Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua expected to announce retirement from federal politics

Well, his support had been dropping(he only took 49% in the last election)and the Tories might have had a real chance of beating him next time.

I doubt the Conservatives have a chance at the seat - I don't think that's why he's retiring.  In order for the Conservatives to win that riding their support would have to really increase in the Toronto area, and the Liberals would have to lose their traditional Italian base.

What's most interesting about that article is that it documents how it is becoming more common for MP's to want to go into Municipal politics these days.  That may be because MP's in today's political parties are basically at the service of their party leaders and do not have a lot of freedom.  Being a Mayor is becoming a more attractive option to those who want to advance their own ideas and policies.

The article also comments on the recent departures from McGuinty's government to municipal politics, as well as that of NDP MP Judy W-L this week, and the possible departure of NDP MP Peter Stoffer as well.

OTOH the seat no longer has an incumbent running.  And remember, too, Al Palladini's provincial victories under Mike Harris.

Sure, it would take a real Iggyastrophe, but...

The Nova Scotia municipal elections aren't until October, 2011, so Peter Stoffer will be around at least until the call of the next election.  If he doesn't stand as an NDP candidate then, that would be a good indication of his intentions.

I think you mean the next NS municipal elections are in 2012 not 2011

Whoops, right you are, Ken.  My rush to type made me miss that error.

Which means Stoffer will probably still have his name on the ballot next spring(?)!

Can anyone tell us which other provinces have municipal elections this October?  Perhaps there are other M.P.'s considering leaving Ottawa.

Btw, why is it so important to Canadians that a MP or MLA give up her seat BEFORE seeking another office?  People who are privately employed aren't expected to make themselves jobless for the duration of the campaign and take the risk of ending up unemployed if they lose.  Why do you expect this of MP's, MPP's, MLA's, et.al.   Isn't demanding that likely to discourage a lot of people who might have something to offer from seeking another office?  It seems to me, looking at this as an outsider, that it would pretty much make it impossible for, say, a B.C. New Democrat MLA who has young children to stand for federal or municipal office. 

Why should modern-day people have to make a greater sacrifice in this regard than did, say, Tommy Douglas, who led the Saskatchewan CCF to victory in the famous 1944 provincial election while continuing to serve as a federal CCF MP?

It's your country and it's your party, but I've wondered about this watching from outside.  It just looks like, in insisting on that, you may be putting a huge roadblock in front of a lot of people with great potential, say female politicians raising small children or people who entered politics from a low-income background.

I don't know either, Ken. I remember an instance from years ago when a local guy decided to run for the NDP. He was a school teacher then, and the school board fired him before the election citing some conflict of interest or another between politics and teaching. I'd like to think the same thing wouldn't happen today.

It's the law in a lot of cases, KenB.  Which doesn't answer your bigger question of why, but there you have it.

Perhaps the idea is to STOP the next Tommy Douglas from emerging from below.

There are no conflicts of interest though when old line party senators receive full-time pay for part-time work and lobbying for corporations and party fund raising all at the same time.