Gordon Brown and Paul Martin

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is speculated to be considering calling a snap election for October. I say don’t do it. Having an election this early is always risky because the public reacts badly to unnecessary early elections – just ask David Peterson. In this case it would be even worse – an election after only two years. The public could definitely react negatively to such an early and unnecessary election. The general rule is that the possible earliest that one can voluntarily dissolve Parliament and be re-elected with a majority is 3 years and a few months into the mandate, as judged by the Canadian Liberals majority wins in 1997 and 2000 which were both 3 years and a few months into the mandate. 3 years exactly is not enough as proven by David Peterson. Imagine, thus, the disaster that could occur for Labour with an election only 2 years into the mandate. By my theory, Brown needs to wait until the fall of 2008 at the earliest for an election. Yet despite my warning there is serious talk of there being an election in the spring of 2008. But as I said, exactly 3 years into a mandate is not enough time – new Prime Minister or not. I’ve even heard of there being an election on the 1 year anniversary of Brown taking power. I assume they meant an election at this time, not a dissolution at this time. A dissolution at this time would result in an election in July or August which I think would be considered unacceptable. Election Day being held at the first anniversary of Brown taking power would also be a bad idea for a reason other than it being only 3 years into the mandate. Having an election at such a time would mean holding the election in late June. There is strong evidence that holding the 2004 Canadian election in late June reduced voter turnout. There is reason to believe the same would happen in the United Kingdom with a late June election. Lower voter turnout is bad for democracy and will not necessarily favour the incumbent government. Strangely, the UK Conservatives say that Brown should have called an election immediately after becoming Prime Minister. This is impractical for several reasons. Firstly, it would have resulted in a summer election. Secondly, it would have left no time for Brown to establish himself and his policies. Thirdly, it would have left no time for Labour to refill it’s empty electoral coffers, giving the Tories an unfair advantage. Fourthly, it would not have left time for Labour even to have an election manifesto (a terse platform). Fifthly, it would have left no time for Labour to develop an election platform. Sixthly, it would have ended MPs term in office too early. I could go on. The fact is as much as the Tories don’t like it, Gordon Brown has the exact same authority to govern as did Tony Blair – it is the way the system works. An October election is also a bad idea because it would deny the two newly elected MPs in the recent by-elections a chance to settle into their jobs. It would barely give them time to receive their first paycheck. Besides, Labour’s 10 point lead might be smaller or nonexistent by October. That’s why Brown has to stay in character and be his usual cautious self.

I am unhappy to hear that Gordon Brown’s government is considering reversing the legislation of his predecessor Tony Blair and upgrading cannabis to a Class B drug from a Class C drug. It makes no sense to reverse the legislation of a predecessor of the same party. Currently, those caught with cannabis can be theoretically be jailed but are more likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Those caught with a Class B are arrested and can face as much as 5 years in prison. I don’t think that this is how the state should treat cannabis addicts and those who possess but do not deal cannabis. The penalty should not be as severe as a Class B drug penalty, and that is why the government did the right thing in downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. I like Gordon Brown but if he decides to make Cannabis to a Class B drug I will have to oppose him on this.


Here is a general rule I like to apply when it comes to calling elections. This is related to what I was talking about above. A head of government with a majority government should not give up their majority government by calling an election prior to governing 4 years into the current mandate. I am not generally a fan of early elections. I learned this bitter lesson the hard way with the 2004 election. That election was an early election. It resulted in a Liberal minority. This lack of a majority led to the Liberal party’s electoral defeat a year and a half later. Paul Martin should never have given up the majority government he had in 2004. He and I found that out the hard way. If Martin had to have an early election (had it occurred in an earlier month like May or April I acknowledge a Liberal majority could have been achieved despite my mistrust of early elections), he should have had earlier in the year than June. In fact, if an early election had to occur, it should have occurred prior to the 2004 Ontario budget which severely damaged the federal Liberals. Despite the fact that the sponsorship scandal had broken in February, the Liberals continued to be way ahead of the Conservatives until late May/early June. In fact, around the Mother’s Day weekend the polls showed the Liberals were looking at a new majority government. It was only once the 2004 Ontario budget was released that the federal Liberals fell behind the Tories within Ontario and nationally. So had an election been held prior to the 2004 Ontario budget, current Canadian politics might be very different. It could mean that Paul Martin could still be Prime Minister. I hypothesize that such an election timing would have resulted in a Liberal majority government. This would mean that that government would still be governing today. Contrary to what actually happened, the government would have been in no danger of falling after the sponsorship scandal’s Brault testimony. The Liberals could have used their majority to ride out that political storm and still be looking at being re-elected in 2008. So it goes without saying that words cannot describe how much I regret having an election in June 2004.


On a lighter note, the English media coverage of the Outremont by-election is almost ZERO. Nevertheless, I am still hopeful the Liberals can retain the seat.

Bob Rae, health, nominations, municipal politics

I am concerned for Bob Rae because he is going to have heart surgery. After that it is supposed to take 6 weeks for him to recover. I am hoping that after that he will be recovered enough to do campaigning in the Toronto Centre by-election. I also worry myself with the wellbeing of politicians’ children, regardless of the politician’s political stripe. For example, I am deeply concerned about the serious health problems more than one of new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s children have suffered. His first child, daughter Jennifer Jane, died at the age of 10 days old of a brain hemorrhage due to her premature birth. More recently, Brown’s youngest son, James Fraser, has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. This means that Gordon Brown will likely outlive James and see another one of his children die. This is terrible. I don’t understand why these illnesses keep befalling Gordon Brown’s children. My condolences for both children.

I’d now like to do a follow-up on something I talked about previously—Niagara Falls. According to recently defeated former Niagara Falls, Ontario city alderman Selina Volpatti, as stated on her web site, Niagara Falls used to have a ward system prior to the 2003 municipal election. Why they switched to an at-large system is beyond me. Selina was the Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls in the 1999 provincial election. Being on city council was not enough to get her elected, however, and she came short by 1400 votes. The winner was Tory Bart Maves. Selina would probably be an MPP today except that for the 2003 election she apparently lost the Liberal nomination to current Liberal MPP Kim Craitor. Instead she is out of politics because she came 9th place in an 8 member at large system in the 2006 municipal election. Based on what she said on her website, she was very popular in her ward. So she’d still be a councilor now without the change in systems. So the switch to an at-large system has ended her political career. However, if she had run for one of three Regional Council seats she may have been elected.

Speaking of party nominations, I know of a way that previously Liberal, now Tory MP Wajid Khan would never have crossed the floor- if he had never been given the Liberal nomination in the first place. In 2004, Khan was unopposed for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Streetsville. It was when he won the nomination that Khan was given his ticket to Parliament because Mississauga—Streetsville is relatively Liberal and twice voted for Khan mainly because he was the Liberal candidate. But Mississauga—Streetsville is in my opinion the old Mississauga West. By contrast, I consider Mississauga—Erindale to be the old Mississauga Centre. In 2004, Carolyn Parrish was the incumbent for Mississauga Centre. Steve Mahoney was the incumbent for Mississauga West. But for some reason Mahoney decided to go head-to-head against Parrish for the Liberal nomination in Mississauga—Erindale. Parrish won that contest. Rightfully so, in my opinion, in that Mississauga—Streetsville has more of Mississauga West in it than does Mississauga—Erindale. I think Mahoney should have gone head-to-head for the nomination against Khan. Mahoney’s prior experience and incumbency could likely have won the nomination against Khan. Mahoney had a lot of personal popularity, so he may have been able to win Mississauga—Streetsville by a wider margin than Khan both in 2004 and 2006. If Mahoney had taken the Mississauga—Streetsville nomination, he would still be a Liberal MP today. Best of all, unlike Khan, Mahoney was pro-gay marriage. My hypothesis about the old Mississauga Centre being the new Mississauga—Erindale and the old Mississauga West being the new Mississauga—Streetsville is proven at the provincial level. Mississauga Centre incumbent Harinder Takhar is running in Mississauga—Erindale. Missisauge West incumbent Bob Delaney is running in Mississauga—Streetsville. Both are Liberals. No need to challenge each other for a nomination. Problem solved. That problem could have been solved in 2004 and Mississauga—Streetsville, instead of having an anti-gay marriage Conservative MP, would have a pro-gay marriage Liberal MP.

Miller’s honeymoon is over

Toronto Mayor David Miller’s honeymoon is over and in 2010 he is going to have to actually run an offensive campaign. He will not be able to run the passive, frontrunner’s campaign he ran in 2006. In 2006, Miller was able to run as complacent a campaign as the federal Liberals were able to run in the 2000 federal election. In both the 2000 federal election, and the 2006 Toronto Mayoral election, the incumbent cruised to victory by running a complacent frontrunner’s campaign. I don’t see how Miller will be able to do this again after the ruckus of the past week. David Miller’s proposed taxes on land transfer and automobile registration proved extremely unpopular among Toronto’s electorate. While I personally do not find the proposed fee on car registrations to be that bad, the proposed land transfer tax was WAY too high. The only way I could support it is if it is made 10 to 20 times lower. Toronto’s housing market is what is keeping Toronto’s economy competitive these days. Such a high transfer tax would thus devastate Toronto’s economy. I’m not sure whether the province should have given Toronto the power to tax land transfers. Is it even allowed under the new Toronto Act? Has the city even checked the act to see whether a land transfer tax is permissible under the Act? The Act does expand Toronto’s taxation power, but only in specific areas. The city cannot charge income tax, general sales tax, or many other types of taxes. But it can charge entertainment and booze tax (bought at a restaurant). Why isn’t the city looking at entertainment and booze tax as an option. It would cause a lot less of a ruckus than the land transfer tax. My proposal is as follows. The city should charge 250 dollars on land transfer, charge the car registration fee, and introduce a reasonable booze and entertainment tax. These should really help the city out of its financial troubles. A 250 dollar land transfer tax wouldn’t cause too much trouble, unlike the currently proposed 4000 dollar land transfer tax.


City council voted on Monday to defer a vote on the two proposed taxes until after the provincial election. The councilors are hoping that provincial politicians will sometime between now and then bail the city out (so far politicians from both parties that have a shot at forming government in the upcoming election have been quite non-committal on any such possible financial help). Right after that, David Miller has made things worse by saying that the failure to immediately approve his proposed taxes could mean cuts that shut down Toronto’s Sheppard Subway. The backlash facilitated by this threat has been severe by both politicians and citizens alike. Citizens such as myself and councilors not in Miller’s inner circle are outraged by this threat, including erstwhile moderate centrist Miller allies such as John Filion, Brian Ashton, Peter Milczyn, and myself (an aspiring politician who has seen himself as such a moderate centrist Miller ally). I do not think that Subway line will close down. This is clearly a scare tactic by Miller and his ally and TTC chair Adam Giambrone. It is now ironically the most left-leaning councilors on Toronto Council who want to shut down the Sheppard Subway. But if doing so were to come to a vote on council, I think it would be defeated because Miller’s staunchest allies make up a plurality, not a majority, of council. The centrists and right-wingers hold a combined majority on council. I also do not think the province will allow the city to shut down the Sheppard Subway. I’m not even sure shutting it down can even be done unilaterally without authorization from the province. Miller could obviously come back to council with a completely alternative tax proposal such as the one I suggested and try to get it passed (presumably with much more success) to help dig Toronto out of it’s financial hole, but sadly Miller has adopted a my-way-or-the-highway attitude. Considering the backlash both against the proposed taxes and against “crying wolf” on the Sheppard Subway, I’d say David Miller’s three and a half year old political honeymoon is over. Granted, three and a half years is a very, very long time for a political honeymoon to last, so I suppose the honeymoon was bound to end eventually.

Electorally, the only thing Miller has going for him is that it is another three and a half years until the next municipal election, so all this does have the chance to blow over. But after what Miller has been through, I don’t see how re-election can be such a sure thing next time. I’d say Miller’s recovery rests on being able to dig Toronto out of its financial hole without imposing a crippling land transfer tax. If he can do that, he may regain his popularity. If not, we’re looking at a right-of-centre mayor elected in 2010. Or if we’re really lucky, a centrist mayor.

It is quite amazing how much Miller has fallen in a matter of months. People who voted for him in 2006 have said they will not vote for him again if the taxes (especially the land transfer tax) goes through. This is significant because of Miller’s electoral success in 2006. Miller had an informal NDP affiliation but at the same time won some of the most non-NDP parts of the city. His main opponent was Jane Pitfield. She was something of a centrist but in more recent times seemed to be shifting to the right. She claims to have never belonged to any political party. But if one were to assign a political affiliation to her, it would have to be Conservative because she is known to have campaigned for John Tory in his 2005 Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey by-election campaign. But for the most part she appears to be a right-of-centre politician without a formal party affiliation. She’s a great person on a personal level, but during her final years on council began to create a reputation of flip-flopping on major issues. David Miller highlighted with success these flip-flops during the mayoral campaign. In the end Pitfield’s campaign proved to be a largely unsuccessful affair. This is especially true in that Miller won every single city ward except for the two Don Valley West wards (one of which was Pitfield’s council ward). Miller’s win is what I think of as a 1984 Ronald Reagan style sweep (Reagan won every Electoral Vote jurisdiction except Minnesota and the District of Columbia, winning left-leaning, solidly Democratic states such as Rhode Island) only with reverse political ideology. In the same way that Reagan won liberal states like Rhode Island, Miller won municipally conservative areas of the city such as Ward 34, the southern part of Don Valley East (I know here it is Liberal federally and provincially, but municipally it is normally very conservative here and Ward 34 voted for John Tory in 2003), as well as normally municipally conservative Etobicoke. What’s more, Miller came within less than 1% of winning Don Valley West over Pitfield, who represented the area. For him to fall so much from this high in a few short months is for me astonishing.


I would also like to congratulate the British Labour Party for holding onto the two safe Labour seats of Sedgefield (until June 27th Tony Blair’s district) and Ealing Southall in two by-elections on Thursday. In Ealing Southall, the very loud buzz about a possible Liberal Democrat or Conservative steal came to nothing. Turnout in both by-elections was above 40%, not bad for a by-election. Granted the Labour vote fell in both by-elections, but for a governing party that almost ALWAYS happens. Also of note is that both by-elections were won easily by Labour but both had a Labour vote of less than half the total votes cast. However, this is also very common in by-elections. Due to the abnormal nature of by-elections (low turnout, protest voting, etc.), it is quite rare for the winning candidate in a by-election to get more than half the vote, especially in the UK. I am also glad to see that in both districts, the Tory vote remained very stagnant from the last General Election result, in both cases increasing only very slightly. In Sedgefield, the Liberal Democrats surged to second place and to almost 20%, an increase of almost 10% over the General Election result. In Ealing Southall, the Liberal Democrats retained second place and saw their vote percent increase a little bit. This marginal increase has to be a disappointment to Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell who faces discontent within his party and who’s party normally is a formidable force in by-elections and thus normally cruises to victory in by-elections in which the Lib Dems were also second place at the previous General Election. And this meager result for the Lib Dems comes in spite of a strong, aggressive campaign (the Lib Dem candidate may well have out-campaigned the Labour candidate). Most likely this failure for the Lib Dems occurred because new Prime Minister Gordon Brown is enjoying a honeymoon period that probably gave both Labour candidates a significant boost in the two by-election campaigns. I want to say I’m glad Labour held onto the two seats and I want to wish the two new MPs and the new Prime Minister well.