Next Mayor of Toronto?

[Whoaccio]

I don't actually buy that Toronto is a "left-wing City,' or at least abnormally so. I mean, more people here voted for the CPC than NDP in the last election, which has gotta prove that this isn't a homogeneous social democratic love in.

I think "left-wing" people in the City are just better organized. There are these informal associations between different activist groups (CUPE, OCAP, TCU, CAIR, various student unions...) which are pretty good about getting people out to vote on a fairly narrow set of goals. There is no right wing or even centrist equivalent that can mobilize significant chunks of people. Municipal issues go to the back of every newspaper, so most people who work simply ignore them.

 

[nfitz]

Yes, frequently there is. Especially so WRT municipal elections and representaion.

It's wrong to reflect the majority of your constituents? That would be a heck of an election slogan:

"I promise not to represent you!"

 

[Glen]

I don't actually buy that Toronto is a "left-wing City,' or at least abnormally so. I mean, more people here voted for the CPC than NDP in the last election, which has gotta prove that this isn't a homogeneous social democratic love in.

I agree with you. I do believe that the majority of those who vote municipally are though. Perhaps a result of believing that in municipal politics there is less room for ideology.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ I don't think that's the case. I am with whoaccio on this one. Moreover, I think the left has seized upon municipal government as a good way to incubate their politicians. The NDP has no where near the potential at any other level. For municipal elections a lot of that grass roots activism has a significantly higher payoff. If they were to ever introduce party politics at the municipal level, the playing field would level dramatically. That's why the NDP is always "defending" democracy when they advocate against party politics locally but push for PR provincially and federally.

 

[lordmandeep]

If you had "Liberals" and Conservatives in municipal politics.

I would imagine the hard left would be gone...

 

[nfitz]

Would they though? The NDPs policies seem perfectly shaped for municipal politics. Pro-housing, transit, etc. And the Tories policies seem very unsuited to dense urban areas ... tax the poor, no housing, welfare, no support for municipalities ...

It would be the hard-right which would be gone I'd think ... which it pretty much has been; even major Conservatives who've been involved in municipal politics have mostly been of the Red Tory variety ...

... except Lastman. I didn't live in Toronto when he was elected, or mayor. I don't know what the heck you were all thinking ...

 

[lordmandeep]

Come on, the conservatives under one banner go...

"lower taxes, better services" (yes I know that is impossible!!)

They would do really well in the suburbs...

 

[kEiThZ]

Would they though? The NDPs policies seem perfectly shaped for municipal politics. Pro-housing, transit, etc. And the Tories policies seem very unsuited to dense urban areas ... tax the poor, no housing, welfare, no support for municipalities ...

That's at the national level. It does not necessarily follow at the municipal level. Europe is full of municipal conservatives who build transit lines. Without party politics it'd be hard to judge where parties stand on the issue. But I am fairly sure a Toronto Conservative would not be the same as a rural Albertan Conservative. For example, Jane Pitfield advocated a steady build out of the subway network when she ran against Miller.

It would be the hard-right which would be gone I'd think ... which it pretty much has been; even major Conservatives who've been involved in municipal politics have mostly been of the Red Tory variety ...

Party politics at any level usually get's rid of the extremes pretty quick. The NDP would suffer a huge blow if Queen's Park introduced party politics municipally.

... except Lastman. I didn't live in Toronto when he was elected, or mayor. I don't know what the heck you were all thinking ...

It was the Bad Boy commercials and the tax freeze....

 

[GraphicMatt]

Come on, the conservatives under one banner go...

"lower taxes, better services" (yes I know that is impossible!!)

They would do really well in the suburbs...

The Toronto municipal vote already tends to break down with the right-wing candidate doing well in the suburbs and the left-wing candidate doing well downtown. Parties would just make the division more obvious.

As to why, it's because people vote based on what's going on in their backyard. It's easy to advocate cuts to homeless programs when the only homeless guy you see every day is the one trying to wash your window at Queen & Bathurst. Similarly, it's easy to advocate a cut in service levels for a bus route you never use.

You see this more on the conservative side, I think, even at the level where you get people wondering why their taxes go to funding public schools when they don't have children themselves. This kind of argument makes me want to punch someone in the face really hard.

Realistically, it would be nice if we could cut away from the 'tax cut' rhetoric. Large-scale overall tax cuts are almost always a bad idea. That's not to say taxes should jump by huge degrees (and tax reform dedicated towards making the system even more progressive would be nice) either.

 

[nfitz]

It was the Bad Boy commercials and the tax freeze....

I can't imagine for a minute how the former would have helped ... I'm not sure I saw a Bad Boy TV commercial since the 1970s though, until after he became Mayor.

But the latter? A tax freeze on top of the cost of almagamation? Did it happen?

 

[adma]

I can't imagine for a minute how the former would have helped ... I'm not sure I saw a Bad Boy TV commercial since the 1970s though, until after he became Mayor.

Bad Boy was extinct for about 20 years or so before Blayne resurrected it in the mid-90s.

As for the NDP's compatibility w/municipal politics, it may echo the situation in Britain where the Lib Debs have long been more of a force municipally than at Westminster...

 

[Glen]

It's wrong to reflect the majority of your constituents? That would be a heck of an election slogan:

"I promise not to represent you!"

There is a difference between the number of his constituents and those who voted for him. Once elected, his ideas do not automatically become those of the majority. Especially so in municipal politics.

 

[GraphicMatt]

There is a difference between the number of his constituents and those who voted for him. Once elected, his ideas do not automatically become those of the majority. Especially so in municipal politics.

I don't think elected officials should be making policy allowances for those who couldn't be bothered to vote. Not voting is irresponsible.

 

[nfitz]

There is a difference between the number of his constituents and those who voted for him. Once elected, his ideas do not automatically become those of the majority. Especially so in municipal politics.

It's a complete myth that those who vote differ in choice than those who don't vote. Any study looking at this has shown that those who vote generally represent the same as those who don't vote. I'm not sure where you are going with this ... it seems to be a common theme from sore losers that they lost because their supporters didn't bother to vote ... but I've never seen any basis for being significant differences!

 

[Whoaccio]

Nobody is saying Miller shouldn't be Mayor or anything to that effect. Just that it is wrong to think that because someone won an election, especially a low turnout election, they represent a wide swath of society. People vote, or don't vote, for all kinds of reasons which in sum don't necessarily represent public opinion. NIMBYism is an example. It motivates an invested core of geographically specific voters in opposition, whereas support tends to be a mile wide but inch deep.

That doesn't detract from Miller's, or any future Mayor's, legitimacy. It just has to put his mandate in context.