Toronto Centre by-election

196 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston
Toronto Centre by-election

*

Lord Palmerston

Time for a thread on this.  Seems like the Liberals have blocked "Furious George" from running for the nomination (couldn't have happened to a nicer person!) and appointed Chrystia Freeland, Globe journalist and author of "Plutocrats: The Rise of the Super-Rich and the Fall of the Everyone Else" who is politically kind of like Bob Rae and is probably the kind of candidate the NDP would also be happy to have:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/john-ivison-justin-trudea...

Jennifer Hollet is seeking the NDP nomination and has an impressive resume and social media presence:

http://jenniferhollett.com/

However there is another high profile person in the media who is rumored to be interested but has not come out yet.

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

However there is another high profile person in the media who is rumored to be interested but has not come out yet.

[img]http://funny-animated-gifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/jack-nicholson...

Lord Palmerston

...that high-profile person in the media being Linda McQuaig:

http://lindamcquaig.ca

theleftyinvestor

Lord Palmerston wrote:

...that high-profile person in the media being Linda McQuaig:

http://lindamcquaig.ca

As they say, "Oh, it's on!"

felixr

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

...that high-profile person in the media being Linda McQuaig:

http://lindamcquaig.ca

As they say, "Oh, it's on!"

Smile

ctrl190

After the Scarborough Guildwood debacle I hope all the resources are put in place to make sure it is a good-spirited and clean nomination contest.

Best scenario is that come the 2015 elections when the riding is split the second place finisher can run in the new riding. 

janfromthebruce

I would think since the election has not been announced that it will be a very different nomination meeting. Remember, nobody except the Liberals knew that their MPP was stepping down and so MPP quits and by gosh those byelections are called. And why the Libs had a candidate all ready to go too - funny how that works!

And as for the other riding in the future, one would think that this same process of a nomination race would happen.

Geoff

Great news that Linda McQuaig is running for the nomination.  If she is given enough latitude that she can be herself during the campaign, I believe she has a very good chance of winning.  However, if the party apparatchiks try to micro-manage the message and force her to stick to a set of talking points, we might be crying in our beer by the end of election night.  Let's go for spontaneity: 'let Linda be Linda'.

Unionist

Amen. What a breath of fresh air! Let Linda be Linda!

 

DaveW

 piece  in Globe  by Ibbittson today saying riding will be a battle of "2 visions of income inequality" ... but that piece is behind pay wall, ha, poor need not look further;

yesterday he did a horse-race piece:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-media-personalities-are-fighting-over-bob-raes-riding/article13609983/#dashboard/follows/

whoa, no one has won their party's nomination yet!

btw, I am not current on the Toronto Centre riding borders; does it include any of Rosedale, or not? I am still getting used to NDP candidates being contenders in rich ridings, cf. Westmount, which will become even more competitive if merger with middle/ lower-middle class N-D-G federal riding takes place (Wilder-Penfield)

also,

an in-house controversy at Globe re exposure of Freeland:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/inside-the-globe/readers-puzzled-about-freeland-opinion-column/article13484161/#dashboard/follows/

And yet, there she was in Monday's paper explaining her views about where Canada must proceed on income inequality. A few readers wondered why that happened.

Editor-in-chief John Stackhouse says, "She is no longer a columnist for The Globe, a decision she was informed of on Friday. Given her long association with Globe readers, we agreed she had a responsibility to explain to them why she's pursuing public office, and they'd want to know what she's thinking. They, in turn, can criticize her, as many have done. We will continue to provide space for that."

A few other readers wondered if all Liberal candidates and all candidates for other parties in that riding would receive the same treatment. One reader called the decision to run the opinion piece troubling. "The Globe and Mail chose to publish an OpEd piece written by the same ‘star candidate’ giving her an opportunity to outline her likely platform. To this reader, the editors of The Globe and Mail would appear to have shown favoritism and bias towards this individual."

ctrl190

DaveW wrote:

btw, I am not current on the Toronto Centre riding borders; does it include any of Rosedale, or not? 

Yes Toronto Centre includes all of Rosedale. In fact the riding used to be known as "Toronto Centre - Rosedale" until 2005. When T-C is split in 2015 Rosedale will be a part of the new riding Mount Pleasant. 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Why I'm running for the NDP nomination in Toronto Centre

I've dedicated my professional life to writing and speaking publicly about issues that I care about deeply -- countering income inequality and the austerity agenda, protecting and enhancing our public programs, tackling climate change and other environmental threats, and returning Canada to a constructive role in the world.

I now want to move from advocacy to action. After years as an observer and critic, I want to join a team actively fighting to build a Canada that is equal, inclusive and responsible -- a Canada that is seriously under threat by Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

This is a very exciting moment in Canadian politics. With the Harper government floundering as never before in the wake of recent scandals, the focus is turning toward who will form the next government. The upcoming by-election in Toronto Centre will be an important bell-weather as Canadians begin to seriously contemplate who can best lead the country in the post-Harper age. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has glitz, but NDP leader Tom Mulcair has substance, brains and a strong commitment to a creating a more progressive and inclusive Canada.

Linda McQuaig for Toronto Centre

If vitriol on Twitter is a barometer, the Liberals regard her as the greatest threat to their candidate, Chrystia Freeland. The obvious contrast is between their most recent books on inequality.

I have not read Freeland's book. But Jonathan Kay (from whom progressives might not expect much sympathy) observes, "McQuaig's book has harder edges, wonkier content, and more specific policy prescriptions."

She has also written many other books on several other important issues, including deficit phobia, globalization, energy and the environment.

The NDP's Achilles Heel has long been an alleged lack of credibility on economic issues. B.C. was the latest example of the political right's rhetorical focus on the economy derailing New Democrats. That election also illustrated how simply being cautious and not saying much about economic issues is an ineffective defence.

The NDP needs candidates who can confidently engage in economic policy debates. Nominating McQuaig would be a significant step forward on that front.

 

 

Stockholm

ctrl190 wrote:

DaveW wrote:

btw, I am not current on the Toronto Centre riding borders; does it include any of Rosedale, or not? 

Yes Toronto Centre includes all of Rosedale. In fact the riding used to be known as "Toronto Centre - Rosedale" until 2005. When T-C is split in 2015 Rosedale will be a part of the new riding Mount Pleasant. 

That was an old map, the newest new map suggests that Rosedale will be folded in with the Annex, Seaton Village, U of T and Little Italy to create University-Rosedale...which should be a fertile NDP seat as well since Rosedale will be quite diluted by the other areas it will be folded in with.

theleftyinvestor

Reminds me of when in 2008 Spencer Herbert (now Spencer Chandra Herbert) ran in a BC by-election in the soon-to-be-defunct Vancouver-Burrard. The district subsequently shrank in 2009 to Vancouver-West End (also a "gay village" riding), chopping off the wealthier condos in Yaletown and Coal Harbour to become even more NDP-friendly. The difference being that the part that was chopped off was as un-NDP as the territory could possibly be.

One thing that the successful candidate could learn from Spencer is visibility. Be so visible in the riding that you can't be forgotten. Give people a chance to decide that they want to vote for you after seeing you out canvassing for the fourth or fifth time, just in case the third time didn't convince them.

nicky

I don't think that the NDP can count on the new University-Rosedale seat. Although Olivia Chow wd have won it by 15% she is unlikely to be on the ballot there is 2015.

The new seat is a monstrosity, combining Rosedale with the Annex and Little Italy. There is as little community of interest among its parts as has the present Toronto Centre which combines Rosedale with everything south to the lake.

I fact I think UR will vote much like the present TC. The NDP wins in the west and south but gets swamped by the Rosedale vote. 

Lord Palmerston

University-Rosedale hasn't been finalized yet either.  It's a terrible riding that's basically the leftover pieces from the waterfront riding and Rosedale.

I think Olivia Chow is pushing to swap Rosedale for a piece of SW St. Paul's.

nicky

I hope you're right Lord P.

I had heard that the Commission created Uiversity Rosedale only after Olivia objected to the Annex being put into St Paul's (which would have made that riding very winnable). Has she now seen the light?

I had also heard that the boundaries are to be finalized by the end of August. Can anyone confirm this?

adma

Here's my read--the "new" (Rosedale-less) Toronto Centre seems more a "Jennifer Hollett" riding; University-Rosedale seems more a "Linda McQuaig" riding.

Lord Palmerston

nicky wrote:

I hope you're right Lord P.

I had heard that the Commission created Uiversity Rosedale only after Olivia objected to the Annex being put into St Paul's (which would have made that riding very winnable). Has she now seen the light?

Yes and the "community of interest" objection was BS.  And Rosedale fit with Mount Pleasant perfectly.

I don't think they realized that a waterfront riding had to go up to Dundas not Queen.

Lord Palmerston

adma wrote:

Here's my read--the "new" (Rosedale-less) Toronto Centre seems more a "Jennifer Hollett" riding; University-Rosedale seems more a "Linda McQuaig" riding.

Jennifer Hollett seems better suited to Fort York: more post-materialist and appealing to the tech savvy, "hip" condo demographic. 

McQuaig lives in Yorkville so her "home" would be University-Rosedale if that riding goes through. 

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:
I had also heard that the boundaries are to be finalized by the end of August. Can anyone confirm this?

The Ontario Commission finalized the boundaries last month. The staff of Elections Canada, if they are not all on holiday, are getting the revisions translated and the maps ready to post on the website. If they're done by the Adjournment Tabling Day scheduled for Wednesday, August 21, it will be tabled that day and go on the Commission website. If not, it can be tabled Sept. 16 when the House resumes -- if it is not prorogued instead, in which case, I don't know the tabling date.

nicky wrote:

I don't think that the NDP can count on the new University-Rosedale seat. Although Olivia Chow wd have won it by 15% she is unlikely to be on the ballot there is 2015.

The new seat is a monstrosity, combining Rosedale with the Annex and Little Italy. There is as little community of interest among its parts as has the present Toronto Centre which combines Rosedale with everything south to the lake.

I fact I think UR will vote much like the present TC. The NDP wins in the west and south but gets swamped by the Rosedale vote.

Only 66% of the Report's UR is from Olivia's riding. The UR transposed vote is:
NDP 43.24%

Liberal 30.91%

Conservative 20.39%

Green Party 4.67%

With no incumbent from any party, I still think it's the NDP's to lose.

DaveW wrote:

I am still getting used to NDP candidates being contenders in rich ridings, cf. Westmount, which will become even more competitive if merger with middle/ lower-middle class N-D-G federal riding takes place (Wilder-Penfield)

Based on the Quebec Commission's Report, no, the new Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount has the Liberal end of Westmount--Ville-Marie and the Liberal end of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, so the Liberal margin goes up from 1.56% to 3.27%. The first proposal, Wilder-Penfield, would have been similar, wIth a 3.62% Liberal margin.

But the new Dorval—Lachine would, remakably, have an NDP margin of 11.72% for Isabelle Morin to inherit, better than her 2011 margin of 7.83%. This assumes Hélène LeBlanc (shadow cabinet critic for Industry) takes the new LaSalle—Verdun with an NDP margin of 21.71%, up from her previous 15.53%. That leaves Tyrone Benskin, if he runs again, with the new Ville-Marie, which has a transposed NDP margin of 14.52%, down from Jeanne-Le Ber's 20.44%.
 
 

 

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:

adma wrote:

Here's my read--the "new" (Rosedale-less) Toronto Centre seems more a "Jennifer Hollett" riding; University-Rosedale seems more a "Linda McQuaig" riding.

Jennifer Hollett seems better suited to Fort York: more post-materialist and appealing to the tech savvy, "hip" condo demographic.

 

True, that.  But that's already evident in TC south-of-Bloor, w/the gay village tossed in for good measure...

Lord Palmerston

But Fort York-Spadina is more dominated by that demographic.

adma

I know; but we're dealing w/putative successors to the present-day TC in this thread.  So it's for the sake of argument...

Lord Palmerston

It's interesting that Jennifer Hollett seems to be the "establishment" candidate but the media seems to have declared it to be McQuaig.

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

It's interesting that Jennifer Hollett seems to be the "establishment" candidate but the media seems to have declared it to be McQuaig.

What makes you think Hollett is the "establishment candidate"?

Lord Palmerston

Because she's more in the mould of how the party wants to present itself: modern, young, tech-savvy, post-materialist, etc.  Also compare Mulcair's views on taxation to McQuaig's.  Would make a good candidate for the new Fort York riding (or whatever it's called).

That being said...I'm not saying "the fix is in."  This is a hotly contested nomination.  McQuaig is very high profile and probably just about the best candidate they could run in TC IMO. 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Because she's more in the mould of how the party wants to present itself: modern, young, tech-savvy, post-materialist, etc.  Also compare Mulcair's views on taxation to McQuaig's.  Would make a good candidate for the new Fort York riding (or whatever it's called).

That being said...I'm not saying "the fix is in."  This is a hotly contested nomination.  McQuaig is very high profile and probably just about the best candidate they could run in TC IMO. 

I don't see how it hurts Mulcair to have MPs in the party who have advocated higher tax policies than he would. It makes him look centrist but still allows him to keep the base happy with the more radical elements of the party well-represented.

Aristotleded24

knownothing wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Because she's more in the mould of how the party wants to present itself: modern, young, tech-savvy, post-materialist, etc.  Also compare Mulcair's views on taxation to McQuaig's.  Would make a good candidate for the new Fort York riding (or whatever it's called).

That being said...I'm not saying "the fix is in."  This is a hotly contested nomination.  McQuaig is very high profile and probably just about the best candidate they could run in TC IMO. 

I don't see how it hurts Mulcair to have MPs in the party who have advocated higher tax policies than he would. It makes him look centrist but still allows him to keep the base happy with the more radical elements of the party well-represented.

Kind of how Harper keeps social conservative backbenchers so that that constituency keeps voting Conservative even though Harper has no serious plans to deliver for them?

theleftyinvestor

Interestingly Carolyn Parrish was tweeting about support for McCuaig recently.

You may recall that she:

- Criticized the Bush administration repeatedly, but was not removed from caucus until she appeared on 22 Minutes stomping a GWBush doll.

- Said she personally supported same-sex marriage but her constituents didn't, and thus would oppose the legislation.

On August 6th she tweeted publicly to Ian Capstick (who likes both candidates but is supporting Hollett): "Linda McQuaig toughed it out in Can through the Harper years. She's incredibly qualified. Dedicated. I wish her the best! / Need to give her unqualified support now. I'm willing to cross party lines. You should be willing to hold party lines! / I'll venture in from the suburbs 2 work for Linda McCuaig. Was NDipper in University. Will return to my roots. See you there!"

---

Ultimately I think that having multiple excellent candidates for the nomination can only be a good thing. An abundance of talent is what we call "a good problem to have". I see it as running "for", and not "against".

nicky

As much as some inveterate Mulcair detractors want to manufacture a schism between him and Linda McQ this just isn't true.

Although he is neutral in the nomination race I understand that Tom some time ago personally encouraged Linda to run.

As well,  Linda seems to be fan of Tom's. She wrote this in her announcement of her candidacy:

Justin Trudeau has glitz, but NDP leader Tom Mulcair has substance, brains and a strong commitment to a creating a more progressive and inclusive Canada.

Skinny Dipper

nicky wrote:

Justin Trudeau has glitz, but NDP leader Tom Mulcair has substance, brains and a strong commitment to a creating a more progressive and inclusive Canada.

I can agree with Tom Mulcair having more substance than Justin Trudeau.  Then again, I think Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford, has more substance than Tom Mulcair, but that is a different kind of substance. Laughing

A nomination battle between Linda McQuaig and Jennifer Hollett would be quite interesting.  Linda McQuaig definitely shares her strong opinions.  However, could she become a loose cannon in Tom Mulcair's NDP?  Jennifer Hollett seems more likely to conform with Tom Mulcair's vision for the NDP and Canada.  I do think that she is trying to solidify her support among the LGBT community in the riding.  Linda McQuaig likely has support across Toronto.  However, will she be able to get enough support for her nomination from the NDP members living in Toronto-Rosedale?

Unionist

nicky wrote:

... I understand that Tom some time ago personally encouraged Linda to run.

I understand that Adam Giambrone some time ago personally encouraged Amarjeet Chhabra to run.

 

Lord Palmerston

nicky wrote:

As much as some inveterate Mulcair detractors want to manufacture a schism between him and Linda McQ this just isn't true.

And who is doing that?

janfromthebruce

Skinny Dipper wrote:

nicky wrote:

Justin Trudeau has glitz, but NDP leader Tom Mulcair has substance, brains and a strong commitment to a creating a more progressive and inclusive Canada.

I can agree with Tom Mulcair having more substance than Justin Trudeau.  Then again, I think Toronto's mayor, Rob Ford, has more substance than Tom Mulcair, but that is a different kind of substance. Laughing

now that was funny.

There is no schism except in the minds of those who may want to derail this thread or others with bones to pick with Mulcair. They are both great candidates and we are lucky to have them both interested in representing the NPD.

Linda also suffered under the long years of Liberal rule with Chretien and Martin. I believe the worst of the National Post hysterics towards her and Linda's opinion writing was while C. Black was head of the National Post.

 

Lord Palmerston

Who is derealing this thread?

ygtbk

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Interestingly Carolyn Parrish was tweeting about support for McCuaig recently.

This is not an endorsement that you want. Carolyn Parrish was my MP for many years (not my idea...) and is painfully stupid. There is a reason that she was always a backbencher, never a minister.

theleftyinvestor

ygtbk wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Interestingly Carolyn Parrish was tweeting about support for McCuaig recently.

This is not an endorsement that you want. Carolyn Parrish was my MP for many years (not my idea...) and is painfully stupid. There is a reason that she was always a backbencher, never a minister.

 

Heh I agree that it may not be a desired endorsement. I don't know Parrish very well but I would disagree about her being stupid. I'm sure she knows exactly what she is doing every step of the way, even if it is sometimes appalling.

Lord Palmerston

Good turnout and vibe at Linda McQuaig's launch today.  A formiable candiate who expresses the right themes.  Did anyone attend both those of Jennifer Hollett and Linda McQuaig?

toaster

Jennifer Hollett is young, intellectual and well-qualified.  Admittedly, I didn't know much about Linda McQuaig, but from what I've found on Youtube and the like, she seems rather ideological, and not really practical.  Calling Conservatives "neo-conservative" and "far on the right" instead of talking about how the issues and the Conservative policies are not what "we" (NDP party supporters) believe to be beneficial to Canadians.  I really don't think the average Canadian cares what label you put on someone, they want to know how you are going to make this place a better place.  Perhaps I'm looking at isolated examples, and I acknowledge that she was not campaining at that time, but I'd still hoping for Hollett at this point.

nicky

The red scare against Linda McQuaig has begun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/linda-mcquaig_b_3724806.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

 

 To answer Lord P, I attended both launches. Similar sized crowds, equally enthusiastic.

Jennifer very engaging, earnest, worked the crowd very well.

Linda more forceful, more content, quite humourous. Referred to JT imply as "that guy with the hair."

It will be an interesting contest that I wish both could win.

ygtbk

nicky wrote:

The red scare against Linda McQuaig has begun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/linda-mcquaig_b_3724806.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

To answer Lord P, I attended both launches. Similar sized crowds, equally enthusiastic.

Jennifer very engaging, earnest, worked the crowd very well.

Linda more forceful, more content, quite humourous. Referred to JT imply as "that guy with the hair."

It will be an interesting contest that I wish both could win.

I think you are being harsh on the HuffPo writer. This is a beautifully-crafted sentence:

Quote:

No, the trouble with McQuaig is that she's one of the most iconic far-left cranks working in the Canadian punditscape today, and therefore a candidate that single-handedly flushes down the john any NDP aspirations of claiming the pragmatic middle of Canadian politics.

and there are many more.

David Young

Remember Leo-Paul Lauzon as NDP candidate in 2006 in Outremont?

He was viewed as 'far-left' as you get, but that didn't stop him from paving the way for Mulcair to win there in 2007.

 

toaster

David Young wrote:

Remember Leo-Paul Lauzon as NDP candidate in 2006 in Outremont?

He was viewed as 'far-left' as you get, but that didn't stop him from paving the way for Mulcair to win there in 2007.

 

 

???  Are you kidding?  Mulcair was a huge name in Quebec politics.  He won on his own accord.

David Young

toaster wrote:

David Young wrote:

Remember Leo-Paul Lauzon as NDP candidate in 2006 in Outremont?

He was viewed as 'far-left' as you get, but that didn't stop him from paving the way for Mulcair to win there in 2007.

My point is that having someone from the 'far-left' as an NDP candidate doesn't seem to hurt the NDP's chances in a riding as some are trying to imply.

I think it is great that quality people like both Hollett and McQuaig want the nomination in a riding that has never voted NDP in the past, either provincially or federally.

Give Mulcair another 75 such quality candidates in 2015, and perhaps we'll finally see Tommy Douglas's pronouncement come true...

'Give us (the C.C.F.) 170 seats, and we'll turn this country right-side up!

 

Unionist

As a constituent - and a long-time admirer of Léo-Paul - I'd have to agree with toaster's assessment. In fact, I regret to say that Léo-Paul's candidacy was seen as a bit of an anomaly. I knew he was a sovereignist, so I was a bit shocked to see him run for the NDP. Mind you, 2011 multiplied that particular phenomenon manifold.

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

toaster wrote:

Jennifer Hollett is young, intellectual and well-qualified.  Admittedly, I didn't know much about Linda McQuaig, but from what I've found on Youtube and the like, she seems rather ideological, and not really practical. 

You mean she might actually be a socialist instead of another left-leaning liberal?

knownothing knownothing's picture

ygtbk wrote:

nicky wrote:

The red scare against Linda McQuaig has begun:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jj-mccullough/linda-mcquaig_b_3724806.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

To answer Lord P, I attended both launches. Similar sized crowds, equally enthusiastic.

Jennifer very engaging, earnest, worked the crowd very well.

Linda more forceful, more content, quite humourous. Referred to JT imply as "that guy with the hair."

It will be an interesting contest that I wish both could win.

I think you are being harsh on the HuffPo writer. This is a beautifully-crafted sentence:

Quote:

No, the trouble with McQuaig is that she's one of the most iconic far-left cranks working in the Canadian punditscape today, and therefore a candidate that single-handedly flushes down the john any NDP aspirations of claiming the pragmatic middle of Canadian politics.

and there are many more.

The guy is a Tory

adma

knownothing wrote:
The guy is a Tory

Yeah: former National Post guy.

(In some ways, the CanHuffPo seems to be morphing into a "US Democrat" array; i.e. arms length from anything too Bernie Sanders-ish)

knownothing knownothing's picture

adma wrote:

knownothing wrote:
The guy is a Tory

Yeah: former National Post guy.

(In some ways, the CanHuffPo seems to be morphing into a "US Democrat" array; i.e. arms length from anything too Bernie Sanders-ish)

I see this guy on CTVNews "Political Express"

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=980861&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1

This panel always gets a Tory, a Liberal and an advocate for democratic participation. They never have a representative from the left or the NDP.

The state of the media in this country is depressing

They even talk about Mulcair and the Senate in this clip with no NDPers there to defend him.

Pages