News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.2K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 371     0 

Next Mayor of Toronto?

Unions are deeply unpopular in the city at this point, and no one is going to win without some get-tough rhetoric.
You'd think ... but Milller's apparent failure (at least loss of support) seemed to occur when he did try and get tough with the unions. If he wasn't tough on them, then he seemed to get a free pass. When he played hardball, and extracted concessions everyone seemed to be pissed off that the concessions weren't enough, or that they had not had garbage picked up for 6 weeks.

If Smitherman does indeed have the cake walk that it looks like he is going to have, the last thing he needs is a promise to break the unions; as it's unlikely he'd ever succeed without subjecting the city to some kind 6 to 12-month strike, which would only hurt his popularity.
 
It's a really good point, actually - if Miller had just given the unions what they wanted it would have been, at most, a one- or two-day story. Refusing to back down got him a strike, several weeks of coverage, and the lingering feeling that he 'lost' even though the outcome wasn't that clear cut. (He got what he wanted, essentially, on the sick day issue - new employees no longer get that perk.)
 
Driving to Square One, I didn't just see one FORD|MAYOR sign in or on cars... I counted 5 on my short 20 min drive. Of course, these cars were likely people driving home to Mississauga from their downtown jobs ... so they're ineligible to vote anyway. But WTF? This just goes to show you how people don't study a candidate's positions and plans, they just pay attention to who screams the loudest and promises the most change, even if those changes involve cutting the services that these very people benefit from today.

I almost wish Ford would win and somehow get kicked out of City Hall (can a Mayor be impeached) after the city falls apart and people rebel against him. We'd certainly get a very progressive Mayor in any election following his tenure.
 
Unions are deeply unpopular in the city at this point, and no one is going to win without some get-tough rhetoric. Unwavering support for unions (particularly public sector unions, which are off in their own little world these days) is, I think, a throwback to a kind of 1960s liberalism.

The problem is that about 30% of workers in Canada are union members. Most of them are not deeply tied to the union movement, but union bashing also doesn't win much support with these voters. Candidates like Ford and Rossi can write off union member support and still win office, so they can attack as much as they like. The same would not apply to anyone trying to court the progressive vote. It almost impossible to win as a progressive if you write off the 10 to 15% of the population that does care about union issues.
 
The problem is that about 30% of workers in Canada are union members. Most of them are not deeply tied to the union movement, but union bashing also doesn't win much support with these voters. Candidates like Ford and Rossi can write off union member support and still win office, so they can attack as much as they like. The same would not apply to anyone trying to court the progressive vote. It almost impossible to win as a progressive if you write off the 10 to 15% of the population that does care about union issues.

Actually 25% of workers are union members if one includes the agricultural sector. Public service union membership is going up and private sector membership is stagnating. Of the Canadian unions that have over 100000 members, which comprise over 50% of union membership, only 5 are private sector unions. People do seem to differentiate between public and private sector unions. Public sector union bashing is becoming a lot more popular even in places with high union membership. Last year's strike in Windsor would be an example.

There are advantages to being on either end of the political spectrum. They can ignore most of the unpopular concerns of their base as long as they throw them a bone once in a while to ensure they show up at the ballot box. An example of this is the federal Conservatives' courageous silence on abortion. In this Toronto election, Pantalone would be unwise to go on too much about how much he loves public service unions.
 
Driving to Square One, I didn't just see one FORD|MAYOR sign in or on cars... I counted 5 on my short 20 min drive. Of course, these cars were likely people driving home to Mississauga from their downtown jobs ... so they're ineligible to vote anyway.

Or given where Square One is, they may have been Ford constituents, etc...

Anyway, I'm not all that surprised by Ford polling that well currently; nor would I be surprised if he maintains 20% in the end, something he and his supporters might hail as a NDPesque "moral victory" rather than a simple humiliation. But, I'd cool it on reading too much "the sky is falling" into these current numbers...
 
Smitherman's campaign manager was in the Star talking up how fearsome Ford's candidacy is. I think the strategy Smitherman will employ to get votes on the left is "voting for Smitherman is your only option if you want to stop Rob Ford." The Liberals are well practiced at using the strategic voting argument to weaken the NDP and Greens.

One big problem with this argument is that the policy differences between Smitherman and Ford are pretty small. Can anyone think of one major issue Smitherman and Ford disagree on? Bike lanes? Transit City? Vehicle registration fees? Outsourcing? Angry yelling?

The main differences are delivery and temperament. In some ways this makes mayor Smitherman the worse prospect as mayor to the left. If somehow Ford were elected mayor, even much of the right on council wouldn't have much interest in working with him much less the centre-left majority. With Toronto's weak mayor system, the most likely outcome is that city council would just ignore Mayor Ford for four years and go about its business (as has happened in Ottawa under Larry O'Brien). Mayor Smitherman would be far more formidable and could actually implement much of his vision.
 
Candidates like Ford and Rossi can write off union member support and still win office, so they can attack as much as they like. The same would not apply to anyone trying to court the progressive vote. It almost impossible to win as a progressive if you write off the 10 to 15% of the population that does care about union issues.

While I can see where you're coming from abstractly, at the end of the day you win a mayoral election not just by appealing to percentages and political spectrum ideologies, but by getting roughly 280,000 votes. Barring any major gaffes by your opponent, you get there best by targeting microdemographics in any workable way you can. Municipal election turnout is roughly 30% so unlike federally, there's no need to appeal to a mushy middle. True, if you're trying to market yourself as "the progressive candidate" you can campaign on "union-friendly issues" and your "progressive agenda". But a smart campaign will leave any such candidate trailing in the dust. In municipal elections all politics is local, ideology takes a back seat, and nothing ever matters more than getting out your vote.

Smitherman's campaign manager was in the Star talking up how fearsome Ford's candidacy is. I think the strategy Smitherman will employ to get votes on the left is "voting for Smitherman is your only option if you want to stop Rob Ford."

I think the real target for this message is the constituency that's been wooed by "Right Wing Rocco". Rossi's been surprising many by how poised and effective he's been despite being a relative newbie, and he's done a smart job of pitching himself at the folks who gave Lastman two mandates. Ford will probably resonate more greatly with white male blue collar Toronto Sun reading suburbanites, and lock them in for the rest of the contest. Which would probably become a 20-50,000 vote hole for Rocco.

So George will want to help Rob any way he can.
 
Last edited:
I know he's a dubious enough character, but I think he has a point about Sarah Thompson.

Toronto's quest for glory

A city's greatness has to happen. It can't be staged

Conrad Black, National Post

Watching the Toronto mayoral race begin, from a great distance, makes me reflect on that city's long but desultory effort to gain recognition as one of the world's great cities. It is certainly a successful, noteworthy, prosperous, ethnically diverse, relatively well-organized and even somewhat architecturally distinguished city. But there is something missing from this picture: There is no romance and there is no drama.

There is, of course, the romance of individual stories, many thousands of them, of the great gambles of immigration and enterprise. But there have been no breathtaking, riveting collective ethnic and racial struggles, or financial climaxes, or terrorist outrages, as in New York. Nor can Toronto match the astounding rise of Chicago -- the Bar of Abraham Lincoln and the fiefdom of Al Capone; America's sometimes architectural, literary, gangster, industrial and jazz capital.

Drama requires agony, and no one would seek it for himself or his city. Londoners didn't wish the Blitz, or even probably the English Civil War or the so-called Glorious Revolution, the Reformationist marital complexities of Henry VIII, the Fire or the Plague. Parisians could have done without the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Wars of the Fronde, the Reign of Terror, the campaigns of Napoleon, the Siege and the Commune, the Battles of the Marne and the events that gave rise to the Resistance. And Berliners who reflect on the significance, all within a few blocks of each other, of Frederick the Great's Brandenburg Gate, Bismarck's Reichstag, the Hohenzollern cathedral, Hitler's Fuhrerbunker, the Jewish Museum, Stalin's monumental embassy in East Berlin and the gleaming and hopeful structures of the new Federal Republic would probably wish for a less tragic history for their city. But in the case of each of these cities, there were drama, romance, grandeur, squalor, tragedy and sometimes events of a scale and moment that affected civilization.

There are other, slightly less celebrated cities in this category: Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Moscow, St. Petersburg, the leading Spanish and Polish cities, Stockholm, Lisbon, Dublin, Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Munich and many others. Then there are the medieval and ancient worlds. Rome, Florence, Venice, Istanbul, Athens, Jerusalem, Beirut and some of the cities of Central, Southern and East Asia can consume a productive lifetime's scholarly attention very usefully. And there are modern cities, without such history, but that are romantic by their setting or design, or overpowering by their size and panache, or importance. San Francisco, Cape Town, Washington, Sydney, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Mumbai, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul, and perhaps even Los Angeles, all meet one or more of those criteria. And there are fine modern cities making some historic or other exceptional claims, such as Atlanta, San Antonio, Austin, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, New Orleans, Dallas, Melbourne, Singapore.

In Canada, Vancouver comes in pretty well in the natural setting sweepstakes. Quebec City does also, and contributes a good dollop of real history, from Champlain to the Churchill-Roosevelt conferences. Montreal, jaded, faded and half-asphyxiated by the narcissistic excesses of Quebec nationalism, has some of the romance and drama municipal greatness is made of--the abrasions of a trans-Atlantic culture in an American setting, from the wartime detention of the nine-term mayor (Camillien Houde), to the Richard Riot, to the murder of the vice premier (Pierre Laporte) and the imposition of martial law, especially with a bit of creative historical massaging, can be aggregated into a respectable serving of drama. And Hugh MacLennan, Mordecai Richler, and some of the French writers made a number of the city's neighbourhoods vivid and famous (as Margaret Atwood has partly accomplished in Toronto).

The sadness of Montreal is that as it sprinted up the ranks of cities, the province went haywire politically and Montreal lost the 25 years from the FLQ Crisis of 1970 to the second referendum in 1995, during which it ceased to be Canada's leading city and stumbled backwards economically and culturally. It is now a regional centre living off a provincial service-industry economy and is neither here nor there among the great cities of the world.

---

This paragraph may seem to be a digression, but isn't: I noted that my former sparring partner John Moore, writing in these pages a couple of weeks ago, referred to the "racism" of Premier Maurice Duplessis "padlocking the doors of establishments owned by Jehovah's Witnesses." The Padlock Law applied to storage of communist literature, had nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses (who are not a race), and was used once, as a publicity stunt, to no one's inconvenience. (The Jehovah's Witnesses, incidentally, were charged with serial violations of municipal ordinances against the distribution of hate literature -- of which they were undoubtedly guilty. They would have had a much rougher ride with the current human rights commissions.) Duplessis was militantly anti-racist. We had to wait for those great liberals Robert Bourassa and Rene Levesque for the delights of the language police, language aptitude tests for six-year-olds and the war against bilingualism. Mr. Moore, like many others, has bought into a Liberal Party fairy tale spun out by champagne-swilling poseurs, and this demonstrates again the difficulty of building drama in the land of peace, order and good government. If Duplessis' irritation with the Witnesses is the best we can do for an epochal moral struggle, we won't get there. (During a postal strike 30 years ago, I wrote an editorial suggestion that we entrust the postal service to the Jehovah's Witnesses since they were on our doorsteps every day anyway.)

In any event, Montreal's loss was Toronto's gain, including in the form of hundreds of thousands of people. Toronto has the critical mass for a great city, but you can't manufacture the spontaneity of self-confidence and the genius of originality from an aggregation of windfalls, no matter how graciously received and diligently tended. The greatness of Toronto has to happen; it can't be staged. It can seek excellence in all fields and focus on the mundane but essential structure of a successful metropolis, but some distinctive and alluring esprit is going to have to emerge from the earnest cravings and strivings of the five million people of the GTA.

This brings me to the mayoralty. If what follows is unjust to anyone, I apologize, as I have the same perspective on this election as most readers, not personally knowing the main candidates.

George Smitherman and Rocco Rossi are not the people to take Toronto up the last steps of urban distinction. They are very humdrum; worthy at best, and I wouldn't bet the ranch on that.

Michael Bloombergs, Boris Johnsons and even Jacques Chiracs don't pop up like dandelions, even in the cities where they have been mayor. Not since John P. O'Brien, the cipher who was mayor of New York (1932-1934) between the legendary mayors James J. Walker and Fiorello H. La-Guardia, and who is chiefly remembered for introducing Albert Einstein to a public gathering as "Dr. Weinstein," has the Big Apple had so unprepossessing a mayor as these candidates.

In this spirit of Toronto's quest for municipal greatness, I end the suspense and confer my endorsement: Sarah Thompson. She is a declared candidate, is youngish, attractive, intelligent, peppy, original, is a competent businesswoman with a colourful past and would work tirelessly for the city. She would put an end to this insufferable tussle between the Liberals and NDP that goes back to William Dennison about who can run City Hall with more self-serving complacency. She would be personally incorruptible, the scourge of smugness, a refreshingly surprising ambassadress for Toronto, and would certainly liven things up. If the present front runners are the future, we have seen them for decades and it won't work. Let's have a mayor who doesn't flee before striking garbage men like the Mamelukes before Napoleon. As far as I'm concerned, the Thompson bandwagon is rolling; I hope to be able to vote for her.
 
Great article. The author makes some excellent points about this city and it's lack of history or a moment in time that unites the denizens of this metropolis into action. We all bitch and complain our poor service and rave about our great neighbourhoods, but to me Toronto really doesn't function as a city. It has always felt like a collection of different town/villages hobbled together as one municipality. The main issue I see here is that there is too much NYMBYISM and not enough VISION for this city. It's everyone for themselves here and as a result few if anything is contributed to the public realm of ideas that great cities are made of.

I agree with the author's point that Sarah has the youthful exhuberance and passion to possibly make a good mayor. Alas, I feel that Smitherman will end up winning because people will balk at the possibility of Rob Ford or Rosso managing our city.
 
In summary: Conrad Black thinks a Sarah Thomson mayorality will be terror attack Toronto needs.
Hmm. And when Lord Muck says she has a colourful past what does that mean. Pot calling the kettle ... umm ... black?

PS; I don't think Connie will be out of jail by the time of the elections, but you never know.
Whether he is or not ... he can't vote, as he is not a Canadian citizen.
 
Dude, he's gay. How can he NOT be progressive?

I would congratualte you on your dry sense of humour, but your previous post indicates that you are serious in calling the left to support Smitherman, so I suppose I should address your comment as though it were serious.

John Baird is apparently a glorly-hole attendant 5 out of 7 nights of the week, but you can't exactly call him "progressive". The truth is, people who happen to have immutable personal characteristics that are historical bases of discrimination are not necessarily "progressive". Clarence Thomas, Margaret Thatcher, Pim Fortuyn ... I recall in Clarence Thomas's case that he has ruled against affirmative action despite such prgams playing a large part in advancing his career.
 

Back
Top