At some point in the year to come, reality will jump up and bite Mayor Rob Ford on the nose, forcing him to depart from his tightly-scripted waste ‘n subways agenda. Of course, I have no idea what form his encounter with the untidy world of urban politics will take. But that moment of reckoning is lurking out there, waiting to mug him and his merry band of gravy-fighting conservatives.
That inevitable crisis will give us all a much crisper sense of Ford’s ability to lead — certainly far more than we know now, based only on the size of his mandate and then his much-touted hat-trick during council’s inaugural session.
Indeed, anyone who watched the election knows Ford can stay on message. But the curve-ball dilemmas of governing call for skills other than campaign-style discipline and spin. Yet it remains to be seen whether our strikingly cosseted mayor – he of the three-minute scrums – can think on his feet, respond to unforeseen events in meaningful ways, and perhaps even allow for errors in judgment.
There are many instructive examples about the ways in which governments and leaders grow in office (or not) when confronted with crisis:
• The reckless bureaucratic downsizing in the ministry of the environment was implicated in the Walkerton water contamination disaster, which ultimately left Mike Harris’s Progressive Conservatives contrite and politically vulnerable.
• After the Toronto Star revealed wide-spread rodent infestation in Toronto restaurants, Mayor Mel Lastman gave his medical officer of health carte blanche to implement a tough new inspection system designed to, uh, ferret out dirty operators – a long over-due reform the mayor would never have considered otherwise.
• The looming debt crisis facing Ottawa in the early 1990s forced Jean Chretien’s Liberals to take drastic measures to eliminate the federal deficit – a controversial reform the Grits never supported previously. More recently, when the global financial crisis threatened to destroy Canada’s economy, Stephen Harper’s Tories, facing intense pressure from business economists and the opposition, reversed long-standing fiscal policies and enacted a massive stimulus program.
• Closer to home, gun-related homicides early in David Miller’s first term pushed him to acknowledge that some parts of the city were anything but safe — a reversal that ran counter to his upbeat campaign rhetoric and ultimately led to the establishment of community safety policies targeting priority neighbourhoods.
In fact, Miller’s chilly initiation occurred when he failed to publicly express his sympathy to the mother of a young shooting victim. Stung by the criticism, he seemed to learn from the experience, as became evident when the city and the police didn’t flinch in the face of the wave of gang-related shootings in 2006. Such episodes also pushed Miller and his council to alter the way the City delivers services and policing to low-income/high-crime suburban neighbourhoods.
Confronted with the inevitable catastrophe, will Ford, like his predecessors, reveal an ability to grow and mature in this most demanding of jobs?
It’s a controversial question among progressives. Some absolutely want him to fail, and fail quickly, so voters will recognize the folly of their collective choices and prevent him from inflicting lasting damage on the city and its operations.
But I must confess some ambivalence on this point. In my view, large tracts of Ford’s political agenda are unrealistic, ill-considered and intentionally divisive. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s good for the health of the city to see a mayor go down in flames, either due to council gridlock, or in response to external events.
I’d rather that Ford find within himself not just the ability to make common cause with his rivals (and they, him), but also the capacity to understand that Toronto’s story is much more complicated than a Punch-and-Judy show.
20 comments
I suspect that Ford will resign before the end of his term due to a combination of scandals and discovering that reality is interfering too much with his vision of how things should work. It might even happen Sarah Palin style with him quitting for no obvious reason and then setting his sights on a higher office (followed by him failing to achieve it).
John, it seems that the media (of which you are a part) should be looking into what appears to be a major recalibration of Rob Ford’s election platform.
Perhaps the singular most memorable promise of the campaign was “No service cuts”.
It is a simple promise to make – one that is easily understood and easily verifiable.
But now we see the library board, faced with a mandated 0% budget increase, looking at reducing new book purchases (leading to longer wait times for books) and closing a downtown branch. One can debate whether these are justifiable cuts or not, but they certainly are service cuts (especially if you live in the downtown neighbourhood that will now not have a library accessible on foot).
In the face of this, the mayor’s spokeswoman, Adrienne Batra “the mayor has been very clear – he doesn’t want to see any major service cuts.”
A “*major*” service cut is a different kettle of fish than a “service cut”. What is or isn’t major can always be debated.
So it seems that the reality of simple arithmetic is biting the Rob Ford “no service cuts” promise. The goalposts appear to be moving. Can you verify whether the inclusion of the “major” modifier represents a misstatement or the mayor walking back a major election promise?
Seems like this should be a major story, no?
While I too, would rather another Mayor had taken the helm of our fine city, I agree that devoting our considerable energies toward further divisiveness than has already been incited by recent us-&-them election rhetoric is not the best use of said energies. I’m not entirely sure anymore what is, but it was a treat to read your hopeful post. Thank you for it, and fingers crossed…
In ten years on council, Rob Ford’s one (not trivial) achievement was to vote no on almost everything. So far as Mayor, he is still voting no – on the PVT, the “bag tax”, transit expansion, and so on. Another way to put John Lorinc’s question is will Ford as Mayor learn to stop voting no and start creating something – even if what he is “creating” is just a smaller, gravy-free city government? There is no sign of it so far.
Note to photo editors: The clown is the one with the big red nose and silly grin — and the other person is Mayor Rob Ford of Toronto.
Recently, in the Star was this remark: ‘Stintz said she won’t revisit the policy that precludes TTC employees from holding public office. When told that Nicholson can’t apply for a leave of absence, that he would have to resign and forgo his pension, Stintz said, “those are the choices he has to make.”’ This is about the Toronto bus driver being forced to give up his seat on Oshawa city council.
Is Doug Ford still CEO of Deco Labels while now a Councilor for Toronto? He is also the big brother of Mayor Rob Ford, by the way. And wasn’t there a recent story about the very big salaries that CEO are getting?
Guess that some people are more equal than other people.
“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS” – George Orwell
Re: Ford’s comments about service cuts: none, or no major ones…
I recall during the campaign he in fact usually said “no major service cuts”. It’s more recently, once Council has reconvened, that he has been claiming there will be none.
eg, After budget committee, on Nov. 9 he was quoted
National Post:
“We don’t foresee any service cuts at all,” Mayor Ford said repeatedly. “Whatever term you want to use minor or major, we have the money.” He also wants to “hold the line” on user fees, and says he won’t lay off workers,
And Inside Toronto
“There won’t be any major service cuts – there won’t be any service cuts at all,” said Ford.
Whenever he said it though, he has said it, and should be held accountable. Of course, when the inevitable cuts come, he might not call the cut items “services”. Maybe (like library branches or bus routes), they’ll be “gravy”.
Your comments are appreciated John. I’m not sure what’s more dangerous – a radical progressive that is so convinced that they are right that they’ll only be happy if the other guy fails…..or wasting that energy on trying to make that point. Why not put that energy towards constructive city buildling and doing things such as holding the new Mayor to his word when he makes promises such as new subway extension timelines, no major service cuts or building bicycle paths?
Contrary to popular opinion, the sun did rise the morning after the election and the city is still standing. Stop waiting/hoping for him to fail and take some pride in the city and offer to do your part to make it a better place to live.
In the end, Ford is a populist. He will do what the citizens want him to do. And lets take a deep breath and remember that he is not an ideologue or a fundamentalist or even a federal/provincial politician. He is not in the business of health care. He is not going to introduce Pro Life legislation or build an Army. He is going to bring Municipal politics back to what it should have always been….fixing potholes, picking up the garbage, making sure you have a blue box in your driveway and zoning by-laws.
And if you ask me, that is a welcome breath of fresh air from the heavily politicized Miller/NDP/Union years.
While it is nice to take the high road and not wish ill on the Mayor and the total collapse of his regime, this is made difficult by the “in your face” antics of some of his circle not to mention the appalling fact that Don Cherry’s rant was not stopped and disowned on the spot.
His attitude to the left is F* you, and it’s hard to be magnanimous about this. As the budget unfolds and we see just what “no major service cuts” actually means, it will be interesting to watch how much Ford tries to blame problems on others, notably the nasty unions, whose money-grubbing will be blamed for our inability to balance the budget.
In the whole essential service debate, an issue that often comes up (and is included in proposed legislation) is the “ability to pay” of the employer. Toronto has the ability to pay, but it does not want to use this and chooses to plead poor. The choice of no tax increase is not the same as being unable to pay, but the right does not seem to understand this distinction. When they get the first arbitration bill, they may wake up, or they may try to find a new scapegoat.
The idea that somehow everyone will come together in one convivial way for the better of the city presumes a much better understanding of how things actually work and a lot less vindictiveness. In that sort of environment, watching a crash and burn may not be what we want, but if it happens, many will cheer.
Michael S, your observation ie ” Is Doug Ford still CEO of Deco Labels while now a Councilor for Toronto? He is also the big brother of Mayor Rob Ford, by the way. And wasn’t there a recent story about the very big salaries that CEO are getting?
Guess that some people are more equal than other people” ….. I can’t for the life of me dmake sense of what you mean. What has the conditions of employment at the TTC got to do with Deco Labels and Doug Ford’s role as CEO. The fact that Doug Ford is a councillor for the City of Toronto and happens to be the brother of the Mayor of the City of Toronto has nothing to do with anything that pertains to the TTC’s employment policy. I would assume that the labour agreement between the City and the TTC bargaining unit is quite explicit and if the TTC policy of not permitting employees to hold public office abrogates that agreement then I would assume the individual has the right to escalate. So far I haven’t heard word one that that is about to happen so I guess Ms. Stinson is quite correct in her position not to revisit the current TTC policy. Surely you can think of something more relevant to take a run at?
Patrick S, I believe you are responding to a comment by W.K. Lis, not me. (All I said was that Rob Ford looks like a clown.)
Michael S… my apologies. You are correct, it was the Lis’ comment that I was responding to. Have a good one.
A balanced article. I hope we see more of the same and less of the histrionics that has been the mark of the pinkos of late. I’m hoping too that RF does what is best for the majority of residents.
I was saying to a friend earlier that partisan politics aside, I think Ford would make a good ombudsman or adviser. I do get the sense that he does care about the citizens of Toronto and on some level wants to ensure that their tax dollars are spent in the best way possible.
However, these qualities do not necessarily make for a good mayor. For example, as we have seen from his brief time in office, he does not seem to understand how to manage the city’s finances effectively (cutting revenue streams and increasing infrastructure spending with no idea of where the funds will come from besides “finding efficiencies”).
I agree with Darwin that I do not think he will make it through his first term without resigning, and will be in shock if he runs and gets re-elected for a second term. Either way, whoever succeeds him is going to have an awful mess to clean up…
In some ways, it’s very good to have Mr. Ford as a symbol to the world of the reality of “Caronto” – we’ve had a reputation for being “green” etc. that is not deserved of late, two egs for me being Front St. Extension and the Yorkvile rebuilding of Bloor St. without bike lanes.
But key to what damage does or doesn’t occur is if Council supports what Mr. Ford wants to do, and that means working with the many Councillors who do have divergent views and minds, and let’s hope their open vs. mind-sets.
I was pleased myself to hear Mr. Ford acknowledge climate change as a big issue at the Levee, but still have grave concerns about what will be given a free ride on his gravy caravan (cars and vans and trucks) and what he will not see as a service cut eg. libraries, bike committees/lanes etc.
I do look forward to seeing $1.50 a litre gas from all the drivers in China and India, and how Mr. Ford might react to that likely prospect. He may want to send in the troops to make sure we have our oil at the right old price, and he may ask Mr. Harper to do things like that, but will Council agree?
And there are still a variety of laws, liabilities and constrains to work within.
Does anyone know what the procedure is when a mayor resigns?
I’m guessing it’s:
1. Go on twitter
2. Job as a “journalist” on Fox News
3. Ignominious failure in a run for the US presidency
But seriously folks…
According to s. 208 of the City of Toronto Act (2006), a vacancy on council shall be filled either by appointment or with a by-election, to be called within 60 days of the vacancy taking effect. The provision doesn’t distinguish between members of council and the mayor. The person so elected or appointed will serve for the balance of the current term.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_06c11_e.htm#BK265
John, you left out another possible scenario (similarly related to Steve’s scapegoating scenario): Leader uses crisis to push forward inappropriate and unpopular measures. (Thanks for the tip, Naomi!) Privitization anyone?