Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[betsy]

 

I looked at it. It tells me nothing new. Presumably the city will now update its site to reflect the new Fordian rules.

What it tells me is that they've been prepared for this change - and everything is running fine.  All those whiners were just being drama queens - especially Horwath!

Torontonians should vote for those nominees who showed a good attitude of welcoming the challenge up ahead - instead of being whiners!

Edited September 19, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

 

 You might want to try a neutral site featuring statutory links in order to ascertain accurate information. 

You are begging to turn water into wine, my friend.  There is a rockbed of posters here who only support their party - right or wrong.  Right now the angry idiot party is in charge, so they are thrilled about that.

I'm glad that the courts ruled as they did, frankly.  This was going to happen anyway and I am hoping that the result and the apparent backlash has scared our hash dealer premier into realizing that the people don't trust him to challenge the constitution.  And he gets his way too...

[OftenWrong]

 

I'm glad that the courts ruled as they did, frankly.  This was going to happen anyway and I am hoping 

Yes indeed, you re hoping. And that is what everybody already knew. Well, those who are sensible anyway. The initial Judge's decision was so ridiculous, anyone could see what it was all about. They knew they couldn't stop Ford but tried to delay him with some dirty old moves, knowing full well it wouldn't stand up to the appeal. But by then it would be too late for this election. Or so they hoped... they never reckoned on Ford using the NWC the way he did.

That forces them to implement the change right away, not wait for the appeal. No delay. If the appeal wins, even better. Either way, it gets done.

Hmm, I'll give Ford some credit for the way he handled this one. But is he really that smart? We shall see.

[Michael Hardner]

 

Hmm, I'll give Ford some credit for the way he handled this one. But is he really that smart? We shall see.

What ?  More than half the province disapproved.  This was a stupid move and portends poorly for his strategic capability moving forward.

[OftenWrong]

 

What ?  More than half the province disapproved.  This was a stupid move and portends poorly for his strategic capability moving forward.

How many had no opinion? Irrelevant in any case. Or how did you put that again, "just because the majority of people want something, does that mean they get it?"

The issue is too complex, too wide, to be put to a referendum.

Ergo, this is fake news. 

Finally the only poll that matters is the one that put a man in power, who had no mandate. Doug Ford said he would do nothing, and so he owes us nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

 

1. How many had no opinion? Irrelevant in any case. Or how did you put that again, "just because the majority of people want something, does that mean they get it?"

2. Finally the only poll that matters is the one that put a man in power, who had no mandate.  

1.  It's neither right nor wrong to me... I didn't like the idea to use the NW cause, but the province really didn't like it.  Ford loses.

2.  He's not looking too smooth.   

[Centerpiece]

I'd love to open another topic on "The Dangers of Judicial Over-reach" but I don't want to clutter the forum. Judge Belobaba provided a blatant example of over-reach. In doing so, he laid bare the fact that politically appointed judges are not only human, and can carry biases into their rulings. As the appellate court not so discretely ruled - “It is not in the public interest to permit the impending election to proceed on the basis of a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation duly passed by the legislature,”. The danger goes beyond this judge's competence - it attacks the integrity and credibility of the Charter itself. "Inconveniences" are not affronts to Rights and Freedoms and legislation arrived at through our democratic process is not to be trivialized as such. I would hope that judges will take notice - and Canadians will be a little wiser.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What ?  More than half the province disapproved.  This was a stupid move and portends poorly for his strategic capability moving forward.

Realistically, much of the province would have disapproved if Ford had said good morning to them on television.

[PIK]

On 7/27/2018 at 2:14 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but at least there was no claim that Ford's move is actually a good idea.

It is. and time for you to get over the fact you lost. Now it is our urn to bring this province back to waht it was, the economic engine of canada.How anyone can even start to criticize ford so early after 15 yrs of incompetence and fraud. So many people suffered so TO can have it all. 

[turningrite]

On 9/19/2018 at 4:00 PM, betsy said:

Torontonians should vote for those nominees who showed a good attitude of welcoming the challenge up ahead - instead of being whiners!

Do you mean the Ford loyalists who expected to benefit from Ford's move? The biggest single advantage a candidate running for municipal office enjoys is incumbency. So, look for a council with few if any new voices and the same old retreads grinding the same old axes, which I suspect is what we'll see.

Oh, and on another issue, hopefully you've read some of the text of the appeal ruling which stayed the previous ruling that struck down Bill 5, particularly where the appeal ruling acknowledges that Bill 5 actually does interfere in an election that was already underway, apparently contrary to your view. The appeal panel ruled that the Charter argument made in the initial decision likely doesn't apply and apparently the panel didn't have jurisdiction to rule on whether Bill 5 otherwise might be in violation of applicable legal standards. Won't it be a hoot if the Supreme Court eventually overturns Bill 5 and we in Toronto have to endure another expensive election two or three years down the road?

[taxme]

On 9/14/2018 at 1:36 PM, Centerpiece said:

Excellent summation that cuts through all the hand-wringing noise. Ford's legislation was introduced July 27th - giving just shy of three full months to get ready for the October 22nd election date. It wasn't the "middle of an election" as July 27th was actually the last date for candidate nominations - which was subsequently extended. It was/is the obstructionist moves by the Council that has plunged the election into chaos. There's a very good chance the judge/decision will be strongly rebuked by the Appellate Court. That will be an interesting day as it stands to bring over-reaching judicial activism out in the open - while giving credibility - and even purpose - to the use of the nonwithstanding clause. That "threat" may rightly give the Judiciary pause before using the Charter in such a machiavellian manner. 

Whatever it takes to stop the leftist liberal appointed judges from being able to impose their leftist liberal Marxist ideologies on the majority. Those justice warrior judges have been having a field day trying to impose and stepping on the freedom of speech of conservative rights when those rights are not acceptable to them and are in conflict with these justice warrior judges who think that they will have the last word as to how things will be or get done. Canada has become to leftist for my liking. 

Canada is loaded with these lefty liberal judges who could careless about trampling on people's rights whom they do not agree with. I hope that the notwithstanding clause will be used more often to stop the actions of a small minority of people and leftist liberal judges who use the judicial system to get to force their programs and agendas that are not good for Canada or Canadians at all. We need to put an end to minority rule now. It is destroying Canada and progress. It was lucky for Canadians that old man Trudeau was forced to have to put in the notwithstanding clause in the charter. Now conservative minded politicians like Ford can use the notwithstanding clause to be able to kick the minority and leftist judges right between the legs. Long overdue. 

[betsy]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Do you mean the Ford loyalists who expected to benefit from Ford's move? The biggest single advantage a candidate running for municipal office enjoys is incumbency. So, look for a council with few if any new voices and the same old retreads grinding the same old axes, which I suspect is what we'll see.

Oh, and on another issue, hopefully you've read some of the text of the appeal ruling which stayed the previous ruling that struck down Bill 5, particularly where the appeal ruling acknowledges that Bill 5 actually does interfere in an election that was already underway, apparently contrary to your view. The appeal panel ruled that the Charter argument made in the initial decision likely doesn't apply and apparently the panel didn't have jurisdiction to rule on whether Bill 5 otherwise might be in violation of applicable legal standards. Won't it be a hoot if the Supreme Court eventually overturns Bill 5 and we in Toronto have to endure another expensive election two or three years down the road?

I heard a person being interviewed on TV (an expert of something).....that the Supreme Court will support this latest ruling that's been presided by three judges.  The latest ruling had the judges criticizing the first one!   Judge Belobaba erred in his decision and they explained how.  He got slapped down.

 

Quote

 

“It is not in the public interest to permit the impending election to proceed on the basis of a dubious ruling that invalidates legislation duly passed by the legislature,” the three-judge panel wrote.

 

 

However, the appeals court ruling released on Wednesday stated otherwise, and the bill did “not limit or restrict any message the candidates wish to convey to voters for the remainder of the campaign.”

“The application judge was understandably motivated by the fact that the timing of Bill 5 changed the rules for the election mid-campaign, which he perceived as being unfair to candidates and voters. However, unfairness alone does not establish a Charter breach,” the court decision stated.

“The question for the courts is not whether Bill 5 is unfair but whether it is unconstitutional,” the three-panel judge wrote. 

“On that crucial question, we have concluded that there is a strong likelihood that application judge erred in law and that the Attorney General’s appeal to this court will succeed.”

 

 

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4464728/appeal-court-stay-toronto-city-council/

 

It's a done deal.

Edited September 20, 2018 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

Realistically, much of the province would have disapproved if Ford had said good morning to them on television.

?  He just WON.  This is the honeymoon period... he has shat himself in his first month in office.  Rob Ford at least had political smarts...

[turningrite]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

I heard a person being interviewed on TV (an expert of something).....that the Supreme Court will support this latest ruling that's been presided by three judges.  The latest ruling had the judges criticizing the first one!  

Why, then, are and were Ford and his supporters so obstreperously agitated about judicial overreach if they truly believe/d the law would ultimately vindicate their position on Bill 5? Lawyers often disagree with one another as do judges. It's actually a feature of our legal system. Ultimately, the legality of Bill 5 may well be decided by the Supreme Court. There are non-Charter arguments, rooted in long-established British parliamentary conventions and practices, that could serve to overturn Bill 5. Will that happen? Who knows, but at this point I think it too soon to pop champagne corks at Queen's Park. The whole fiasco has impinged the credibility of Ford and many of his ministers, including Caroline Mulroney. That Ford was willing to expend so much political capital - both personally as well as on the part of his government - on this rather picayune ego-driven crusade suggests that he lacks both seriousness and rational perspective.

[betsy]

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

Why, then, are and were Ford and his supporters so obstreperously agitated about judicial overreach if they truly believe/d the law would ultimately vindicate their position on Bill 5? Lawyers often disagree with one another as do judges. It's actually a feature of our legal system. Ultimately, the legality of Bill 5 may well be decided by the Supreme Court. There are non-Charter arguments, rooted in long-established British parliamentary conventions and practices, that could serve to overturn Bill 5. Will that happen? Who knows, but at this point I think it too soon to pop champagne corks at Queen's Park. The whole fiasco has impinged the credibility of Ford and many of his ministers, including Caroline Mulroney. That Ford was willing to expend so much political capital - both personally as well as on the part of his government - on this rather picayune ego-driven crusade suggests that he lacks both seriousness and rational perspective.

Whether it's "picayune" or not....that's subjective.   It may be picayune to you, but it's not to me.   I like to see the buck-saving start NOW! 

Let's just wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.  No point getting yourself all agitated..

Edited September 21, 2018 by betsy

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

?  He just WON.  This is the honeymoon period... he has shat himself in his first month in office.  Rob Ford at least had political smarts...

You don't get a honeymoon when you're a conservative. The hate from the Left is unrelenting.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

Why, then, are and were Ford and his supporters so obstreperously agitated about judicial overreach if they truly believe/d the law would ultimately vindicate their position on Bill 5?

I had no such confidence. I was fairly sure the appeals court and then the Supreme Court would overturn the idiotic decision on Trinity University's law school. After all, it was basically a carbon copy of the same issue with their teaching college. But progressiveness continues to ... progress, and they changed their minds. No reason to presume sanity would prevail here.

Quote

 The whole fiasco has impinged the credibility of Ford and many of his ministers, including Caroline Mulroney. 

The people who were shrill and angry about this stupid, minor thing hated Ford from the get-got anyway. Those middle of the road folks like me just shrug. I don't really approve of him doing this so close to an election and don't see the urgency but it's just no big deal to me. As for using the notwithstanding clause to kick an arrogant, overreaching judge in the ass - that I approve of.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

1.) I had no such confidence. I was fairly sure the appeals court and then the Supreme Court would overturn the idiotic decision on Trinity University's law school. After all, it was basically a carbon copy of the same issue with their teaching college. But progressiveness continues to ... progress, and they changed their minds. No reason to presume sanity would prevail here.

2.) The people who were shrill and angry about this stupid, minor thing hated Ford from the get-got anyway. Those middle of the road folks like me just shrug. I don't really approve of him doing this so close to an election and don't see the urgency but it's just no big deal to me. As for using the notwithstanding clause to kick an arrogant, overreaching judge in the ass - that I approve of.

 

5 hours ago, betsy said:

3.) Whether it's "picayune" or not....that's subjective.   It may be picayune to you, but it's not to me.   I like to see the buck-saving start NOW! 

4.) Let's just wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about this.  No point getting yourself all agitated..

1.) Of course, I was addressing Betsy's oddly and belatedly exuberant confidence.

2.) I don't agree with you here. As a Torontonian I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with a lot of people, including friends, acquaintances and neighbours. My observation is that opinions on the size of council are split. But there's much more negativity, and unity, on the way in which this matter was addressed by Ford. Polling reflects similar results, with a majority of Torontonians favoring the reduction in council seats while a majority of about two-thirds opposed Ford's notwithstanding clause tactics.

3.) Are you a Torontonian? If not, why would you care as municipal ratepayers pay the freight for the costs of running city hall? I read an article in today's Toronto Star indicating that the move is unlikely to save any money and in fact could well increase expenses if Harris's amalgamation fiasco is an appropriate point of comparison.

4.) Yes, let's see what happens. But don't fool yourself here. Most Torontonians - roughly two-thirds, according to polling, opposed use of the notwithstanding clause to override a judicial decision - were quite satisfied to let the issue make its way through the legal system. It's the Ford camp that was not. In a classic example of 'heads I win, tails you lose' logic, the agitated Ford government, cheered on by its agitated backers, gave the appeals court an ultimatum, demanding the original decision be stayed or the government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to get its own way. How's that for flipping the middle finger at the courts and the rule of law! And you've clearly been on the side of the agitated on this topic.

Edited September 21, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

You don't get a honeymoon when you're a conservative. The hate from the Left is unrelenting.

The honeymoon comes from the people.  Like 'the people's government'?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

You don't get a honeymoon when you're a conservative. The hate from the Left is unrelenting.

Do you think Caroline Mulroney would have had one?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you think Caroline Mulroney would have had one?

Probably. She was seen as more on the progressive side of the progressive conservatives. I've read a lot of anger at her alleged 'betrayal' for not publicly calling Ford names and quitting over the proposed use of the notwithstanding clause.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The honeymoon comes from the people.  Like 'the people's government'?

The honeymoon comes from those with public voices, and those with public voices are mainly on the Left side of the spectrum.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

2.) I don't agree with you here. As a Torontonian I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with a lot of people, including friends, acquaintances and neighbours. My observation is that opinions on the size of council are split. But there's much more negativity, and unity, on the way in which this matter was addressed by Ford. Polling reflects similar results, with a majority of Torontonians favoring the reduction in council seats while a majority of about two-thirds opposed Ford's notwithstanding clause tactics.

I'm not sure how reliable such polling is in the midst of the thing, given how many public voices were shrilly decrying the 'attack on democracy' and running around shrieking like it was the end of democratic government as we know it.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

 

1.) Of course, I was addressing Betsy's oddly and belatedly exuberant confidence.

2.) I don't agree with you here. As a Torontonian I've had the opportunity to discuss the matter with a lot of people, including friends, acquaintances and neighbours. My observation is that opinions on the size of council are split. But there's much more negativity, and unity, on the way in which this matter was addressed by Ford. Polling reflects similar results, with a majority of Torontonians favoring the reduction in council seats while a majority of about two-thirds opposed Ford's notwithstanding clause tactics.

3.) Are you a Torontonian? If not, why would you care as municipal ratepayers pay the freight for the costs of running city hall? I read an article in today's Toronto Star indicating that the move is unlikely to save any money and in fact could well increase expenses if Harris's amalgamation fiasco is an appropriate point of comparison.

4.) Yes, let's see what happens. But don't fool yourself here. Most Torontonians - roughly two-thirds, according to polling, opposed use of the notwithstanding clause to override a judicial decision - were quite satisfied to let the issue make its way through the legal system. It's the Ford camp that was not. In a classic example of 'heads I win, tails you lose' logic, the agitated Ford government, cheered on by its agitated backers, gave the appeals court an ultimatum, demanding the original decision be stayed or the government would invoke the notwithstanding clause to get its own way. How's that for flipping the middle finger at the courts and the rule of law! And you've clearly been on the side of the agitated on this topic.

It's irrelevant whether we're Torontonians or not.   May I remind you of our constitutional right - after all, isn't breach of free expression  what anti-Fords are accusing him of?

We have the right to our opinion. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by betsy

[turningrite]

11 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's irrelevant whether we're Torontonians or not.   May I remind you of our constitutional right - after all, isn't breach of free expression  what anti-Fords are accusing him of?

We have the right to our opinion. 

It's absolutely relevant. Obviously you're not a Torontonian and have no skin in this game. It's not your tax dollars that are at stake here. You've been exposed as a poseur on this so you should focus on your own neck of the woods. By the way, how many constituents does each local councillor serve in your town or city and how many constituents does your Ontario MPP serve? Just wondering.

Edited September 21, 2018 by turningrite