Introduction of a party system

As requested, here is some space to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of introducing a party system.

4 Responses to “Introduction of a party system”

  1. Ken Wood Says:
    November 22, 2009 at 6:49 pm | Reply

    Preliminary rough thoughts…

    Benefits:

    * City-wide vision, complex issues consider the whole geography of Toronto
    * May reverse public apathy at voting at the city level
    * Less parochial turf wars at city council since elected representatives would have subscribed to commonalities in party platforms

    Drawbacks:
    * May make elections more ‘leader-personality’ driven rather than issues driven
    * If aligned with the institutional parties we have now at the provincial and federal level, may muddy the waters on making independent decisions for Toronto

    Just a comment and observations: There is already party politics in play at city council. Everyone who pays attention knows who is on the right, who is on the left, who is on the fence and who is the ‘(un)official opposition’.

  2. Dave McDonald Says:
    November 23, 2009 at 6:18 pm | Reply

    Think all Councillors running should identify past and present Party memberships so there is no hidden agenda and voters have a starting point. Including Councillor Paula Fletcher identifying her many years of Communist Party activism.
    Permitting Municipal Parties is very much a two edged sword. In Vancouver it seems to be working but in Montreal it seems to be a corrupt disaster serving to use Party politics to cover up accountability. The same for Chicago where Daley is essentially Mayor for life supported by his Democratic Party machine that is considered the number one or two in America as the most corrupt Cities. I think that the corruption factor in Montreal and Chicago may reflect an historical reality not necessarily related to a party system and Toronto may be able to handle it like Vancouver but am not sure. The bottom line is the Party issue did not exist in Toronto prior to the Miller years where the NDP caucus has clearly been ruling he roost and polarization has occurred because all opposition has been marginalized and enbittered while Councillors have responsibilities and power not based on competence but on loyalty to the Mayor alone that has never been the case before.

    • Mark Atyeo Says:
      November 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm | Reply

      Party politics concern me. I don’t see political parties serving the interests of the nation as a whole all that well these days and I have serious misgivings about ideologically driven policy decisions (the Harris provincial administration as a backlash to the Rae premiereship comes to mind).

      Since there tends to be clear delineations of voting practice at present in city hall and since councillors can vote as they see fit without ‘crossing the floor’, the ‘aligned-independant’ councillors at city hall strike me as preferable to the ‘powerless-but-party-supported’ backbenchers in Ottawa.

      • Mark Atyeo Says:
        November 25, 2009 at 2:29 pm | Reply

        One more thing. Party politics have held sway at City Hall since before the days of Crombie let alone Miller. Right of centre supporters only see polarization when they don’t get their hockey tickets kicked-back anymore.

        Who here yearns for the bygone era of Mel, when right of center mayoral support fostered the advent of the MFP fiasco, corruption in the police department and a poorly planned and expensive Sheppard subway to mention a few best forgotten years.

Leave a Reply