Ford eviscerates local GTA politics

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

1. You are being hysterical.

2. Do you work for city council or something? 

3. When the Liberals did a massive rework of Ontario's debt and associated contracts for electricity in order to lower electricity rates (and cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars) in order to enhance their election chances, how much discussion was there? It was simply announced as a wonderful thing!

4. GOOD!

5. Like what? What exactly has hindered the Liberals in doing whatever the hell they feel like doing, other than voter anger and their own future electoral prospects? 

6. This is more ridiculous hysteria. You're acting like a child whose favorite toy has been taken away.

 

 

1. This from the same people who choked on their own bile over M103 saying it would constrain expression.  Here you have a government declaring himself openly to be above the law.  Again, I would never defend any part who did this and I'm frankly disgusted that you would.

2. No.

3. Uh, no.  I for one didn't defend that lunacy and the people of Ontario sent Wynne packing.  There were plenty of press about her buying votes.  I would expect Ford Nation to be stupid enough to support him here, but not you.

4. You don't the courts should constrain government ?  It's worked pretty well up until now.  Now is exactly the wrong time to remove checks and balances on politicians.

5.  The courts.

6.  I have to read hyperbole from right-of-centre people all the time.  Now when the premier declares "I am the premier - that judge was appointed" you're all ok with it.

It's the worst kind of partisanship.  Without people who follow principles over parties, politics itself is dead and we are doomed.  If you like the idea of politics dying, then look at how much support Conservatives have in this country.  The Liberals would love to pass laws to eliminate your viewpoint entirely and I guess if you don't think the courts matter you will have to live with that.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Unless the premier contravenes it because he just wants to.

2. It doesn't matter, if you disagree with the ruling.  It doesn't vindicate Judge Ford declaring himself above the law. 

If you people can't see the difference here, I can't help you.  I would never defend a government who did this, no matter what party they were.

.....and if the Supreme Court strikes down the ruling? Where do you stand on that? Do you not hold the slightest doubt that perhaps this particular judge "over reached" with his interpretation? The clue I'll give you is his statement that it was done in a "fit of pique". How does this judge know that this decision was not an "all party" decision?  How does he conclude that 25 councilors takes away from "representation" - how does he know the new structure will not compensate for the larger constituent base? He doesn't. It was simply taken from the comments of the litigants. This judge is - unfortunately - part of the obstructionist barricade that has infected the Left side of the political spectrum.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Centerpiece

[betsy]

The judge  - Justice Belobaba - in this ruling is known for being a left-leaning judge.  He's been called an "activist."  

He's the same judge who made the ruling on the Khadr settlement, and had refused to freeze the payment to Khadr.

 

He is an appointee by Liberal PM Paul Martin.

Edited September 11, 2018 by betsy

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're just using this as an expression.  The premier is using the Notwithstanding Clause to fiddle with Toronto's council size.  This is something else entirely, and no premier has used the courts like this before.  Wynne was a financial disaster and cooked the books, disagreed with her own auditor but I challenge you to find a single post where I defended her for that.

She also pushed through the sex ed agenda, other things. Those are what made people turn towards Ford. Actually I believe they would have elected whomever was the leader of the PC party.

I couldn't care less what you have defended. I am talking about these issues, not you.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Partisans aren't interesting to discuss with, as they only toe the party line.

I 'm no partisan, and you are welcome to ignore me. I don't particularly like the way Ford was elected. At the time of the election I posted that the election of Doug Ford was an example of stupidity of the electorate.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

Apparently, you intend to have us believe that Michael Thompson's opinion amounts to a principle, right? I think his position somewhat disingenuous. Toronto's city council is characterized by ideological factionalism (i.e. informal parties) combined with a lot of regional (i.e. suburban) parochialism. This won't end with a 25 member council although perhaps debates might be a little less windy. The real problem, which has been noted by some analysts over the past couple days, is the "weak mayor" system under which the city operates. In a strong mayor system, a mayor would have the authority to limit debate, choose policy options and easily bring them to decisive votes. The province wants none of this as the mayor could acquire sufficient political clout to challenge provincial politicians and authority. I suspect Thompson and Ford's other allies on council are aware of this. Better to support the leader than talk about real principles and solutions, I guess.

It's all about opinions. The judge gave an opinion, and it is being questioned by many who have deeper knowledge of the interpretation of the charter. No one has come out to say that Doug Ford is out of line, or that what he's doing is illegal. Even the PM hasn't said much, other than how disappointed he is about frivolous use of the notwithstanding clause. I'm sure they're all consulting with law experts right now and looking for alternatives. We shall see.

Aside from the legal aspects involving the charter, the overall initiative to reduce government bloat sits well with many Ontarians. Many Torontonians have voiced support for the change, including councillors themselves, which tells me that the principle for making this change is justified. I watched CTV tonight and they interviewed people in the streets to ask what they think. Not a one had anything bad to say about the idea of reducing the size of city council. I was a little surprised at that. I thought I would hear a lot worse.

ETA-

Quote

The province wants none of this as the mayor could acquire sufficient political clout to challenge provincial politicians and authority.

I disagree that is the reason. Has that idea ever been tabled for serious discussion in Toronto? If not, why not.
I say with the current system in city hall, they could never pass a change like that. The councillors would oppose it... there is the real issue.
 

Edited September 11, 2018 by OftenWrong

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This from the same people who choked on their own bile over M103 saying it would constrain expression. 

Well, I didn't. My fear was it was a leadup to a study which would then recommend constraints on freedom of expression. And for all we know it might well have been, but they backed off due to the fuss. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here you have a government declaring himself openly to be above the law.  Again, I would never defend any part who did this and I'm frankly disgusted that you would.

Seriously? I've sent ten years complaining about the courts, judicial overreach, judicial activism, and how they clearly are letting their own ideological preferences and biases decide rulings instead of the law, and you're surprised I would side with a government telling one of them to go to hell? You clearly haven't been reading any of my posts on the subject.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Uh, no.  I for one didn't defend that lunacy and the people of Ontario sent Wynne packing.  There were plenty of press about her buying votes. 

And they'll be plenty of press on this. After the fact. Just like the press and complaints were after the fact on the electricity thing. There was no consultation.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. You don't the courts should constrain government ?  It's worked pretty well up until now.  Now is exactly the wrong time to remove checks and balances on politicians.

I've already explained the reasons for my growing disenchantment with the legal system and its activist judges.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

6.  I have to read hyperbole from right-of-centre people all the time.  Now when the premier declares "I am the premier - that judge was appointed" you're all ok with it.

But I've never respected the Charter. I've never liked the mess it's made of our legal system, nor the big profits its made for lawyers, nor the big delays it's caused the system, nor the growing judicial activism. If you're surprised I sided with Ford over a judge engaged in judicial overreach you haven't been paying any attention anything I've written on the subject.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Without people who follow principles over parties, politics itself is dead and we are doomed. 

Then it's dead and doomed, because none of our major parties has any principles, nor has had any for some time.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

f you like the idea of politics dying, then look at how much support Conservatives have in this country. 

The conservatives have less support than the Left because the Left buys votes. Pure and simple. Vote for me and look at all this FREE cash I'll give you! A cheque to your door every month people! Don't worry where it comes from and don't worry about deficits! It's FREE!

That there is the basic party platform for both the NDP and the Liberals. How are conservatives supposed to compete with that, to outbid that? It wouldn't go with their rep to offer up even more free cash than the left, so they're kind of screwed as far as the popular vote goes.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The Liberals would love to pass laws to eliminate your viewpoint entirely and I guess if you don't think the courts matter you will have to live with that.

What makes you think the courts would get in their way? We have extremely left-wing, progressive judges. If the Liberals put further restrictions on freedom of speech as they've done in the UK and France "in order to combat racism and hate speech and islamophobia" what makes you think most judges wouldn't stand up and cheer?

[taxme]

On 9/10/2018 at 5:23 PM, Wilber said:

Drain the swamp. Great slogan. Trouble is the people chanting it have no clue what to replace the alleged swamp with past idolizing their guy. Draining the swamp to them is giving someone  dictatorial powers.

No clue as to what to replace it with, you say? Unh? Are you for real? Well then you might as well just keep voting for those same swampsters who are always telling you that they are all so interested in your well being. LOL. Vote liberal next election. LOL. If it takes giving power to a dictator to drain the swamp well that dictator can't be all that bad, eh? There are probably plenty of good dictators out there who are ready and wiling to drain a swamp. I like dictator Trump. I do not like dictator Trudeau though. He is a swampster.   

[Wilber]

11 minutes ago, taxme said:

No clue as to what to replace it with, you say? Unh? Are you for real? Well then you might as well just keep voting for those same swampsters who are always telling you that they are all so interested in your well being. LOL. Vote liberal next election. LOL. If it takes giving power to a dictator to drain the swamp well that dictator can't be all that bad, eh? There are probably plenty of good dictators out there who are ready and wiling to drain a swamp. I like dictator Trump. I do not like dictator Trudeau though. He is a swampster.   

So what do you replace it with, Ford's swamp? All I see is you ranting. People like you are the reason dictators come to power. Show me a good dictator. Putin? Duarte? al Assad? Would you rather live in today's Chile or Pinochet's Chile? If you choose the later, you are an idiot.

[taxme]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So what do you replace it with, Ford's swamp? All I see is you ranting. People like you are the reason dictators come to power. Show me a good dictator. Putin? Duarte? al Assad? Would you rather live in today's Chile or Pinochet's Chile? If you choose the later, you are an idiot.

Ford wants to replace the lefty liberal corruption swamp and has no intentions of replacing this present swamp with another swamp. You appear to be ranting yourself here? So, whats your point? It is more people like you who are responsible for voting in dictators like Wynne and Trudeau to come to power by voting for them. Hillary and Obama, Stalin and Mao were great dictators. I would rather live in a Trump or Doug Ford country rather than a Wynne and Trudeau communist country. If you have chosen the latter to live in than you are the idiot, not me. Just saying.  

[OftenWrong]

Now that's what I call perfect symmetry. Modern politics has been distilled down to the simplest of choices- pick your preferred dictator!

[Wilber]

20 minutes ago, taxme said:

Ford wants to replace the lefty liberal corruption swamp and has no intentions of replacing this present swamp with another swamp. You appear to be ranting yourself here? So, whats your point? It is more people like you who are responsible for voting in dictators like Wynne and Trudeau to come to power by voting for them. Hillary and Obama, Stalin and Mao were great dictators. I would rather live in a Trump or Doug Ford country rather than a Wynne and Trudeau communist country. If you have chosen the latter to live in than you are the idiot, not me. Just saying.  

So what is he going to replace it with, his own cronies? The trouble with you guys is you have no other plan than blowing things up. Blowing stuff up is easy, building stuff is hard. It takes actual thought and hard work.

Hillary and Obama = Stalin and Mao. You really are an idiot.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Wilber

[OftenWrong]

7 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Hillary and Obama = Stalin and Mao. You really are an idiot.

Hyperbole is coming from both sides. "Doug Ford is running a dictatorship."

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Hyperbole is coming from both sides. "Doug Ford is running a dictatorship."

We MUST protect our city councilors! They're central to our entire way of life!! 

[Wilber]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Hyperbole is coming from both sides. "Doug Ford is running a dictatorship."

I'm didn't say that but it doesn't mean he wouldn't like to. He certainly wouldn't be unique in that respect. That's why we have things like constitutions and courts to discourage them.

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Wilber said:

I'm didn't say that but it doesn't mean he wouldn't like to. He certainly wouldn't be unique in that respect. That's why we have things like constitutions and courts to discourage them.

I know you didn't say it, someone else did. I doubt he would like to. I have no doubt the premier gets top legal advice.

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

We MUST protect our city councilors! They're central to our entire way of life!! 

I think people who are feeling distressed about this should take a deep breath, and maybe go to the quiet room for a while.

[Wilber]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

I know you didn't say it, someone else did. I doubt he would like to. I have no doubt the premier gets top legal advice.

I think there is a bit of wannabe dictator in most leaders. It is natural to be frustrated by the limits of power. That's why we need to have institutions that can enforce those limits.

[OftenWrong]

12 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I think there is a bit of wannabe dictator in most leaders. It is natural to be frustrated by the limits of power. That's why we need to have institutions that can enforce those limits.

Agreed. I have confidence that our system of controls are robust enough to survive Doug Ford. I'm also pleased that there's an option to overturn politically biased decisions made by activist judges. 

[Boges]

If this and the sex ed curriculum is what the Left are going to get emotional about to the point of outright panic. . . Then I'd say DoFo is doing a great job. 

I waver between tacit support and outright apathy to this story. 47 full-time councillors making 6-figures is a lot. 

[GostHacked]

On 7/29/2018 at 10:52 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1) Trump faced far more barriers to office...some were even self inflicted...but Ford cruised to easy victory on very short notice.   Ontario knew what it wanted...and what it would no longer tolerate.

2) The basics of "democracy" aren't suddenly different just because it coughs up an unexpected result.  Doug Ford has mandated power, and it looks like he damn well intends to use it.    Remember another democratically elected Canadian's words, "Just watch me."

I understand your obsession with the USA but this is a thread about Doug Ford.   Even Americans cannot resist throwing 'Trump' in the mix.

[Wilber]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Agreed. I have confidence that our system of controls are robust enough to survive Doug Ford. I'm also pleased that there's an option to overturn politically biased decisions made by activist judges. 

A politically biased option of course as are all options used by politicians. Our system has a constitution that gives the courts power to prevent populist governments from stomping all over the rights of citizens just because they are elected. The tyranny of the majority. I am also frustrated at times by some of the decisions those courts make but at least it has its base in law, not political expediency and although not perfect, I can’t think of a better one. 

This judge didn’t say it can’t be done,  just that doing it so close to an election is not democratic and is unfair to the electorate.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Wilber said:

I think there is a bit of wannabe dictator in most leaders. It is natural to be frustrated by the limits of power. That's why we need to have institutions that can enforce those limits.

What enforces limits on the judiciary?

[Wilber]

Just now, Argus said:

What enforces limits on the judiciary?

The Law, the Constitution and Charter.

[turningrite]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

What enforces limits on the judiciary?

The judge who overturned Ford's law reducing the size of Toronto's city council does not possess absolute authority. The provincial government can appeal his decision and ultimately the decision of an appeals court can be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is a built-in even if cumbersome system of accountability where the judiciary is concerned. But, other than the courts, who holds majority governments accountable in our system? That role is intended to be filled by the courts. Of course, voters can turf a government, but usually only can do so after an extended period of time. We have to consider whether the applicability of the notwithstanding clause to democratic rights in fact renders our system less democratic than is the case in, say, the U.S., where courts exert considerable restraint on legislative and executive authority, as Trump has realized, much to his chagrin. Ford's action highlights a major weakness in our system that we need to seriously examine. Personally, I believe democratic rights (Sections 3 to 5) shouldn't be subject to the notwithstanding clause.

[Wilber]

All the things we have been apologizing for the past couple of decades, residential schools, head taxes, putting Japanese Canadians in camps and taking their property, Komogata Maru, St. Louis etc, were the result of a tyranny of the majority by elected governments. How many of them would have been possible with our Charter of Rights and how many governments would have invoked the notwithstanding clause to implement them?