Katz loses crucial by-election

33 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2009-03-21 13:46

Aristotleded24

The [url=http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Polls-closed-in-civic-byel... Free Press[/url] is reporting that former school trustee John Orlikow has won the by-election for River Heights-Fort Garry. River Heights-Fort Garry became vacant when councilor Brenda Leipsic passed away. In the 2006 municipal election, this ward was represented by Donald Benham. Benham was a strident critic of the right-wing mayor. Leipsic, a Katz pick, successfully challenged Benham for the council seat. This is one of several key wards that could shift the balance of power at City Hall, and it shows that the left is gaining momentum in Winnipeg.

Now onto 2010 when Katz loses. What a thought!

Tue, 2009-03-17 22:50

Aristotleded24

I should also add that Orlikow was endorsed by those on the left like councilors Jenny Gerbasi and Lillian Thomas, and that is opponent, Geoff Currier, is a commentator for the right-wing CJOB.

Tue, 2009-03-17 22:53

Unionist

Great news! How is John Orlikow related to David?

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:11

Paul Gross

nephew, apparently.

http://winnipegfreepress.com/local/his_decades_of_service_touched_many.html

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:17

genstrike

Orlikow's actions regarding the Winnipeg Labour Council endorsement prove him to be a first class twit.

And is this by-election really all that crucial for Katz? Best case scenario, votes will just go 10-5 instead of 11-4 (except for the motion condemning anti-privatization organizers as racists, that one passed unanimously). Not exactly shifting the balance.

Furthermore, how is River Heights more "key" than any other ward? All the left really needs is 8 seats and the big chair to control council and it doesn't really matter where those 8 seats come from (and we already have 4). Then we can implement whatever weak, watered-down agenda the WCC comes up with!

Still, I'm happy about anyting that screws over Katz.

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:25

Unionist

Thanks, Paul, I hadn't heard about Lionel's death. David was our MP throughout my youth, and I got to know him personally in later years as a steadfast friend and champion of our issues (i.e. union issues) in the House of Commons. David's wife Val was one of the victim/survivors of the notorious CIA LSD experiments under the evil hand of Dr. Ewen Cameron in the 1950s. And their "other brother" Archie was our pharmacist, way back in antiquity. Sorry for the personal stuff here, but it brings back memories.

ETA: Just read genstrike's link about the Winnipeg Labour Council. I'm of two minds about that. I'm more interested in his politics and actions than whose "endorsement" he accepts. Still, it's not a great sign...

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:52

Coyote

Which candidate were you supporting, genstrike? Anyone in the ward can run in civic elections, right? Was there a candidate you were working with?

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:55

Coyote

It's considered "crucial" because it is a swing ward - the left and right, as noted above, have represented it. There are more than a handful of wards which are historically of one stripe or the other.

Tue, 2009-03-17 23:55

genstrike

From the little I've gathered about him, he seems to be a somewhat left-liberal type. I don't think anyone is really sure whether he is a Liberal or NDPer. I read on some blog that campaign materials feature pictures of him with prominent Liberals such as Lloyd Axworthy, Anita Neville, and Jon Gerrard.

Yeah, the whole WLC thing is mostly symbolism. I mean, he was clearly motivated by symbolism. But there's a good chance that it is symbolic of something...

And yeah, I wish I had the balls to ask for someone's support, publicly turn down their endorsement and distance myself from them, then say "oh, but you guys can help me out on my campaign"

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:17

#10

genstrike

Coyote wrote:
Which candidate were you supporting, genstrike? Anyone in the ward can run in civic elections, right? Was there a candidate you were working with?

I don't live in the ward, and I was not working with any candidates. If you are implying that I should run for city council, I don't have the time (especially on the off-chance I win), I might be moving around the province after I graduate, and I would be an all around crappy candidate due to my not-great public speaking skills and being way too shy and anti-social in person.

Orlikow was clearly the better of the two, but the whole WLC thing just looks bad.

I just think that in general, Winnipeg needs something more left than the anaemic center-leftism of the WCC or John Orlikow. I'm not a super-active WCC insider or anything, but I don't think I heard the word "left" once without being immediately prefaced by the word "center" at the WCC founding meeting. I honestly think Winnipeg Is Not For Sale had more potential than the WCC to be a solidly leftist force in municipal politics, but alas, we got screwed by the media big time. And I don't know if there is any space with which to revive WINFS given that a lot of the big players on the municipal left are into the WCC.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:25

#11

Aristotleded24

genstrike wrote:
And is this by-election really all that crucial for Katz? Best case scenario, votes will just go 10-5 instead of 11-4 (except for the motion condemning anti-privatization organizers as racists, that one passed unanimously). Not exactly shifting the balance.
Furthermore, how is River Heights more "key" than any other ward? All the left really needs is 8 seats and the big chair to control council and it doesn't really matter where those 8 seats come from (and we already have 4). Then we can implement whatever weak, watered-down agenda the WCC comes up with!

In answer to your first question, it is a snapshot of shifting political winds. By-elections are the closest things we have to mid-term elections. If a swing riding goes one way, it's indicitave of a general trend, one which we can capitalise on in the next general election.

In answer to your second paragraph, River Heights is "key" because it swung to the right in 2006 and has now gone back the other way. Orlikow still won even though this ward contains Lindenwoods. Since the ground has shifted here, it shows that the ground has probably shifted in other key wards as well, and that there is a realistic shot in areas like St. James and Kildonan.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:27

#12

Coyote

Maybe they realize the "hard left" needs to work with the centre left to defeat the right. which is kinda the whole point.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:30

#13

Coyote

Which does not mean, by the way, that i'm against a hard left grouping forming on the winnipeg municipal scene. i just doubt it would have much support.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:44

#14

genstrike

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In answer to your first question, it is a snapshot of shifting political winds. By-elections are the closest things we have to mid-term elections. If a swing riding goes one way, it's indicitave of a general trend, one which we can capitalise on in the next general election.

In answer to your second paragraph, River Heights is "key" because it swung to the right in 2006 and has now gone back the other way. Orlikow still won even though this ward contains Lindenwoods. Since the ground has shifted here, it shows that the ground has probably shifted in other key wards as well, and that there is a realistic shot in areas like St. James and Kildonan.

I'm just not sure exactly how much municipal by-elections say about anything, given the low turnout and the fact they only take one riding into account as opposed to a poll of Winnipeg. I think they have more to say about the Orlikow organizers ability to get out the vote.

Celebrate, sure, but don't think this tiny victory is an indication that the power of the right will be broken in 2010

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:46

#15

Aristotleded24

Coyote wrote:
Which does not mean, by the way, that i'm against a hard left grouping forming on the winnipeg municipal scene. i just doubt it would have much support.

One tactical critique I have about the WCC is that I feel it is too soft. A "citizen's group" wanting "open" government that's "accountable to citizen's?" Drop the platitudes, and become a centre-left political party at the municipal level. The right has its behind-the-scenes political machinery, let's bring it out into the open and be honest. Notice in Winnipeg that the right-wing councillors talk about "non-partisanship" and "putting partisan politics aside" while councillors like Jenny Gerbasi, Lillian Thomas, and Harvey Smith win by flaunting their NDP colours? What does that tell you about voting patterns in Winnipeg?

Vancouver seems to be unique among Canadian cities in developing a partisan culture at the municipal level. It helps everybody identify the key players, and incumbency doesn't seem as much a job-for-life there as in most other cities.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:48

#16

Aristotleded24

genstrike wrote:
Aristotleded24 wrote:

In answer to your first question, it is a snapshot of shifting political winds. By-elections are the closest things we have to mid-term elections. If a swing riding goes one way, it's indicitave of a general trend, one which we can capitalise on in the next general election.

In answer to your second paragraph, River Heights is "key" because it swung to the right in 2006 and has now gone back the other way. Orlikow still won even though this ward contains Lindenwoods. Since the ground has shifted here, it shows that the ground has probably shifted in other key wards as well, and that there is a realistic shot in areas like St. James and Kildonan.

I'm just not sure exactly how much municipal by-elections say about anything, given the low turnout and the fact they only take one riding into account as opposed to a poll of Winnipeg. I think they have more to say about the Orlikow organizers ability to get out the vote.

Celebrate, sure, but don't think this tiny victory is an indication that the power of the right will be broken in 2010

By-elections always have low turnout at any level, but are often reliable indicators of future trends.

Sure, the right will be powerful, but the left is also gaining. And winning River Heights now means the left can now focus on simply holding it due to incumbency advantage and branch out to other areas.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:49

#17

genstrike

Coyote wrote:
Maybe they realize the "hard left" needs to work with the centre left to defeat the right. which is kinda the whole point.

Why do we always have to work with them, especially on their terms? Why can't the "center-left" ever work with the "hard left" to defeat the right?

Coyote wrote:
Which does not mean, by the way, that i'm against a hard left grouping forming on the winnipeg municipal scene. i just doubt it would have much support..

I think WINFS had some decent support on the left (the rally at city hall was fairly well attended and the family fun day went pretty well, and was the first rally against the municipal government in a while), but I think we failed to capitalize on a couple opportunities. And since then all the big shots on the municipal left hitched their wagon to the WCC.

Wed, 2009-03-18 00:58

#18

Coyote

"Why do we always have to work with them, especially on their terms? Why can't the "center-left" ever work with the "hard left" to defeat the right?"

Fair question. I think it has to do with where the voters are.

Fri, 2009-03-20 18:10

#19

Aristotleded24

So in typical Winnipeg fashion, Orlikow is promising not to "take sides" regarding the political situation on council. Party politics is such a taboo topic at city hall in Winnipeg. Everyone tries to run from them, and it's BS, because do you really expect people to not repay those that got them elected? Certainly it is frustrating that Orlikow won't acknowledge the friends who helped to get him elected, but at the same time it's not fair to single him out on this matter.

Fri, 2009-03-20 21:07

#20

Stockholm

" Vancouver seems to be unique among Canadian cities in developing a partisan culture at the municipal level."

No, there is party politics in Montreal, Quebec City, Laval and other cities in Quebec and Quebec is still part of Canada.

Sat, 2009-03-21 00:40

#21

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
No, there is party politics in Montreal, Quebec City, Laval and other cities in Quebec and Quebec is still part of Canada.

Fair enough Stockholm, I was not aware of municipal politics in Quebec. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sat, 2009-03-21 02:01

#22

Stockholm

Its actually wortth noting that Montreal has had a party system for at least the last 60 years or so (ie: the Civic Action League, the Civic Party, the Montreal Citizens Movement, Vision Montreal etc...), but what really sealed the deal was in the late 70s when the Quebec government brought in a new municipal act that basically created a parliamentary style structure of government and opposition and allowed for municipal parties to raise money.

Sat, 2009-03-21 19:42

#23

Max Bialystock

Excuse my Toronto-centrism, but isn't River Heights Winnipeg's equivalent of Forest Hill? How left can Orlikow be?

Sat, 2009-03-21 23:23

#24

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
Its actually wortth noting that Montreal has had a party system for at least the last 60 years or so (ie: the Civic Action League, the Civic Party, the Montreal Citizens Movement, Vision Montreal etc...), but what really sealed the deal was in the late 70s when the Quebec government brought in a new municipal act that basically created a parliamentary style structure of government and opposition and allowed for municipal parties to raise money.

Basically the opposite of what happened in Winnipeg, when the amalgamation pretty much eliminated partisan politics at city hall. (Paging unionist, you know more about this than I would.)

As for comparing River Heights and Forrest Hill, I'm not sure because I know nothing about Forrest Hill. It does include the more conservative-leaning Lindenwoods Development. As for left-wing, we'll see. Orlikow has certainly said the right things, now he has to put them into action. He needs to be a really strong councillor to hold onto the seat. Heck, even Benham was a strong councillor and he lost.

Sun, 2009-03-22 00:19

#25

Stockholm

A lot of Forest Hill in Toronto is in the ward that elects Joe Mihevc who is NDP and one of the most progressive people on council. So its not surprising that River Heights would elect someone progressive at the municipal level.

One thing I would like someone from Winnipeg to explain is why it is that there are all these wards in north Winnipeg that are massively NDP and the provincial and federal levels but which keep electing rightwing city councillors.

Sun, 2009-03-22 16:33

#26

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
One thing I would like someone from Winnipeg to explain is why it is that there are all these wards in north Winnipeg that are massively NDP and the provincial and federal levels but which keep electing rightwing city councillors.

Which wards would these be? When you look at the federal ridings, they pretty much overlap with the left-wing wards in Winnipeg. Harry Lazerenko and Liberal Mike Pagtakhan represent part of these ridings, and both councillors are all over the map politically, but it seems Pagtakhan can be pushed left. Transcona is represented by Russ Wyatt, who has the official NDP machine behind him, but there are grumblings about him. Right-winger councillors Jeff Browaty and Mike O'Shaughnessy both represent Kildonan, the federal seat, Kildonan-St. Paul currently being held by Conservative Joy Smith.

The other thing that I mentioned earlier is that right-wing councillors tend to run on the idea that partisan politics should not be at city hall, and I guess that idea does get some traction.

ETA: I wouldn't characterise River Heights as particularly left-wing, moreso a hip, yuppy urban area. It contains the ridings of Liberal leader Jon Gerrad and Conservative leader Hugh McFadyen, so it's no mystery why Orlikow would want to distance himself from the left even if only for tactical reasons.

Mon, 2009-03-23 06:39

#27

Lord Palmerston

River Heights is the area with the most concentrated support for the Manitoba Liberals. It's also located in the only seat currently held by the federal Liberals.

Tue, 2009-03-24 15:32

#28

genstrike

Stockholm wrote:

One thing I would like someone from Winnipeg to explain is why it is that there are all these wards in north Winnipeg that are massively NDP and the provincial and federal levels but which keep electing rightwing city councillors.

Because the Manitoba NDP is right-wing?

Wed, 2009-03-25 01:14

#29

ghoris

I wholeheartedly echo Aristotle's call for municipal political parties.

To provide a serious answer Stock's point, the reason why areas that elect NDP politicians provincially and federally vote for right-wing politicians municipally are, in no particular order:

1) People by and large don't pay attention to municipal politics, so most people probably don't know the political leanings of their councillors. I'll wager you dollars to donuts that the majority of Lazarenko's voters think he's NDP.

2) Again, people don't pay attention, so incumbents keep getting re-elected.

3) Did I mention that people don't pay attention to municipal politics? And so they end up voting on stupid local issues like who will promise to remove speed bumps from school zones or get their streets cleaned more frequently.

4) Closely related to #3, some of these right-wing hacks keep getting re-elected by adopting a ward-heeler "what's-in-it-for-my-ward" attitude to everything. This gets them plaudits for "fighting for our community" even as they are undermining the city as a whole. Most voters have the same attitude, and so nobody's looking out for the interests of the city (in theory that's the role of the mayor, but...)

It's for these reasons that I would love to see the replacement of wards with an at-large council (or at least a hybrid of wards and at-large councillors) and a political party system.

Wed, 2009-03-25 21:27

#30

Aristotleded24

Hey ghoris, haven't seen you for a while. I hope you don't mind adding to what you said:

ghoris wrote:
1) People by and large don't pay attention to municipal politics, so most people probably don't know the political leanings of their councillors. I'll wager you dollars to donuts that the majority of Lazarenko's voters think he's NDP.

Lazarenko also represens an area that is heavily Ukranian.

ghoris wrote:
2) Again, people don't pay attention, so incumbents keep getting re-elected.

Especially considering that there are fewer city wards than there are provincial constituencies. At least align the city's boundaries to the province for a start, then it gives challengers a chance.

ghoris wrote:
3) Did I mention that people don't pay attention to municipal politics? And so they end up voting on stupid local issues like who will promise to remove speed bumps from school zones or get their streets cleaned more frequently.

Did Browaty get around to getting rid of those speedbumbs?

ghoris wrote:
4) Closely related to #3, some of these right-wing hacks keep getting re-elected by adopting a ward-heeler "what's-in-it-for-my-ward" attitude to everything. This gets them plaudits for "fighting for our community" even as they are undermining the city as a whole. Most voters have the same attitude, and so nobody's looking out for the interests of the city (in theory that's the role of the mayor, but...)

Pipes, policing, and potholes, that's the mantra for what's important at City Hall. Katz is failing miserably on the potholes front.

Anyways, I hope you stick around, becuase I'd like to discuss possible changes to the balance of power.

Wards the left could lose:

River-Heights Fort Garry: Easily the most right-wing of all the swing ridings, considering this contains PC Leader Hugh McFadyen's riding. It swung to the right with Leipsic, and could so swing again if the right-wingers get worked up or if Orlikow is not a strong councillor.

St. Boniface: Currently held by Dan Vandal. He's safe as long as he runs, but if he challenges for mayor in 2010, that ward is open, and Katz backer Magnifico took that constuency during Vandal's absence. Some work there needed.

Wards the left could win:

Mynarski: Lazarenko's not that useful, I hope a strong challenger runs there.

Point Douglas: Pagtakhan, who has served at various times on Katz' Cabinet, nearly lost the last time around. He is in talks with the Citizen's Coalition however, and it looks like he could be pushed left. So yes the left could take this ward, but is replacing a councillor who can be pushed a wise use of resources?

Old Kildonan: I think a strong challenger could take out O'Shaughnessy or at least pick up that ward should he decide to step down.

North Kildonan: Browaty took this ward last time. It was previously represented by Mark Lubosch. Is a Lubosch return to council in the cards?

St. James-Brooklands: Scott Fielding defeated long-term councilor Jay Eadie in 2006. Although Fielding is a Katz ally, the area is NDP at least provincially (and I'm not sure how much of this ward overlaps into Pat Martin's riding). I say give this one a shot.

Transcona: Wyatt has the NDP establishment behind him, but as I said not everybody is happy with him. I think this ward should be challenged as well, and that Marianne Cerilli would be the right person to do this. She served as the area's MLA, is well respected, and I think with a good grassroots campaign she could easily take out Wyatt even if he is endorsed by regular players like the Labour Council.

I've attended a few meetings, but otherwise haven't done much with the Citizen's Coalition. I'll think about it more next year when the election is on. What I have absolutely no interest in doing is wasting time and energy with this project if the people involved aren't willing to learn from history as to why previous experiments like WIN failed. I'd also like to know how they go about endorsing candidates, if they do. If the process is not open and transparent, the right will be all over it claiming that the "special interests" are "cutting backroom deals" in order to gain control (which wouldn't be stretching it that much actually). Sadly, I fear that the WCC may already be headed down the same failed path.

Thu, 2009-03-26 01:06

#31

ghoris

Nice to be back. Been crazy busy at work lately.

I think your list of targets is about right. I used to live in North Kildonan. It's winnable, but not by someone running on an avowedly left/progressive platform. The NDP does well provincially in the area (although River East is the last Tory outpost outside southeast Winnipeg), but it's still basically a suburban ward with conservative, NIMBY attitudes - especially when it comes to municipal issues. For example, everyone in NK claims to be terrified of crime even though it's got the lowest crime rate in the City. Ironically, when Lubosch first got elected he was backed by more than a few Tories. The Rossmere PC machine got behind him in 1995 because they did not want Don Mitchelson to get back in. Then when Mark refused to be a good little Tory they tried to knock him off, finally succeeding in the last go-round. Lubosch was forced to wear the left/progressive/Liberal-NDP/labour mantle really by default - I never got the sense he was particularly comfortable in that role, although he was certainly better than anything the Tories could come up with. That's probably way more North Kildonan political history than most people want to know...

I think there are a few wishy-washy Liberal types (eg Pagtakhan, Steeves) or blue-collar populists (Wyatt) who can be pushed left if progressives have enough clout. The problem is these guys are attracted to power so as long as there's someone like Katz in the mayor's chair they will be reluctant to go against his wishes. (Although one wonders what Wyatt has to do to get turfed off EPC after calling for the province to investigate Katz for conflict of interest.)

I suppose that WIN could be categorized as a 'failure' in that it did not have much in the way of staying power, but it did pretty well in a couple elections (winning half the council seats in 1989) and Selinger had a decent showing in a crowded mayoral field in 1992. Part of the problem was that Filmon chopped the number of council seats in half in 1992 and it basically forced a bunch of incumbents to run against each other. Whether WIN would have 'survived' if it had been more of a formal party and less of a loose 'coalition' is an open question, but on the flip side, I think the WIN experience equally stands as evidence that progressive forces need to have a bit of a 'rainbow coalition' approach to obtain real success. I think if you had a more formal (and more ideologically-driven) party, it would be hard to get majority support. WIN did well in 1989, for example, because Liberals like Sandy Hyman, urban activists like Glen Murray and dyed-in-the-wool NDPers like Lillian Thomas could all feel at home in the same 'party'.

Thu, 2009-03-26 18:32

#32

Aristotleded24

I have to disagree about Wyatt and Steeves. As I've said, many people are not happy with Wyatt, and it seems odd as an NDPer that he would get along better with Katz than he did with Murray. Steeves, from what I've seen, is a right-wing Liberal, and among other things, he has fought very hard against any community policing issue that has come up in Winnipeg. Plus, all of St. Vital went Conservative in the last federal election, and it surprises me that the NDP ever won that provincial seat, much less defended it for as long as it has.

As for the failure of WIN: your point about reducing the size of council is taken, but wouldn't that also have forced right-wing incumbents to run against one another as well? As for being stronger, I agree that you have to form coalitions, but if you're not careful you'll end up watering down your ideas to the point of being meaningless platitudes. So you favour "accountability?" I'm sure Katz would say the same thing, why not let him join the WCC? The other thing I'm concerned about is how do you hold elected members accountable to the principles that the coalition has agreed on? Sitting MLAs and MPs who disappoint their party base can be challenged for nomination (at least in the NDP, anyways). In terms of electoral success, there is a strong case that the WIN victory of 1989 paved the way for Glen Murray to win 9 years later. But did the left put all its eggs in the Glen Murray basket? When Murray stepped down, the city went in 2 years from having a progressive mayor to losing not only that spot to diminished progressive clout on council. Basically, progressives handed the 2006 election to Katz, and it's important to learn from history.

Thu, 2009-03-26 20:00

#33

Lord Palmerston

In Toronto there are also no parties at the municipal party and you also have rightwingers getting elected in progressive wards, often just by name recognition. Case Ootes, a Tory, represents the northern half of Toronto-Danforth, an NDP stronghold, and it was only in the last municipal election that he faced a serious challenge. And the Beaches, held provincially by the NDP and federally was held by the NDP prior to 1993, elected the ultrarightwing Liberal Tom Jakobek in the 1980s and 1990s.