Ontario election results

Well the election results are in and there is some disappointment here in the Liberal camp. One seat shy of a majority still does not make a majority. It can be argued that it makes a “major minority” but cooperation is now needed in the legislature to get things done. This is still a great result when considering that a few months ago the McGuinty government was written off completely and Hudak was predicated to easily win a majority government. It was a strange election in many ways. The Liberals gained ground in many Toronto ridings, increasing their percentages from 2007 in ridings such as Don Valley West, Willowdale, Eglinton—Lawrence, St. Paul’s, Toronto Centre, Trinity—Spadina, Beaches—East York, Etobicoke—Lakeshore and Etobicoke Centre. Yet the Liberal vote collapsed in many rural ridings, denying the Liberals a majority government. Most of those rural ridings in Southern Ontario went Conservative while most of those rural ridings in Northern Ontario went NDP. The only completely rural riding the Liberals now hold is Glengarry—Prescott-Russell. They also retained the partially rural ridings of Peterborough, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Brant. But in Peterborough, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, and Brant, the Liberal vote was under 40%, demonstrating the challenges the Liberals now face in mixed urban-rural ridings. However, Thunder Bay—Atikokan Liberal incumbent Bill Mauro miraculously increased his vote percentage from 37.69% in 2007 to 39%. He also increased his margin from a mere 50 votes to about 400 votes. Quite the turnaround given that many expect Mauro to be defeated this time after his near-loss in 2007. It was a little bit surprising to see the rural riding of Essex go to the NDP. Most such rural ridings in this election went Conservative and the Tories federally increased their vote to an impressive 48% in the May federal election. This was one of a few cases where the NDP jumped from third place in 2007 to first place in 2011.
The NDP also won the suburban 905 riding of Bramelea—Gore—Malton. This is the first time the NDP federally or provincially, have won a riding in Peel Region. Bramelea—Gore—Malton contains part of Brampton and part of Mississauga. In the 1990 Ontario election when the NDP won a majority government, the NDP came close to winning both Brampton ridings but fell just short, losing Brampton South by about 400 votes and losing Brampton North by a scant 98 votes after a recount. The NDP also came within about 1000 votes of winning Mississauga North in that election. The old Mississauga North comprises all of the Mississauga portion of the current Bramelea—Gore—Malton. It seems very likely that had the riding existed in 1990, Bramalea—Gore—Malton would have elected an NDPer. So it is not completely surprising the riding went NDP in this election. In addition, in the 1988 federal election, Bramelea—Gore—Malton (at that time known as Brampton—Malton, it was renamed Bramelea—Gore—Malton in 1990), the NDP got 22% of the vote, above both the provincial and federal NDP averages of that election. Again, this high result from 1988 shows the roots that allowed the riding to go NDP in this election.
A lot of those above mentioned Toronto ridings that saw an increased Liberal vote from the 2007 election went Conservative in the May federal election, making the Liberal vote increases particularly astounding. Kathleen Wynne getting 58% of the vote in Don Valley West, a key Tory riding during the Harris years, was particularly stunning. This is even more amazing considering that Don Valley West went Conservative federally, with the Tories edging out the Liberals by around 1.5% of the vote. It was also astonishing to see the Liberals get 51% of the vote in Willowdale. Willowdale was one of the most shocking federal pickups for the federal Conservatives in the May federal election. I still can’t believe the Tories got 41% there federally, edging out Liberal incumbent Martha Hall Findlay. Yet Willowdale has always been a weaker riding for the Liberals provincially than federally, and yet Liberal incumbent David Zimmer got 51% of the vote even after Hall Findlay lost in that shocker last May. This is the first time in living memory that the provincial Liberals have gotten over 50% of the vote in Willowdale or its predecessor riding Armour Heights. Willowdale has always been a target seat provincially for the Tories – it was one of three Toronto ridings to go Tory in the 1990 Ontario election. Willowdale helped the Tories keep their majority in the 1999 provincial election and everyone was shocked when Zimmer beat incumbent Tory cabinet minister David Young in the 2003 federal election. So it was pleasantly surprising to see the Liberals get an absolute majority in Willowdale provincially.
It was quite surprising to see the Liberals get only 21% in Simcoe North. In the 2007 election the Liberals got 30.5% in this riding and got 38.9% in Simcoe North in the 2003 election. In the 2004 federal election when many rural ridings in Ontario went Conservative, the Liberals won with 43% of the vote with socially progressive and long-time Liberal MP Paul DeVillers as the candidate. DeVillers retired at the 2006 federal election and the Liberal vote dropped to 38% of the vote. Since then the federal Liberals have done quite poorly in rural Ontario and the Liberals have sadly stopped being competitive in Simcoe North federally and provincially. This is unfortunate given the past competiveness of the riding for the Liberals.
Congratulations to the Liberals for forming another government.

Minimum Wage Bill

Last Thursday there was a vote at second reading in the Ontario Legislature on Cheri DiNovo’s reintroduced private member’s bill to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. The Bill was defeated 33-11. Almost 60% of the House was absent. There were so few Liberals present that had enough opposition members been there, and had it been a matter of confidence, the government could have been defeated. The government whip’s job is to ensure that such an occurrence never happens. For a majority government to have what I call a guaranteed majority, a certain minimum of government members must be present. This minimum is one more than the total number of opposition members in existence combined. Any less than this and the government can be outvoted. I have looked at numerous House votes both federal and provincial and I have seen that on some occasions the total number of voting government members is less than the guaranteed majority number. My assumption is that in these instances, the whip also counts how many opposition members are present. If the opposition number is insufficient, I can assume the vote proceeds and the government maintains a relative majority for that particular vote. The government whip’s job is to count both government and opposition members present to ensure that the government never loses a crucial vote of any kind.

I have gotten off topic. I wanted to say that my position on the minimum wage has not changed. I do not support Cheri DiNovo’s Bill and instead support the government’s plan to continue to incrementally increase the minimum wage. One Liberal MPP, Tony Ruprecht, voted in favour of the Bill. This is consistent with his statement during the election that he supports an immediate 10 dollar minimum wage. Considering the poverty levels that exist in his riding of Davenport, I do not blame him at all for his position. I feel like listing here the recorded division on DiNovo’s Bill:

In Favour:

Bisson
DiNovo
Gélinas
Hampton
Horwath
Kormos
Marchese
Miller (Hamilton East–Stoney Creek)
Prue
Ruprecht
Tabuns

Against:

Aggelonitis
Arthurs
Balkissoon
Broten
Brownell
Chudleigh
Colle
Delaney
Dhillon
Dickson
Flynn
Gerretsen
Hardeman
Hoy
Jones
Klees
Kwinter
Lalonde
Leal
Levac
Mitchell
Moridi
Naqvi
Ramsay
Rinaldi
Savoline
Scott
Sergio
Shurman
Smith
Van Bommel
Wilkinson
Wilson

Larry Zolf

Larry Zolf wrote an opinion piece in August about the 2007 Ontario Election (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20070806.html). There are some things he said that I would like to dispute. A general problem is that Zolf makes far too many generalizations. Here is one such generalization:

“Hampton represents the Rainy River-Kenora riding, which boasts a huge aboriginal community, effectively giving him the aboriginal vote of Northern Ontario.”

That may be true within Hampton’s riding, but I see no evidence of the NDP having the Northern Ontario aboriginal vote outside Kenora-Rainy-River. Each aboriginal voter makes his or her own decision and I expect a number of them choose to vote Liberal.

This next quote by Zolf I find incredibly strange and it makes little sense:

“Harper's stand on the war will cost him at Camp Petawawa and other military towns, and in rural Ontario.

The NDP stand on Afghanistan, on the other hand, will win seats for Hampton's party in large cities.”

What stand on the war of Stephen Harper’s is Zolf referring to? Harper is very popular in the military town of Petawawa and places like that. His pro-military stand makes that a given. So what is Zolf referring to? Is he referring to the fact that Harper will not extend the Afghan mission without a parliamentary consensus? In those military towns, some may wish for the mission to be extended, but voters there are hardly going to switch to the Liberals, who have a much clearer stand to end the combat mission in 2009. Besides, this is a provincial election he is supposed to be talking about. Is Zolf implying that this “stand” Harper has taken, whatever it may be, will be detrimental to John Tory in those military towns. That whole first sentence from the quote I just cited makes no sense whatsoever. And even the second sentence has little logic either. This is a provincial election. At the provincial level, Afghanistan has not been an issue at all in this provincial campaign, and I see no evidence that Afghanistan will become an issue at all in the provincial campaign. I also do not see Howard Hampton campaigning on the federal NDP’s stance on Afghanistan; instead Hampton is opting for provincial issues.

As an aside, here are the four federal parties positions, as I see them, on Afghanistan:
Conservative: Would like to extend combat mission past 2009 if that were politically possible and if there were an all-party consensus.
Liberal: End combat mission in 2009.
Bloc: End combat mission in 2009, but did not support the extension to 2009 in the first place. Bring down government unless it commits to end mission in 2009.
NDP: End mission now and bring troops home, but support the government’s official position by voting against Liberal motion to end mission in 2009.

The Liberal position as you can see is actually the simplest. Contrary to popular belief, the Liberals have not waffled on this issue since Dion took over. Dion has long been quite clear about the 2009 exit date. We are not hypocrites for wanting the mission to end in 2009. I know it was our previous Liberal government who sent the troops in, but that does not mean we did not want the combat mission to end at some point.

I am getting sidetracked from Larry Zolf’s article. To me, Afghanistan could not be more irrelevant for this provincial campaign.

There are another couple quotes from Zolf that I take issue with. Here is the first:

“Hampton is no pal of Buzz Hargrove, leader of the Canadian Auto Workers' union. (He realizes that Hargrove wants to reward McGuinty for all his auto industry efforts.) But Hampton will do well in Oshawa, Oakville, St. Thomas and other auto union towns regardless.”

I can agree with Oshawa. The Oakville riding, on the other hand, has long had among the absolute lowest results for the NDP both federally and provincially despite the presence of a Ford plant. This has been true even at the height of NDP popularity. For example, the NDP was third in Oakville South in the 1990 election, 4000 votes behind the second placed Liberal candidate, who in turn was only 100 votes behind the PC candidate. Hampton’s party has never done well in the Oakville riding before; I see no evidence of that changing now. I also have trouble seeing the NDP doing well in St. Thomas, which is the political base of Liberal MPP Steve Peters, who prior to his election to the legislature was the popular mayor of St. Thomas. St. Thomas is in Elgin—Middlesex—London, where the NDP has also never done well.

Here is the next quote from Zolf’s article that I take issue with. This sentence in Zolf’s article is referring to Howard Hampton:

“He also has the gay and lesbian vote in Ontario.”

That is a sweeping generalization if I’ve ever seen one. Tell that to George Smitherman’s gay voting base in Toronto Centre. I think Dalton McGuinty is the most gay-positive Premier in Ontario history. In my opinion, McGuinty has actually focused more on gay rights than Howard Hampton has. People who are gay don’t vote only on the single issue of gay rights. They also will evaluate the government’s record on health care, education, and other issues. They will make their decision based on many issues. People who happen to be gay will not vote in bloc for the NDP, and never have.

Zolf concludes by predicting a surefire minority government. The most recent Ipsos-Reid poll showed the NDP at 16%. That is not likely enough to make a minority government happen. We won’t know for sure anything about majorities or minorities until we are much closer to election day.

Provinical poll form Ipsos Reid

There is a provincial poll released August 28 from Ipsos Reid showing the Liberals at 42%, the Conservatives at 35%, the NDP at 16%, and the Greens at 6%. This is a drop for the Greens and a significant drop for the NDP. It is also an increase for the Liberals and a drop for the Tories. This poll also provides strong evidence to me that regional breakdowns for polls within the province, especially for Northern Ontario, are unreliable. This poll shows for Northern Ontario the Liberals at 51%, the Tories at 20%, and the NDP at 18%. The previous Ipsos Reid poll (released August 21) showed the Tories at 41% in Northern Ontario, and the Liberals at 34%. The current poll has the Tories dropping 21 points in Northern Ontario. Such a large fluctuation is not realistic in my opinion. I’d also expect the NDP to be higher than 20% in Northern Ontario. I thus suspect that the Northern Ontario results are not accurate possibly due to small sample size within that region. I’m also wondering if it is the same thing in the 416 and 905. Even though the Liberal lead expanded in this poll overall, it somehow shrunk substantially in the 905. The Liberal lead in the 416 also shrank to just 3 points. Is it possible that the results for both the 416 and 905 may be inaccurate due to small sample size within those regions? I’m inclined to believe that regional results within Ontario tend to be inaccurate due to sample size and thus to get the real picture it is best to look at the province-wide poll results. In my opinion, a 7 point lead would be hard pressed not to produce a majority government.

Ontario Liberals

I am happy about today’s Strategic Counsel poll about Ontario politics. It shows that Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals still have a chance at re-election. It was 40% for the Liberals, 35% for the PCs, 18% for the NDP, and 8% for the Greens. It is that Green support the Liberals need the most. If even one or two percent of that Green support moved to the Liberals and these numbers occurred on election day, the Liberals would have a majority government for sure. Although I can find no previous Strategic Counsel poll on Ontario politics, the Globe and Mail headline is this: “McGuinty support slips to minority status, poll finds”. I think the polls numbers have just as much a chance to produce a Liberal majority government. Remember that in 1999 Mike Harris won a majority government while only winning the popular vote by 5 points. I’ve applied the numbers to the UBC election forecaster for the upcoming Ontario election. (I made some accommodations to make the numbers fit into the projector). To make numbers add up perfectly I made it look like this: Liberal: 40.0% , PC: 34.7% , NDP : 17.7% , Other: 7.6%.

I needed those approximations to make the grid add up perfectly to 100%. Here are the seat numbers I got for those adapted numbers:

Liberal: 61
PC: 38
NDP: 8

This would be a 57% Liberal majority. However, I have to make some adjustments for things the projector does not factor in. I am giving the NDP the 3 seats it won in by-elections. I am making the assumption that John Tory wins his seat in Don Valley West (the predictor predicts this seat as a Liberal hold). I am also switching several bellwether ridings won by tiny, tiny margins by the PCs back to the Liberals because I expect them to return a Liberal should the Liberals be re-elected due to their bellwether status. Those ridings affected are Ottawa West--Nepean, Huron--Bruce, and Kitchener Centre. I also am moving Oakville back to the Liberal column because the Tories only won it by 0.3% and I expect Liberal incumbent Kevin Flynn to be re-elected should the Liberals win re-election province-wide. These changes make the seat numbers as follows:

Liberal: 61
PC: 35
NDP: 11

That would still be a 57% Liberal majority. So I’d say the Liberals are still in the game and a minority government is far from certain.

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.

Another Ontario provincial poll

The Ontario provincial Liberals are still slightly ahead according to the latest Ipsos-Reid poll conducted during the second half of June. Based on the poll numbers, it would suggest that the release of the Conservative platform did not give the Tories a boost, perhaps because it was vague and contained the controversial religious school funding proposal. The poll result showed the Tories drop one point, and the Liberals drop two points which seemingly moved to the Greens. The result is a 3 point lead for the Liberals, 39% to 36%. Noticeable is that the Tories are hardly any higher than their 2003 election finish. If these numbers held on election day the Tories would pick up seats but only because of a vote split due to a surge in third party support. Although the article wants again to talk about a possible minority government, I have again put the numbers into an election forecaster and found it predicting a narrow Liberal majority government. This proves that the supposedly “magic” 40% citied both federally and provincially needed for a majority government is an arbitrary number. It is apparently theoretically possible for a majority government to be formed with 39% of the vote, only 3 points ahead of the nearest opposing party. A 39% to 36% result could produce a minority government of course, but a majority government is apparently also quite possible. It is important to remember that a large spread between the top two parties in a first-past-the-post general election is not needed for a majority government. For example, in the 1999 election the Tories beat the Liberals in the province overall by just 5%. Yet this produced a moderately large majority government. A party winning a majority government yet beating its nearest competitor by only 3% in the popular vote is entirely possible. It is true that the chances of a minority government in Ontario is the most possible it has been since the 1985 election (which did produce a minority government in the end), but at this point such an outcome is far from certain. The media who keeps bringing up the strong possibility of a minority government may be jumping to conclusions. The Liberals should not be counted out yet, but nor should the PCs.


There is little point at looking at the regional breakdowns given for the poll, because I believe the sample size is too small for them to mean anything. For the poll to show only a single point lead for the Liberals in the GTA, the GTA surely has to include places like Burlington, Oakville, and maybe even Hamilton. Otherwise that regional breakdown wouldn’t make sense. What makes even less sense is the result outside Toronto. Supposedly, according to the poll, the Liberals hold a stronger 39% to 34% lead outside the Toronto area. I suppose this is believable, but only if very conservative regions of the GTA held great sway in the poll. I suppose it is possible that the poll may have over-sampled GTA places such as Whitby, Oakville, Oshawa, and Burlington. If so than the Liberals would in reality have a larger province-wide lead than the poll indicated. The strangest result is in central Ontario, which gives the Liberals a 5 point lead of 41% to 36%. If this result were actually true I’d say the Liberals have a very strong chance of re-election. Central Ontario includes the very Conservative Haliburton/ Kawartha Lakes electoral district, the county of Northumberland (The Northumberland-Quinte West riding is a key swing riding that usually goes to the party who wins the election both federally and provincially), the key bellwether riding of Peterborough, as well as Conservative Simcoe County. Although the region contains a couple swing ridings, most parts of this region are rock solid Conservative and therefore I would find a lead of 41 to 36 for the Liberals to be highly questionable, yet very good news for the Liberals if true. At the very least if that result is true it means the Liberals would hold Peterborough and Northumberland-Quinte West. And the Liberals would be hard pressed to lose the election if those two ridings are in their column. However, the low sample size makes me have to take that Central Ontario result with a grain of salt.

Majority governments and fixed election dates

In majority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is ridiculously easy. In minority governments, maintaining the confidence of the legislature is often quite hard by contrast. Newly elected governments have the constitutionally given right to govern for 5 years with no new election so long as the government can maintain the confidence of the legislature. The problem with this is that governments that become extremely unpopular who happen to be majority governments are able to keep governing long past their prime. No matter how unpopular a government is, it can continue governing for 5 years. Even if the government drops down to a 10% approval rating after its first 3 months in office and stays at that level for the next 4 years and 9 months, the incredibly unpopular government gets to continue governing for the remaining 4 years and 9 months no matter how much the population absolutely despises the government. That is why Bob Rae was able to be Premier of Ontario for such a very long time. Ontario’s population absolutely despised Rae’s government, but Rae had a majority government and therefore was able to continue governing regardless of how much everyone in Ontario despised his government. The Rae government hit rock bottom in terms of popularity once it’s 1991 budget was released and remained at that rock bottom for the remaining 4 years of their term. Following the 1991 Ontario budget, the Ontario public absolutely despised the Rae government but there was nothing that could be done to remove the Rae government from power for the next 4 years.

Another good example of this is the Mulroney government. The 1988-1993 Mulroney government became very unpopular by 1990 and stayed that way for Mulroney’s remaining 3 years in office. Yet because Mulroney had a majority government he was able to stay in power even though the public absolutely despised his government. This was true even after he lost several MPs to the newly formed Bloc Quebecois. Although Mulroney’s majority shrunk substantially throughout his second term in office, it never became a minority government and so there was no way to force an early election and vote the hated government out.


I support the concept of fixed election dates every 4 years because this prevents governments that are very unpopular from governing for 5 years just to cling to power as long as possible before facing the inevitable defeat. Fixing elections every 4 years allows for governments who are in the popularity lows of Rae and Mulroney to be voted out sooner than would be possible otherwise. The problem with fixed election dates in Canada now is that they are statutory in nature. So if an unpopular government were to inherit a fixed election date law from a previous government, and if said unpopular government was already at a 10% approval rating, and if said unpopular government wanted to cling to power as long as possible, it could simply repeal the fixed election date law and remain in power for the full 5 years before finally being wiped out of office.


The Rae government’s legislature was months away from expiring when Rae called the 1995 election. Rae could have remained Premier for a few more months and could have stayed in the Premier’s office until about November before being wiped out. But he must have seen a sliver of opportunity to call the election for June, as though such a time would prevent his party from being completely wiped out. If the election had been held in 1993, the NDP would likely have lost official party status it was so unpopular during the middle of Rae’s term. Instead, what small amount of support there was for the NDP had managed to recover by June 1995 and that’s probably why Rae called the election then. Rae probably saw that time as the best possible opportunity his party had of not being completely and totally wiped out. However, at no time following the 1991 Ontario budget could an election have been held with the NDP winning the election – that’s how unpopular the 1991 budget made the NDP and there was no turning back and from that point on. Rae never had a chance to win a second term in office.