if there is privatization (which like it or not is coming) then hopefully the residents would have first right to the units** or at least the sale of said units could fund that housing subsidy. 

 

Ah yes, the Thatcherite "right" to buy your council flat. 30 years on that policy has created a major shortage of affordable housing in the UK.

But, it equally feed a housing boom that allowed many to escape the poverty of the council house/flat and get on with a life...not trapped in a 1984 style utopia.  So, yes, there is a shortage of flats but no where as absurd as when the council would hole perfectly good buildings because people did not have the "permits" to live in them.  That and absentee landowners feed the whole squatters movement of the 1970s.

If any candiate was serious about housing he would advocate that the poor actually do colonize those Office Towers on Bay Street or take up residence in Rosedale, North York, or similar enclaves.  Only, the poor actually being where the rich actually live can you solve housing.  For then you are actually talking about building community not merely zoning it.