Post by Mark Dewdney on Mar 27, 2010 23:41:21 GMT -5
You know, I'm interested to hear what you all think about Rob Ford's proposed reduction from 44 to 22 councillors.
Rob says that it's worth doing just to avoid more millions in councillorly waste (that's not bad).
My wife says that it's worth doing because it would be easier to get things done with 22; less people to have to convince, so decisions would be faster.
I happen to agree with both, though
a) I think that spending rules for councillors should be set 1) a lot lower and 2) not by councillors themselves, which would solve a lot of the waste and corrupt practices,
and
b) I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to hijack a 22-person council into making a mistake - or easier for one person to get a majority and ram their wants through.
For example, can we imagine if David Miller had only 22 councillors to convince?
Let's start with the East York Gang Of Three (apologies to Case Ootes); Paula Fletcher, Sandra Bussin and Janet Davis. With Miller's own vote, there's 4.
Now add Miller lapdogs Giambrone, Pantalone, Moscoe, Lindsay Luby and you've got 8.
Giorgio Mammoliti can be unpredictable, but he's alongside Miller most of the time, while Pam McConnell, Adam Vaughn and Kyle Rae DO seem to think for themselves most of the time - but think like Miller a lot, so they're all in too.
There's twelve you could count on routinely - and there are at LEAST five weaker councillors who were routinely browbeaten into submission by chamber Speaker Bussin - so you've got yourself an easy majority.
Let's put it the other way, for those of you who still lean left despite the proof of the last four years;
What if Rob Ford wins? (Entirely likely, never mind possible, given the backlash I'm seeing in Ward 30).
If it's as bad as it seems for the NDPers, then you can COUNT on at LEAST Bussin and Fletcher disappearing.
Assuming Pantalone stays the course in the mayoral race (something he'd be suicidal to do) then you lose him.
Kyle Rae's jumped ship ahead of the tidal wave (always thought Kyle was smart, maybe one of the most politically astute of the bunch, believe it or not), so there's another gone.
That's 4 gone at a MINIMUM.
Now, you've got conservatives and "blue" Liberals contesting Case Ootes' old ward.
Then, round it out by adding smart and tough-minded Doug Holyday, Ward 39's Mike Del Grande, Suzan Hall, the superscrappy Frances Nunziata...
There's a minimum of 9 councillors that will, more often than not, vote their pocketbooks and consciences rather than trying to make money off the taxpayers.
It's WAY too early to make pronouncements on most wards, but even if we assume a split, then you'll see at LEAST 4 more right-of-centre councillors - giving you that self-same 12-councillor majority.
In other words, with 22 councillors, the left wing can FORGET about ANY of their priorities for the next 4, maybe 8 years (maybe even 12 or 16 if we can balance the books, at which point the left will ride again to spend the surplus and plunge us back into a Millerly Dark Age...)
So - there you have it. What's your take?
Rob says that it's worth doing just to avoid more millions in councillorly waste (that's not bad).
My wife says that it's worth doing because it would be easier to get things done with 22; less people to have to convince, so decisions would be faster.
I happen to agree with both, though
a) I think that spending rules for councillors should be set 1) a lot lower and 2) not by councillors themselves, which would solve a lot of the waste and corrupt practices,
and
b) I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to hijack a 22-person council into making a mistake - or easier for one person to get a majority and ram their wants through.
For example, can we imagine if David Miller had only 22 councillors to convince?
Let's start with the East York Gang Of Three (apologies to Case Ootes); Paula Fletcher, Sandra Bussin and Janet Davis. With Miller's own vote, there's 4.
Now add Miller lapdogs Giambrone, Pantalone, Moscoe, Lindsay Luby and you've got 8.
Giorgio Mammoliti can be unpredictable, but he's alongside Miller most of the time, while Pam McConnell, Adam Vaughn and Kyle Rae DO seem to think for themselves most of the time - but think like Miller a lot, so they're all in too.
There's twelve you could count on routinely - and there are at LEAST five weaker councillors who were routinely browbeaten into submission by chamber Speaker Bussin - so you've got yourself an easy majority.
Let's put it the other way, for those of you who still lean left despite the proof of the last four years;
What if Rob Ford wins? (Entirely likely, never mind possible, given the backlash I'm seeing in Ward 30).
If it's as bad as it seems for the NDPers, then you can COUNT on at LEAST Bussin and Fletcher disappearing.
Assuming Pantalone stays the course in the mayoral race (something he'd be suicidal to do) then you lose him.
Kyle Rae's jumped ship ahead of the tidal wave (always thought Kyle was smart, maybe one of the most politically astute of the bunch, believe it or not), so there's another gone.
That's 4 gone at a MINIMUM.
Now, you've got conservatives and "blue" Liberals contesting Case Ootes' old ward.
Then, round it out by adding smart and tough-minded Doug Holyday, Ward 39's Mike Del Grande, Suzan Hall, the superscrappy Frances Nunziata...
There's a minimum of 9 councillors that will, more often than not, vote their pocketbooks and consciences rather than trying to make money off the taxpayers.
It's WAY too early to make pronouncements on most wards, but even if we assume a split, then you'll see at LEAST 4 more right-of-centre councillors - giving you that self-same 12-councillor majority.
In other words, with 22 councillors, the left wing can FORGET about ANY of their priorities for the next 4, maybe 8 years (maybe even 12 or 16 if we can balance the books, at which point the left will ride again to spend the surplus and plunge us back into a Millerly Dark Age...)
So - there you have it. What's your take?