Greg Banks
Active Member
And neither did any of the other slates make the mark either....take a look at AFUITBS's "Challengers to watch", the antiMLTT slate, the Labour Council and on and on...And, to repeat: going by the results, voters decided that even among the losers, there was "healthier" competition than the 43 Down slate.
But again, the *real* shocker ought to have been how poorly the 43 Down slate did.
Yeah, but once again, 43 Down's "Team Ford" girl Patricia Sinclair wasn't just trounced by Jim K.'s federal "incumbent advantage"; she was also trounced by ex-Del Grande staffer Franco Ng (18%), by NOW endorsee Cozette Giannini (just under 10%), and a couple of others--she only got 3.67% of the vote.
You seem to have this way of viewing races in very generic incumbents-vs-"everyone else" terms; without considering that even among the losers, there's a pecking order of "winners" and "losers".
And in that light, let's look at the most clusterfvcked Scarborough race of them all: Ward 44, where Ron Moeser (25.7%) barely hung on against...dark horse municipal planner/activist Jennifer McKelvie (23.4%); erstwhile chief Moeser opponent Diana Hall (22.2%); City Idol graduate/NOW endorsee Amarjeet Chhabra (11.4%); one Richard Ross (7.5%, and particularly strong in his West Rouge turf)...and everyone else was below 2%, and you have to go all the way to *9th* place for 43 Down-er Ashley Sondhi (1.35%).
See what I mean? Some competition's "healthier" than others. And by and large, Ford/Flagg's Scarborough gang didn't make the mark.
Yes, Jennifer McKelvie would have made a much better addition to Council than Moeser as would have Idil Burale (1) any one of the three in Ward 2, R Ford in 6, Chambers or Keegan in 7, Narain in 8 (she was truly a gem who should of had more consideration) or how about Dan Fox rather than David Shiner....Hopefully all those noted above will be active in their Wards as burrs in the saddles of the incumbents...
Last edited: