babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Toronto Centre by-election

Lord Palmerston
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

*


Comments

Lord Palmerston
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Apr 6 2011

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.


Lord Palmerston
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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

http://lindamcquaig.ca


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Lord Palmerston wrote:

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

http://lindamcquaig.ca

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


felixr
Offline
Joined: May 6 2012

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 22 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2009

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

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

 


DaveW
Offline
Joined: Dec 24 2008

 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
Offline
Joined: Mar 22 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

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
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

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
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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. 


Lord Palmerston
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

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
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

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
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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
Online
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 24 2011

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
Online
Joined: May 24 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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".


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments