October 6th, 2006
JOHN LORINC COLUMN: Who stole David Miller?
Posted by John Lorinc
Who stole David Miller?
When the Liberals used to rule Ottawa, astute political observers often pointed out that the Chretien/Martin crowd liked to campaign left and govern right. In this election, so far, it would seem that David Miller is attempting to reverse that formula, although the second part of the equation remains to be seen.
How else to explain the paper-thin promise he made yesterday — $28 million to Toronto’s 13 distressed neighbourhoods, spread over four years. Do the math, and that works out to be just over $500,000 per neighbourhood per year — a bit less than what the city’s works department requested last winter to hire six new enforcement officers. In fact, the annual cost of Miller’s new program adds up to a princely 0.1% of the city’s total spending. How’s that for commitment? All those low-income, at-risk, gang-involved youth we’ve been talking about so earnestly these part three years — let’s pitch them what amounts to a rounding error and hope for the best. (Oh yes, and cops, too, but that comes out of another budget.) Miller has been saying in his stump speeches lately that in his Toronto, “no one will be left behind.” But this line is not only eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” education reform slogan; it also has a distinctly hollow ring, given yesterday’s developments. Municipal spending alone won’t solve the problems for young people growing up in poor neighbourhoods, but it’s hard to imagine that what Miller plans to ante up will do much other than generate a few more summer jobs.
Rather, the miniscule sum appears to be a rebuttal to Jane Pitfield’s accusations about Miller’s apparent profligacy, repeated yesterday when she released a package of fiscal control promises that seem lifted directly from John Tory’s 2003 election run and last week’s recycling pile. He has said in recent days that he is proud of being tagged the $1 billion man — her rimshot line about all the additional money in the city budget that came in from Ottawa and the province. But that bravaura disappears when it comes to actually spending the cash the city raises from its own taxpayers on the issues most of us deem to be vitally important.
Increasingly, the emerging image of Miller’s sense of his own role is that of the lobbyist-in-chief rather than chief magistrate. He’ll gladly harangue the upper levels for all sorts of reforms — equalizing the business education tax, uploading social service costs, banning handguns, whatever. Yet don’t look to his administration to make politically tough decisions about raising taxes or finding new sources of money to finance local needs, from tearing down the Gardiner to building new community centres in hard-scrabble neighbourhoods in the inner suburbs.
And here’s the catch: a mayor’s who’s long cast himself as a progressive figures he’ll get away with this kind of right-of-centre positioning because the downtown, left-leaning voters have nowhere else to go. Or do they?
photo by Sam Javanrouh
Loading ...
Comments
Reading your column I began to think that despite Miller’s underwhelming campaign thus far, he’s all progressive voters have to turn to. You ask at the end “Or do they?” but what other options do we have? Certainly not Pitfield or LeDrew. Can anyone pitch a better left-of-centre candidate who actually has a chance to winning. If I decide that Miller was the best person to clean up City Hall but not the best to lead it through the next steps of city building, I have no idea where to turn.
Comment by Mason
October 6, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
i agree with Mason. He has indeed, been far from perfect, or even nearly the man he promised to be 3 years, ago. But, to vote into power anybody else running this time around would be a giant step backwards. He’s a small, slow step in the right direction. I say, let this election scare him into a better performance . Regarding announcements made yesterday, I’d say his intention there was to merely repeat to those who hadn’t heard before, that, instead of Pitfield’s more police proposal, Miller has focused on helping the youth with jobs, etc. in the toughest of neighbourhoods. It helps him to stand apart from that redicilous “we need more cops view” . To make it look like he’s investing significantly more in these programs was a bit of a farce, but, it was part of strategy, and that’s what all this is about -
Comment by Bob
October 6, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
I thought closing the island airport would solve all the city’s problems in perpetuity… It’s so sad that Miller has to feed his downtown activist-progressive types their contemporary Spadina Expwy morsel and rub their bellies to obviating the fact that he hasn’t much to say on any other matter which intelligent, objectve people might actally care about. Left or right, I think the City needs a tyrannical outsider to come in and seriously shake things up.
Comment by Tom B.
October 6, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
Miller has not said anything of intelligence? A tyrannical outsider?
Tom — I understand there are some things about Miller that have not played out well. But he is by far the mostr intelligent mayor we’ve hd in sometime. lastman was tyrannical and we got nothing from him except no tax increase so that a future mayor could inheirit it.
Your type of thinking that makes this city move backwards and second-guess every move the city tries to make. Most any observer of City Hall, except for Sue Ann Levy and Royson James (two people who benfited from Lastman’s reign who were always fed city hall leaks but no longer receive them), will tell you that life is not rosy at 100 Queen West but it is much better than what we had. And since we’re only 8 years into amalgamation, there are going to be stupid, slow things that get in the way. But to think that Miller is dumb and pandering is unbelievably naive. For better or for worse, he is the best we have that is willing to lead this city. Spend some time at City Council and you’ll understand why we are in this mess — it is not Miller and “the NDP agenda”, it is petty councillors like Nunziata, and Ootes and Holyday and Del Grande who are the nightmares. You’ll quickly understand why we are in this mess.
Comment by Stef
October 6, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
There is no doubt that David Miller is far superior to his predecessor, and has put in a respectable performance. But in politics, as the old saying goes, you dance with the one that brung ya. His core supporters are progressive and urban-minded and are mainly concentrated in the older core areas of the city. In an election where he’s got a commanding lead and a weak opponents, he shouldn’t be taking their support for granted, even if there isn’t a solid challenger on his left.
Comment by John Lorinc
October 7, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Totally disagree with the reader who said voting for anyone but Miller would be a step backward. What?
I contend that voting for Miller is a step backward. Toronto has continued to stagnate under his so-called leadership and another 4 years will only further compound the problem. Aside from many photo-ops he has accomplished nothing.
I for one to not look forward to my taxes rising another 12% (on top of the 9% Miller has already imposed), while this out of touch left wing city council continues to spend like drunken sailors.
Comment by Gary Powell
October 13, 2006 @ 10:43 am