Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Politics Discussion
(09-10-2018, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:01 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Looks like their plan is to use the notwithstanding clause.  I'd hope that everybody could agree this is a ridiculous idea and a dangerous precedent.  But these days...

It is an appalling idea, but I have no doubt that loyal members of Ford Nation will support it.   Whether anyone in the PC caucus has the cojones to stand up against it remains to be seen (has the Premier already run it by caucus?  I shouldn't think there was time).  I really wonder what the City of Toronto is supposed to do now pending further court action, recall of Parliament, and invocation of the notwithstanding clause?  Do they prepare for an election of 47 councillors? 25 councillors?  Both?  Neither?

Toronto's election is void, that much should already be the case.

As for the notwithstanding clause, his choice to use it in this instance should be disqualifying.  If the PC party wishes us to have any respect for them ever again, they should immediately recall Ford, and run a leadership race.
Reply


Superior court justices are appointed federally, and in this case it would likely have been by Paul Martin.

As a bit of a smokescreen, Ford has also announced he will use the notwithstanding clause should the government lose any court battles over sex education or the termination of the basic income pilot. Seems Ford sees it as a bit of a dictatorial veto.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:24 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Superior court justices are appointed federally, and in this case it would likely have been by Paul Martin.

As a bit of a smokescreen, Ford has also announced he will use the notwithstanding clause should the government lose any court battles over sex education or the termination of the basic income pilot. Seems Ford sees it as a bit of a dictatorial veto.

No no, you see he was elected, he cannot be a dictator...

I have no doubt he's simple enough to believe this.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:24 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Superior court justices are appointed federally, and in this case it would likely have been by Paul Martin.

As a bit of a smokescreen, Ford has also announced he will use the notwithstanding clause should the government lose any court battles over sex education or the termination of the basic income pilot. Seems Ford sees it as a bit of a dictatorial veto.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:01 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Looks like their plan is to use the notwithstanding clause.  I'd hope that everybody could agree this is a ridiculous idea and a dangerous precedent.  But these days...

It is an appalling idea, but I have no doubt that loyal members of Ford Nation will support it.   Whether anyone in the PC caucus has the cojones to stand up against it remains to be seen (has the Premier already run it by caucus?  I shouldn't think there was time).  I really wonder what the City of Toronto is supposed to do now pending further court action, recall of Parliament, and invocation of the notwithstanding clause?  Do they prepare for an election of 47 councillors? 25 councillors?  Both?  Neither?

In my view, the City Clerk should have proceeded with 47 councillors in the first place, pending judicial review. I understand that they have already done a lot of work towards running a 25-ward election; and at this point are the 47-ward nominations even valid? There are really at least two separate issues going on: changing the next election after 2018 (currently scheduled for 2022, but the Province could change that, making it earlier or later), and changing the 2018 election.

A reasonable discussion can be had about what should happen in the next election. I happen to disagree with the idea that reducing per capita representation in Toronto way below what (almost?) any other city in the province has is not a good idea, but as I say a reasonable discussion can be had. There is however no reasonable discussion to be had as to whether an election that is already in progress should be changed: that is clearly stupid, even if the change itself were clearly an improvement.
Reply
Notwithstanding clause you say?

https://twitter.com/cp24/status/1039214268393156608
_____________________________________
I used to be the mayor of sim city. I know what I am talking about.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:45 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It is an appalling idea, but I have no doubt that loyal members of Ford Nation will support it.   Whether anyone in the PC caucus has the cojones to stand up against it remains to be seen (has the Premier already run it by caucus?  I shouldn't think there was time).  I really wonder what the City of Toronto is supposed to do now pending further court action, recall of Parliament, and invocation of the notwithstanding clause?  Do they prepare for an election of 47 councillors? 25 councillors?  Both?  Neither?

In my view, the City Clerk should have proceeded with 47 councillors in the first place, pending judicial review. I understand that they have already done a lot of work towards running a 25-ward election; and at this point are the 47-ward nominations even valid? There are really at least two separate issues going on: changing the next election after 2018 (currently scheduled for 2022, but the Province could change that, making it earlier or later), and changing the 2018 election.

A reasonable discussion can be had about what should happen in the next election. I happen to disagree with the idea that reducing per capita representation in Toronto way below what (almost?) any other city in the province has is not a good idea, but as I say a reasonable discussion can be had. There is however no reasonable discussion to be had as to whether an election that is already in progress should be changed: that is clearly stupid, even if the change itself were clearly an improvement.

To put it another way, anyone who agrees with what Ford did and how he did it, is inherently unreasonable.

And yet, there are literally millions of Ontarians who feel this way--even in Toronto.  I find that utterly terrifying.
Reply


(09-10-2018, 04:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:24 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: Superior court justices are appointed federally, and in this case it would likely have been by Paul Martin.

As a bit of a smokescreen, Ford has also announced he will use the notwithstanding clause should the government lose any court battles over sex education or the termination of the basic income pilot. Seems Ford sees it as a bit of a dictatorial veto.

No no, you see he was elected, he cannot be a dictator...

I have no doubt he's simple enough to believe this.


The notwithstanding clause is ridiculous because it actually does give the elected Government dictatorial powers.  The only real check is the belief that using it has a very steep cost across party lines. It’s up to us to make that clear to Ford
Reply
(09-10-2018, 06:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:45 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: In my view, the City Clerk should have proceeded with 47 councillors in the first place, pending judicial review. I understand that they have already done a lot of work towards running a 25-ward election; and at this point are the 47-ward nominations even valid? There are really at least two separate issues going on: changing the next election after 2018 (currently scheduled for 2022, but the Province could change that, making it earlier or later), and changing the 2018 election.

A reasonable discussion can be had about what should happen in the next election. I happen to disagree with the idea that reducing per capita representation in Toronto way below what (almost?) any other city in the province has is not a good idea, but as I say a reasonable discussion can be had. There is however no reasonable discussion to be had as to whether an election that is already in progress should be changed: that is clearly stupid, even if the change itself were clearly an improvement.

To put it another way, anyone who agrees with what Ford did and how he did it, is inherently unreasonable.

And yet, there are literally millions of Ontarians who feel this way--even in Toronto.  I find that utterly terrifying.
Which means there are millions of Ontarians with a differing opinion to yours.  Why is it that you label them if they dont agree with your opinion ?  I have never understood this position, if people appose your opinion on a topic they are some how inferior or any other stated description that seems to behold a particular situation.  Imagine if everyone thought the exact thing, or shared the same opinion on every subject.  We would never have growth and development..    Perhaps time for self-reflection is in order ...
Reply
(09-10-2018, 06:26 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: The notwithstanding clause is ridiculous because it actually does give the elected Government dictatorial powers.  The only real check is the belief that using it has a very steep cost across party lines. It’s up to us to make that clear to Ford

And it expires every five years.
Reply
The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 04:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 04:11 PM)panamaniac Wrote: It is an appalling idea, but I have no doubt that loyal members of Ford Nation will support it.   Whether anyone in the PC caucus has the cojones to stand up against it remains to be seen (has the Premier already run it by caucus?  I shouldn't think there was time).  I really wonder what the City of Toronto is supposed to do now pending further court action, recall of Parliament, and invocation of the notwithstanding clause?  Do they prepare for an election of 47 councillors? 25 councillors?  Both?  Neither?

Toronto's election is void, that much should already be the case.

As for the notwithstanding clause, his choice to use it in this instance should be disqualifying.  If the PC party wishes us to have any respect for them ever again, they should immediately recall Ford, and run a leadership race.

I think Ford will need to introduce a new bill while invoking the notwithstanding clause, he cannot retroactively apply it to a bill formerly passed. So figure on another week to pass while they get done (assuming not obstruction tactics by the opposition) -- and while the city considers its next step. I agree the city may have to postpone the election, which surely takes us to even less charted waters.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 07:17 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 06:22 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: To put it another way, anyone who agrees with what Ford did and how he did it, is inherently unreasonable.

And yet, there are literally millions of Ontarians who feel this way--even in Toronto.  I find that utterly terrifying.
Which means there are millions of Ontarians with a differing opinion to yours.  Why is it that you label them if they dont agree with your opinion ?  I have never understood this position, if people appose your opinion on a topic they are some how inferior or any other stated description that seems to behold a particular situation.  Imagine if everyone thought the exact thing, or shared the same opinion on every subject.  We would never have growth and development..    Perhaps time for self-reflection is in order ...

This is not a matter of opinion.  This is a question of objective reality.

This is no different than climate change.  I disagree with many people on how best to combat, or even whether to combat climate change.

But disagreeing on whether it is happening or not isn't a matter of opinion.

I argue this is the same thing.  It's perfectly reasonable to disagree on what size Toronto city council should be, or even the degree to which the public or experts should be consulted on the decision.

But I do not feel it is reasonable to believe that his decision wasn't politically motivated and that doing it during an election with zero consultation of any kind was a good idea.  I don't think that's an opinion.  And that belief has now been backed up by a court decision.

This is an affliction in today's society I feel, the idea that your opinion is just as good as reality.

If we don't have any objective reality, then we have nothing.

I spend plenty of time reflecting on my own positions. I wish others did as well.
Reply


(09-10-2018, 07:48 PM)jgsz Wrote: The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.

I dont like this line of reasoning in these cases.  I agree with a lot of the problems of a representative system like we have.  But it’s what we have and it works as intended.  People are going to tune out to this argument.  

Overruling the courts on charter matters because you can (and intending to use it regularly) is NOT how our system was intended to work.  And we really don’t want it to work this way.
Reply
(09-10-2018, 08:21 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 07:48 PM)jgsz Wrote: The real issue is that a minority is pushing the majority around - again.  Ford got only 40.49 percent of the popular vote.  I fully understand how our electoral system ‘works.’  But that’s just wrong. In a true democracy the majority governs.

I dont like this line of reasoning in these cases.  I agree with a lot of the problems of a representative system like we have.  But it’s what we have and it works as intended.  People are going to tune out to this argument.  

Overruling the courts on charter matters because you can (and intending to use it regularly) is NOT how our system was intended to work.  And we really don’t want it to work this way.

I agree. I would like a (more?) proportional electoral system but this is what we have today, and we need to accept that this is how things work.

But the notwithstanding clause was certainly not intended or settling personal grudges with a lower level of government.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links