Outremont Liberal candidate Jocelyn Coulon has a website now. The Outremont by-election has been called but I can get very little coverage of it. However, I found an editorial in The Suburban “QUEBEC’S LARGEST ENGLISH WEEKLY NEWSPAPER”( http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=10264485391792019844135862989&ctid=1000002&cnid=1012344) that I found offensive. It was about the history of Liberal foreign policy and Jocelyn Coulon’s own foreign policies. These words from the article alone are offensive to Lester Pearson’s peacekeeping legacy that won him a Nobel prize:
“Lester Pearson’s vaunted role in developing “peacekeepers” following the Suez crisis was more a construct to protect the dignity of the British and offer them an elegant way out.”
The editorial was written from a very neo-conservative prospective on foreign policy. Its perspective appears similar in line to that of Conservative foreign policy, but is far more blatant than the federal government is in making said neo-conservative position stand out. I’m not going to go over the whole article because there are parts that I find too offensive to even repeat. But I will say that the article concludes with this:
“In this most dangerous of worlds, we hope voters in Outremont send a message to “les rouges” that the time for dilettantes and straw men is over. Outremont, on September 17 say “ca suffit” to the Liberals and M. Coulon. It’s time to end the charade.”
I can assume that they hope that Outremont voters vote something other than Liberal. However the NDP and Bloc have similar foreign policy positions to the Liberals on the issues that the article discusses. So what I think they’re really asking is that Outremont voters vote Conservative. However, a large majority of Outremont and Quebec voters do not share this editorial’s neo-conservative view on foreign policy and thus this is not a useful way of convincing Outremont voters to vote Conservative.
Amusingly, one of the article’s complaints was this:
“In continental issues, the Liberals opposed free trade and branded Brian Mulroney an American lackey.” As far as free trade is concerned, it was a contentious issue back then. The Liberals needed to take advantage of the issue as best they could and oppose Mulroney’s Free Trade Agreement due to its many potential flaws. As far as the editorial’s complaints about branding Mulroney an American lackey, what is there to complain about? It was obvious to everyone, including the media and political cartoonists, that Mulroney often did seem like an American lackey. The Liberals were Mulroney’s political opponents. They had every right to exploit that image in the same way that the Liberals now have the right to pound the Conservatives on the Afghan detainee issue. As much as the Tories hate it when the Liberals find something like the detainee issue and pound them with it, this is the Liberals’ job. As much as the Tories still pretend the Liberals have no right to criticize the Harper government, they are wrong. It is the Liberals’ right and obligation to attack the Harper government with anything they see fit that will embarrass the government. So the editorial should not be complaining about how the Liberals portrayed Mulroney. That characteristic of Mulroney was obvious and it was the Liberals’ job to remind voters of one of Mulroney’s signature traits.
By the way, the Outremont race is probably between the Liberals and the NDP. But I still find it hard to believe that such a significant threat is coming from the NDP in a Quebec riding.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Brantford
On Sunday, I went to church in the city of Brantford. Complex story. Guess what I’m going to do now? You guessed it. Talk about Brantford politics. Municipally Brantford uses a ward system but elects two councilors per ward. I personally prefer the single-member ward system for municipal politics. I personally find an electoral system whereby a district elects more than one member to be strange because it involves voting for more than one candidate at the same time, and this often makes it unclear just how popular any given elected candidate is. This muddiness increases the more candidates are to be elected. For example, the City of Niagara Falls (Ontario) elects 8 councilors at large. In 2006, 8 people were elected out of a total of 26. The top vote getter received only 9 percent of the vote. This really makes it unclear how popular each of the candidates is which is why I don’t like this method of electing councilors, especially when it gets to such ridiculous numbers as 8 candidates, 8 different people electors vote for at once. Interestingly, the adjacent City of Niagara Falls, New York also uses an at large multiple councilor system of elections except there they have party primaries. Another difference in Niagara Falls New York is that every 4 years 3 councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Two years later, two other councilors are elected at large for a 4 year term. Thus Niagara Falls, New York has a staggered election system similar to the federal U.S. Senate electoral system.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
At least when it’s two candidates per ward, as it is in Brantford, you can have some idea of how popular a candidate is. For example, in 2006 two Brantford councilors were elected with over 40% of the vote, with the second place (yet still elected) candidate in both cases in the 20s. In a two councilor per ward system, this is a symbol of great popularity.
At the provincial level and federal level Brantford is in the Brant electoral district. Provincially this electoral district is represented by popular Liberal MPP Dave Levac. Federally Brant is represented by Liberal MP Lloyd St. Amand. Sadly St. Amand doesn’t have the same personal popularity as his provincial counterpart, given that St. Amand was twice elected by only narrow margins. If the much more personally popular Jane Stewart were still around, I’d expect Brant to be a much safer Liberal seat. As it is, St Amand only has a plurality of around 500 votes over the Tory candidate. This is because the NDP candidate split the vote and almost cost the Liberals the seat. In the next election former Hamilton Mountain MP Ian Deans is going to run in Brant. My advice to the Brant voters thinking of voting NDP is to instead vote for St. Amand unless they want a Tory MP elected in Brant (who would be the first Tory MP elected in Brantford since the 1958 federal election).
The City of Brantford has made the proposal to annex small areas just outside the city that are in Brant County so that they can be developed. While Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock and Brant County Mayor Ron Eddy support this proposal, I strongly oppose it. Firstly, this proposal has met stiff opposition from the Six Nations in Brant County and the two mayors are refusing to listen properly to their concerns. Secondly, it leaves a problem of political representation. The mayors want this to take effect on January 1, 2008. This is not good because this is outside the timeline of a municipal election. They will likely redraw Brantford wards to include the new electors from Brant County. This is undemocratic because this gives these electors elected representatives who they had no opportunity to vote for or against. If they insist on going through with this thoughtless annexation plan, the least they could do would be to make it take effect in December 2010 when a new council is elected in both Brantford and Brant County. This plan also requires provincial approval and I would advise to the province not to approve this plan. There have been threats of Caledonia-style First Nations protests if this plan goes through. That alone should allow this plan to be burned.
Affected residents may also object to becoming residents of the City of Brantford. This proposal will also phase in Brantford’s higher property taxes. This is wrong. Brant County residents like their low property taxes, and should not be forced to live in much higher taxing jurisdiction of Brantford. There is no reason why development of land (if First Nations have no claim to it) cannot occur within the jurisdiction of Brant County. I want an end to this foolhardy proposal as soon as possible.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Rick Downes, NDP, minimum wage
Rick Downes is the provincial NDP candidate for Kingston and the Islands. On his website, www.rickdownes.ca, there is a video of his nomination speech. It is evident from this speech and his website that he supports his party’s policy of legislating an immediate increase of Ontario’s minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour. In his nomination speech, Downes heaps much praise about the successful policies and outcomes of the recently re-elected Manitoba NDP government. However, I have a very good question to ask. Can Mr. Downes explain why his beloved Manitoba NDP government has not increased Manitoba’s minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour? Why in fact is Manitoba’s minimum wage at 8 dollars an hour, the same as Ontario’s currently is? Does even Downes beloved Manitoba NDP government realize that an immediate increase in the minimum wage would be an economically disastrous thing to do? Is the Manitoba NDP, just like the Ontario Liberals, instead taking more moderate steps to help the working poor rather than facilitating a large and crippling minimum wage jump? If so, I think Mr. Downes may be in need of some lessons from his own NDP colleagues from Manitoba.
Had Ernie Eves been re-elected in 2003, Ontario’s minimum wage would remain frozen from 1995 levels. If John Tory is elected, the minimum wage MAY continue to increase, but I cannot say for certain. Tory has mostly been vague on minimum wage policy. By electing the Liberals, the working poor living on minimum wage have been able to see a steady increase in their living wage to make up for 8 years of neglect. If re-elected, the Liberals will continue on this path, and eventually moving the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour in a gradual manner that will not create economic shockwaves.
Had Ernie Eves been re-elected in 2003, Ontario’s minimum wage would remain frozen from 1995 levels. If John Tory is elected, the minimum wage MAY continue to increase, but I cannot say for certain. Tory has mostly been vague on minimum wage policy. By electing the Liberals, the working poor living on minimum wage have been able to see a steady increase in their living wage to make up for 8 years of neglect. If re-elected, the Liberals will continue on this path, and eventually moving the minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour in a gradual manner that will not create economic shockwaves.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Help! The Interstate 35W in Minnesota has collapsed and killed numerous innocent bystanders. Help! I have gone across that bridge many times. Granted I do not remember it, because I was less than a year old. At that time my parents and I lived there for a few months. Tragic events happen in Minnesota just as anywhere else, but Minnesota is great. When my parents and I lived there, we loved it. We lived in Bloomington which is a suburb of Minneapolis. Up until this bridge collapsed, Minneapolis-St. Paul was a great place to live. They built the biggest mall in America, aptly called Mall of America, only AFTER we had moved away from Bloomington. But even back then when we lived there in 1984 there were excellent shopping opportunities. And that is what makes Minneapolis-St. Paul so great. It is actually quite odd. Minneapolis-St. Paul is a large, burgeoning metropolis, and yet it still only has enough of a population to be given 10 Presidential Electoral Votes. So in light of what has happened, I thought I’d discuss Minnesota politics.
Democrats have long had a slight edge in Minnesota politics. This is enough so that Minnesota has voted for the Democratic nominee for President continuously in every election since 1976. It even voted for Walter Mondale’s beleaguered campaign. For the record my four favourite states in the American union are Minnesota (lived there!), New York (lived there for a good 7 years!), Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. All of these states voted for losing Presidential Democratic nominees John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis. These 4 are also 4 of the 8 American states that have never voted either for George W. Bush or for his father in presidential elections (we are not counting the times George H.W. Bush was on the Vice-Presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan). The other 4 states in this category are Washington State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Hawaii. In Minnesota some people thought the state was shifting to a being a Republican state after conservative Republican Norm Coleman beat former Vice-President Walter Mondale in the 2002 federal Senate election. But this ignores the fact that Minnesota has had Republican Senators before, including during it’s glory days of being very liberal Democrat. It also ignores the fact that this election was under peculiar circumstances with the recent death of the incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone in a tragic plane crash in October 2002. But since the Coleman victory Democrats won the 2004 Presidential Election in Minnesota. In 2006, Democratic victories in Minnesota were even more resounding. The Democrats regained control of the State House. Democrat Amy Klobuchar resoundingly won the federal Senate election against incumbent federal Representative Mark Kennedy (who at one time was considered to have a chance at winning). Democrats sent a 5-3 majority House delegation to Washington, and gained control of all statewide positions except Governor and Lieutenant Governor (actually beating the incumbent Republican state Auditor by a solid 10 percentage points!). So at the moment Minnesota is a fairly Democratic state. Now Minnesota has one conservative Republican Senator, and one liberal Democrat Senator. Norm Coleman has the advantage to be re-elected in 2008, but only because he is the incumbent. If he were not running, it would be a surefire Democratic pickup.
But I don’t know what to do about the bridge collapse, the dead innocent bystanders, and the economic damage this bridge collapse is going to cause.
Democrats have long had a slight edge in Minnesota politics. This is enough so that Minnesota has voted for the Democratic nominee for President continuously in every election since 1976. It even voted for Walter Mondale’s beleaguered campaign. For the record my four favourite states in the American union are Minnesota (lived there!), New York (lived there for a good 7 years!), Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. All of these states voted for losing Presidential Democratic nominees John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis. These 4 are also 4 of the 8 American states that have never voted either for George W. Bush or for his father in presidential elections (we are not counting the times George H.W. Bush was on the Vice-Presidential ticket with Ronald Reagan). The other 4 states in this category are Washington State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Hawaii. In Minnesota some people thought the state was shifting to a being a Republican state after conservative Republican Norm Coleman beat former Vice-President Walter Mondale in the 2002 federal Senate election. But this ignores the fact that Minnesota has had Republican Senators before, including during it’s glory days of being very liberal Democrat. It also ignores the fact that this election was under peculiar circumstances with the recent death of the incumbent Senator Paul Wellstone in a tragic plane crash in October 2002. But since the Coleman victory Democrats won the 2004 Presidential Election in Minnesota. In 2006, Democratic victories in Minnesota were even more resounding. The Democrats regained control of the State House. Democrat Amy Klobuchar resoundingly won the federal Senate election against incumbent federal Representative Mark Kennedy (who at one time was considered to have a chance at winning). Democrats sent a 5-3 majority House delegation to Washington, and gained control of all statewide positions except Governor and Lieutenant Governor (actually beating the incumbent Republican state Auditor by a solid 10 percentage points!). So at the moment Minnesota is a fairly Democratic state. Now Minnesota has one conservative Republican Senator, and one liberal Democrat Senator. Norm Coleman has the advantage to be re-elected in 2008, but only because he is the incumbent. If he were not running, it would be a surefire Democratic pickup.
But I don’t know what to do about the bridge collapse, the dead innocent bystanders, and the economic damage this bridge collapse is going to cause.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Supplementary to my previous blog post
The by-elections have been called, but only the two in Quebec. The Roberval-Lac-Saint-Jean should be able to be called for the same date of September 17 now that Michel Gauthier has resigned. Harper wants political conditions for him to improve before risking any of the by-elections in Ontario or British Columbia. Harper can't have thought Outremont to be that winnable for his party since he waited until the absolutely last day before calling the by-election. In my opinion political conditions for Harper in Quebec are not as good as he may have hoped, but still better for Harper than the Liberals would have hoped.
I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.
Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.
I have also found out that in Welland, Jody Di Bartolomeo lost the NDP nomination to Malcolm Allen in March 2007, and that is the reason Di Bartolomeo is not running for the NDP again. The NDP sometimes ends up denying the nomination to a candidate who came close in the previous election. For example, Steve McClurg came within 100 votes of winning in New Westminster-Coquitlam in the 2004 Federal Election, but in 2005 lost the nomination for the 2006 Federal Election to Dawn Black, who is now the MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam. If McClurg had won the nomination, he might well be the MP now. What happened instead is that McClurg recently became a Liberal and sought the Liberal nomination in Burnaby-New Westminster before giving up his ambition for being an MP and withdrawing.
Jody Di Bartolomeo similarly came fairly close in the last election and evidently wanted to again make an attempt to become an MP. While I wholeheartedly endorse John Maloney to win the next Federal Election in Welland, I feel a little bit sorry for Di Bartolomeo because he was denied a chance to run in the next election.
Outremont and Welland
Because for certain there is a by-election coming in the riding of Outremont, I thought I’d discuss the riding of Outremont. Outremont is a multi-ethnic district in central Montreal that consists of the former City of Outremont plus some surrounding areas. Its MPs are often cabinet ministers. But this has only been the case with Liberal governments. It had Marc Lalonde as an influential cabinet minister during the Trudeau years. When Lalonde retired in 1984, the riding elected an opposition member in the 1984 general election, Liberal Lucie Pépin, by a large margin. Pépin served the next four years as a member of the Official Opposition. In the 1988 election, Pépin lost Outremont by a narrow margin to Tory Jean-Pierre Hogue. This was due to a significant vote split between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. After this win for the Tories in Outremont, Hogue spent the next 5 years as a government backbencher. In 1993, Hogue was very badly defeated, receiving only 8.91% of the vote, losing to Martin Couchon. Couchon then spent several years in the Chrétien cabinet. As a Chrétien loyalist, Couchon did not seek re-election in 2004. He was succeeded in Outremont by Liberal Jean Lapierre, who then also became a cabinet minister (Transport) under Paul Martin. Lapierre was re-elected in the 2006 election. Although Lapierre had previously served as an opposition member from 1984 to 1992 (he left the Liberals in 1990 and joined the Bloc Quebecois, then resigned his seat in 1992 which Mulroney left vacant until the next general election), he didn’t want to serve in opposition again and quit his seat in January 2007 after serving in the opposition again for less than a year. The seat has been vacant since but Stephen Harper must call a by-election by Saturday.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
I also just feel like discussing the Ontario riding of Welland. Federally, this riding is represented by Liberal John Maloney. In the next federal election, Maloney will face a Conservative candidate named Alfred Kiers who evidently is a right-wing Conservative because in 1997 he ran against Maloney as a Christian Heritage Party candidate. Maloney will also face New Democrat Malcolm Allen, who is the deputy mayor of Pelham, Ontario, as well as councilor for Pelham’s Ward One. Unfortunately for Mr. Allen, he is being parachuted into the Welland riding because Pelham is outside of the riding of Welland. He will thus lack name recognition when he runs in the riding. I am not sure why the 2006 and 2004 candidate, Jody Di Bartolomeo is not running again for the NDP considering that he came second both times and in 2006 came within less than 5% of winning the riding.
Provincially, the riding of Welland does not yet exist, but will as soon as the provincial election starts. The current equivalent provincial riding is Niagara Centre. It is represented by NDPer Peter Kormos. Kormos has been in the legislature ever since a 1988 by-election. Back then the riding was Welland-Thorold. Welland-Thorold and its successor Niagara Centre have bucked the provincial trend in every election since the 1970s with the exception of the 1990 election. After this election that the NDP won province-wide, Kormos was briefly in the Bob Rae cabinet before being thrown out of cabinet for appearing fully clothed in the Toronto Sun as a Sunshine Boy. For whatever reason this was considered a scandal by the government and it put Kormos permanently out of cabinet. This “scandal”, however, did not affect his standing with his local electorate. Thus, one can expect the new Welland riding that Kormos is running in to likely buck the provincial trend again and re-elect Kormos. The redistributed results for Welland show a weaker NDP win. The Liberals have a much stronger vote (10 points higher) in the Welland redistributed results but are still 5000 votes behind the NDP. Kormos’ opponents will be Liberal John Mastroianni, a former Welland politician who recently finished second in the race to be mayor of Welland. The Tories will run Ron Bodner, a former mayor of Port Colborne who lost his bid for re-election as mayor of Port Colborne in 2006 by almost 2000 votes. Both would like to think they could beat Kormos. As much as I’d like Mastroianni to beat Kormos, the smart money remains on Kormos being re-elected.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)