Ontario 2011 election: the aftermath

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

agree with both Wilf and Life, that reflexive anti-nuclear should not be synomous with progressive. And FYI M. Spector, when Norwath was in Bruce County in July 2011, she stated publicly she supportive of the refurbishment of Bruce Power, which is now privately owned, although leased. And which made a ton of money for the company - sell off by Harris for cash to another corporate buddy.

 

I noted in the Liberal Star article that there was "no quotes" in Horwath's remarks which is thus the liberal star's interpretation and we know how friendly the lib star was this past election to the ONDP.

Aristotleded24

Wilf Day wrote:
France produces about 90% of its electricity from nuclear energy, a policy supported by successive socialist governments and presidents. I see no reason why all progressives must reflexively oppose nuclear power.

The fact that it produces nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years, is a good enough reason for me. Besides, many socialist governments around the world have privatized, does that mean all progressives should stop reflexively opposing privatization?

janfromthebruce

You know I think I will go at this one. At least we know where the waste is whereas in other forms of energy or pollution it goes into the air and we can't see it. I must say that industrial wind turbine are also not the answer considering the wind does not blow 24/7 and thus it needs a reliable backup which the bright minds think that natural gas is, the same unrenewable resource which requires "fracking" which is a process that is destroying safe and healthy water. Look it up if you don't know what that is.

Also, industrial wind turbines are causing some health problems but yeah what the hay as long if it's just rural folk who are getting sick. Oh, and it's so ineffiecent that we lose 20% when it comes down the line to good old Toronto. Why don't Torontian build a whole bunch of industrial wind turbines around Toronto for the energy needs, now that makes sense.

And so what if city folk get sick and can't live in their homes that are beside those turbines because it is for the higher cause. Of course to actually meet the energy needs of ONtario, we could have to build wind turbines right up and down all the great lakes and going in 10 miles, to aquire, I think 50% of the energy needs at twice the cost of nuclear, which incidently does burn "clean".

I guess what I am saying, there are pluses and minuses to varios forms of energy production, and nuclear is not the big bad booegy man that some like to paint.

 

Debater

janfromthebruce wrote:

I noted in the Liberal Star article that there was "no quotes" in Horwath's remarks which is thus the liberal star's interpretation and we know how friendly the lib star was this past election to the ONDP.

Perhaps the ONDP campaign didn't catch fire with the media the way Jack Layton's did.  The Toronto Star can no longer be called a completely Liberal paper since they endorsed the Federal NDP in May and not the Liberals.

Aristotleded24

Debater wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:
I noted in the Liberal Star article that there was "no quotes" in Horwath's remarks which is thus the liberal star's interpretation and we know how friendly the lib star was this past election to the ONDP.

Perhaps the ONDP campaign didn't catch fire with the media the way Jack Layton's did.  The Toronto Star can no longer be called a completely Liberal paper since they endorsed the Federal NDP in May and not the Liberals.

Jack's first campaign in 2004 wasn't exactly a resounding success either.

Aristotleded24

janfromthebruce wrote:
I guess what I am saying, there are pluses and minuses to varios forms of energy production, and nuclear is not the big bad booegy man that some like to paint.

I would agree that there are pluses and minuses, and that McGuinty's arrogant handling of the issue has given clean energy opponents a boost and set back the cause of wind energy.

I hear the phrase "industrial wind," and while I don't know too much about it generally, I do think that we need to start to "think small" in terms of energy development. I would imagine that industrial wind is some sort of large, mega development, and any large mega development is going to cause problems no matter what, whether it's mega wind, hydro electric, or nuclear. This is especially the case if it involves transmissios of large amount of power over long distances, then you have line losses to factor in. So instead of mega developments, it would be better to pursue smaller scale developments that make sense, for example solar panels on urban roofs and maybe a few windmills in areas where they make sense. Generate more of Toronto's power in Toronto, don't carry it over large distances from remote areas.

Stockholm

Since we are now analysing the entrails of the election, I have a question. What's the problem with Kitchener? I notice that the NDP now regularly wins London-Fanshawe and does quite well in the other London seats. There are some new signs of strength in Peterborough, NIagara Falls, Brantford and Guelph. Why is that in the three Kitchener seats in the last federal election and in this past provincial election, the NDP always does really badly barely breaking 20%? Is there something about the demographics of Kitchener that make it hostule territory for the NDP?

Aristotleded24

Stockholm wrote:
Since we are now analysing the entrails of the election, I have a question. What's the problem with Kitchener? I notice that the NDP now regularly wins London-Fanshawe and does quite well in the other London seats. There are some new signs of strength in Peterborough, NIagara Falls, Brantford and Guelph. Why is that in the three Kitchener seats in the last federal election and in this past provincial election, the NDP always does really badly barely breaking 20%? Is there something about the demographics of Kitchener that make it hostule territory for the NDP?

The Liberals being the default not-right wing option probably plays a role.

Debater

ctrl190 wrote:

I was quite surprised by the blow out win for the Liberals in Ottawa-Centre. I was not necessarily thinking a sure victory, but I thought it would be won by a margin of a couple thousand at most.

I was surprised too, and so were other Liberals who worked on the Ottawa team.  We did not expect to hold all the Ottawa-area ridings in this election, or to win some of them by such big margins.

It was assumed that there would be a loss somewhere – either to the Cons in Ottawa-West Nepean, or to the NDP in Ottawa Centre.  The Cons also put up strong fights in Ottawa-Orléans and Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The fact that the Libs held all their ridings in the Ottawa area - not just Ottawa South and Ottawa-Vanier (which are the only federal ridings left), but also Ottawa-Orléans, Ottawa Centre, Ottawa West-Nepean and Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a testament to the strength of the Ottawa Liberal team.

I think most progressive voters in Ottawa West-Nepean were happy to see Chiarelli hold off ultra-con Ottawa Citizen writer Randall Denley, and clearly progressive voters in Ottawa Centre are happy with the pro-gay Yassir Naqvi.  As I said above, we thought Yassir might be in a close race.  I didn't expect him to beat the NDP by 17 points.  I think he's probably the only Liberal in Ontario whose margin of victory went up by that much.

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
Since we are now analysing the entrails of the election, I have a question. What's the problem with Kitchener? I notice that the NDP now regularly wins London-Fanshawe and does quite well in the other London seats. There are some new signs of strength in Peterborough, NIagara Falls, Brantford and Guelph. Why is that in the three Kitchener seats in the last federal election and in this past provincial election, the NDP always does really badly barely breaking 20%? Is there something about the demographics of Kitchener that make it hostule territory for the NDP?

St. Catharines, also.

Maybe in the case of Kitchener, it's some conservative religious influence (Lutherans, Mennonites, etc.)?

Stockholm

I think that given the NDP strength in Welland and the fact that St. Catherine's is a pretty working class town - its probably a matter of waiting for Bradley to retire and then putting n the hit-list.

Life, the unive...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:
France produces about 90% of its electricity from nuclear energy, a policy supported by successive socialist governments and presidents. I see no reason why all progressives must reflexively oppose nuclear power.

The fact that it produces nuclear waste, which remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years, is a good enough reason for me. Besides, many socialist governments around the world have privatized, does that mean all progressives should stop reflexively opposing privatization?

 

By that logic we should simply quit producing energy of any sorts.  So what do you do- oil=tar sands, hydraulic changes a river forever, natural gas=fracking and massive aquifer pollution, renewables show some promise as supplimentory energy, but can not serve a large system (and I say this as someone mostly off the grid), and nuclear=waste.  The fact is it all sucks and pretending nuclear is really any worse than anything else is with the greatest respect a knee-jerk reponse and not based on anything resembling actual energy production issues and realities. 

As you said later- size does matter and the larger the size in the terms of scaling up energy production the larger and more intractable the problems. That's part of why, despite the Star's claims, supporting current production and scaling downand diversifying renewables was a key part of the ONDP energy platform.  As Grant Robertson, who has a strong background on energy issues, here in Huron-Bruce- where energy issues loom large, said, handing over the keys to the Ontario countryside to multi-national energy companies like the Liberals did is not the answer to anything.  What is weird though, is that because the rest of the NDP was so silent, it was the Conservatives who benefited in a number of ridings because the NDP sent progressive rural voters who saw what was happening over the Conservatives, because they had no other option.  It is stupid, but that is exactly what happened.

Wilf Day

A friend suggested last night that Dalton McGuinty probably would love to restore some of the corporate tax rate cut, because he will need the money, so it may be easier for the NDP to reach agreement with him than some think.

Of course McGuinty is pretending he won a majority because he is "only one seat short" but he knows perfectly well that, as they say, a miss is as good as a mile. Whether he is one seat short of a majority or ten seats makes no difference. When Jack Layton tried to reach an agreement with Paul Martin, Paul Martin cruelly but correctly replied "you don't have the votes." (It wasn't until Belinda crossed the floor that she, ironically, gave Jack the balance of power, enabling the famous "NDP budget.") Andrea can repay the compliment now: "Mr. McGuinty, you don't have the votes."

adma

ctrl190 wrote:
I agree with posters that Marchese's close victory could be the writing on the wall. In fairness, I do get the sense that many T-S supporters were volunteering in Davenport, atleast from what I saw next door. Still, T-S is changing dramatically, and the party might need a new face to keep up.  

Unless there's a byelection in the interrim, I suspect that redistribution will take care of a lot of that.

adma

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
Since we are now analysing the entrails of the election, I have a question. What's the problem with Kitchener? I notice that the NDP now regularly wins London-Fanshawe and does quite well in the other London seats. There are some new signs of strength in Peterborough, NIagara Falls, Brantford and Guelph. Why is that in the three Kitchener seats in the last federal election and in this past provincial election, the NDP always does really badly barely breaking 20%? Is there something about the demographics of Kitchener that make it hostule territory for the NDP?

The Liberals being the default not-right wing option probably plays a role.

Well, even more so federally, last time--a lot of the shoeleather which might otherwise have deserted the sinking Iggy ship was heavily committed to returning Redman and Telegdi, both of whom barely and "shouldn't have" lost in '08.

But when it comes to that general geography, don't forget Cambridge as another of the "new signs of strength" seats.

edmundoconnor

Stockholm wrote:

Can you tell us more about what the Liberals id in YSW in terms of homophobic dirty tricks? I'd like to confront Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray about it if i ever run into ewither of them.

You'd need to talk to some people on the ground there for more detailed information, as I was working in SSW for much of the campaign, but the jist I got from Paul's supporters that night was that there had been a homophobic whispering campaign against Paul targeted at the more socially conservative elements in the riding. Susan Gapka was volunteering on the campaign, and can testify to some ugly scenes at all candidates' debates.

I'd also point you towards Paul's own remarks in this Xtra! article. He doesn't say 'Tories' or 'PCs' were behind this, just "folks". I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about who he meant by that, and who stood to gain by his defeat. I would also point out that the previous (Liberal) MP made a habit of voting against anything that smacked of queer rights.

I have emailed Glen Murray the following:

Dear Glen,

I read with interest your comments in this Xtra! article.

I would point out a couple of things: Dalton McGuinty has never marched in Toronto Pride (or any other Prides, to my knowledge). Andrea Horwath has, repeatedly.

The NDP campaign kick-off was in York South-Weston, where the NDP candidate, Paul Ferreira, is openly gay. She has attended events in the riding in support of Paul's bid. This would be rather odd behaviour unless Horwath was unequivocally behind queer and trans rights.

I also read this, and ask you two things:

1. Can you confirm or deny that Liberal supporters in York South-Weston were involved in a homophobic whispering campaign with the express intent of dissuading voters from voting for Paul Ferreira?

2. I ask you to publicly condemn any and all political campaigns that use homophobia as an electoral tactic.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Edmund O'Connor

OnTheLeft OnTheLeft's picture

Debater wrote:

Perhaps the ONDP campaign didn't catch fire with the media the way Jack Layton's did.  The Toronto Star can no longer be called a completely Liberal paper since they endorsed the Federal NDP in May and not the Liberals.

 

And that endorsement was the most condescending, desperate and half-assed endoresement I've ever seen. Plus of course the Star completely ignored David Miller's endorsement of and press conference with Joe Pantalone in last year's municipal election, while giving wall to wall coverage of Joe Mihevic's defection to and endorsement of Smitherman.

 

 

 

Stockholm wrote:

I for one will deny it. I don't think she (Thomson) personally connected with voters at all. From what i heard if she had knocked on more doors she would have lost by a wider margins. She was quite abrasive and had a very weak and under-resources campaign. The fact that she came close to winning says more about Rosario getting a bit long in the tooth and the Liberals having a much more aggressive 'air war" in the Toronto media market than the NDP could afford. I suspect that ANYONE running for the Liberals would have done just as well as she did - if not better.

I've never been able to take her seriously. She's a total flake.

Debater

edmundoconnor wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Can you tell us more about what the Liberals id in YSW in terms of homophobic dirty tricks? I'd like to confront Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray about it if i ever run into ewither of them.

You'd need to talk to some people on the ground there for more detailed information, as I was working in SSW for much of the campaign, but the jist I got from Paul's supporters that night was that there had been a homophobic whispering campaign against Paul targeted at the more socially conservative elements in the riding. Susan Gapka was volunteering on the campaign, and can testify to some ugly scenes at all candidates' debates.

I'd also point you towards Paul's own remarks in this Xtra! article. He doesn't say 'Tories' or 'PCs' were behind this, just "folks". I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about who he meant by that, and who stood to gain by his defeat. I would also point out that the previous (Liberal) MP made a habit of voting against anything that smacked of queer rights.

I have emailed Glen Murray the following:

Dear Glen,

I read with interest your comments in this Xtra! article.

I would point out a couple of things: Dalton McGuinty has never marched in Toronto Pride (or any other Prides, to my knowledge). Andrea Horwath has, repeatedly.

The NDP campaign kick-off was in York South-Weston, where the NDP candidate, Paul Ferreira, is openly gay. She has attended events in the riding in support of Paul's bid. This would be rather odd behaviour unless Horwath was unequivocally behind queer and trans rights.

I also read this, and ask you two things:

1. Can you confirm or deny that Liberal supporters in York South-Weston were involved in a homophobic whispering campaign with the express intent of dissuading voters from voting for Paul Ferreira?

2. I ask you to publicly condemn any and all political campaigns that use homophobia as an electoral tactic.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Edmund O'Connor

The Liberals would not engage in a homophobic campaign - they have several MPP's who are gay in the Toronto area, including Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray.  It was mainly the Liberals who were targets of homophobia in this campaign, Kathleen Wynne in particular.  I posted a link from Xtra above outlining the things that Vince Agovino of the PC's said.

Paul Ferreira sounds like a sore loser.  He needs to be careful about blaming his loss on homophobia unless there is evidence to support it.  He has lost every time he has run, except for the brief win in 2007.  He seems to be one of those candidates who perpetually runs for election and refuses to accept the verdict of the voters:

"This was Ferreira’s fifth election campaign, including two provincial runs in 2007 and runs for the NDP federally in 2004 and 2006."

takeitslowly

So are you saying that the federal liberals did not engage in fighting against same sex marriage a few years ago? I can tell you that a lot of the federal Scarborough liberals were homophobic under the Paul Martin and Jean Chrietien government. It was also Dalton mcgunity who immediately shelved the sex ed imitative indefinitely after the right wing socially conservative accused him of promoting homosexuality and crossdressing to children.

Unless you are making an implication that because a political party has female or gays member of parliament, that means their party cannot be misogynistic or homophobic.

That sounds completely naive to me

 

I would not at all be suprised the liberals used dirty tricks to undermine JF.

Life, the unive...

Debater wrote:

edmundoconnor wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Can you tell us more about what the Liberals id in YSW in terms of homophobic dirty tricks? I'd like to confront Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray about it if i ever run into ewither of them.

You'd need to talk to some people on the ground there for more detailed information, as I was working in SSW for much of the campaign, but the jist I got from Paul's supporters that night was that there had been a homophobic whispering campaign against Paul targeted at the more socially conservative elements in the riding. Susan Gapka was volunteering on the campaign, and can testify to some ugly scenes at all candidates' debates.

I'd also point you towards Paul's own remarks in this Xtra! article. He doesn't say 'Tories' or 'PCs' were behind this, just "folks". I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about who he meant by that, and who stood to gain by his defeat. I would also point out that the previous (Liberal) MP made a habit of voting against anything that smacked of queer rights.

I have emailed Glen Murray the following:

Dear Glen,

I read with interest your comments in this Xtra! article.

I would point out a couple of things: Dalton McGuinty has never marched in Toronto Pride (or any other Prides, to my knowledge). Andrea Horwath has, repeatedly.

The NDP campaign kick-off was in York South-Weston, where the NDP candidate, Paul Ferreira, is openly gay. She has attended events in the riding in support of Paul's bid. This would be rather odd behaviour unless Horwath was unequivocally behind queer and trans rights.

I also read this, and ask you two things:

1. Can you confirm or deny that Liberal supporters in York South-Weston were involved in a homophobic whispering campaign with the express intent of dissuading voters from voting for Paul Ferreira?

2. I ask you to publicly condemn any and all political campaigns that use homophobia as an electoral tactic.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Edmund O'Connor

The Liberals would not engage in a homophobic campaign - they have several MPP's who are gay in the Toronto area, including Kathleen Wynne and Glen Murray.  It was mainly the Liberals who were targets of homophobia in this campaign, Kathleen Wynne in particular.  I posted a link from Xtra above outlining the things that Vince Agovino of the PC's said.

Paul Ferreira sounds like a sore loser.  He needs to be careful about blaming his loss on homophobia unless there is evidence to support it.  He has lost every time he has run, except for the brief win in 2007.  He seems to be one of those candidates who perpetually runs for election and refuses to accept the verdict of the voters:

"This was Ferreira’s fifth election campaign, including two provincial runs in 2007 and runs for the NDP federally in 2004 and 2006."

Absolute bullshit.  I was the personal receipient of a whisper campaign by the Liberal candidate and campaign manager in a previous election where they were doing a nudge, nudge wink, wink about the orientation of the CONSERVATIVE candidate.   Your Liberal spin is so full of constant shit.  In another election the LIBERALS went door to door talking about the relationship and 'real' orientation of the NDP candidate because - horrors- they had different last names.  I heard those both directly from senior members of the campaign.  So peddle your bs somewhere else.  Liberals will do ANYTHING to get power.  That's the reality.

Debater

The Liberals are the ones who passed gay marriage.  I've noticed that doesn't get a lot of credit on Babble.  

Jéan Chrétien and Martin Cauchon made a historic decision to pass gay marriage nationally, and not appeal to the Supreme Court, even though there was a lot of pressure from the Conservatives, religious groups and the right-wing media to do so.  Paul Martin and Irwin Cotler ended up finishing the job that Chrétien and Cauchon started, with the support of most of the BQ and the NDP and about 3 Conservatives.  So the 3 non right-wing parties should be glad they worked together on this.

Yes, there were some socially conservative Liberals in those days because that was a time when the Liberals attracted right-wing voters too and held rural Ontario ridings and other areas.  But almost all the socially conservative Liberals have been defeated in recent elections.  Other than John MacKay and Jim Karrgyannis, I think all the other current Libs in Parliament are pro-gay.  The NDP used to have a socially conservative aspect too.  It had one MP vote against gay marriage, and other NDPer's (including Tommy Douglas) used to oppose homosexuality.  Meanwhile, it was the Liberals who decriminalized it in 1968/69.  So the Liberals have a pretty good record on the whole on gay rights.  Pierre Trudeau (and Justin Trudeau) are both loved in the gay community.

I'm not sure what this tit for tat does to help.  Both the Liberals and NDP have had their regressive people, but the point is that at least these 2 parties have primarily been on the correct side, whereas the Conservatives are still on the wrong side.

As for sex education, McGuinty wanted to have a more open curriculum and would have passed it, but religious groups objected and he was trying to consider their point of view.  If it had been me I wouldn't have been as nice - I would have pushed it through over their objections.

Life, the unive...

You made a specific claim that is full of shit.  I am talking about a provincial Liberal candidate too, not just a federal one.  Wake the fuck up Liberals will do and say ANYTHING to get power.  You are simply proving that by ignoring the reality of what Liberals really are.

Debater

As I said above, there may be the odd bad apple in the Liberal party, but that is not representative of its tremendous contribution historically to gay rights.  You aren't going to be able to convince the average person that the Liberal party is full of gay bashers, because it isn't true.  And as I said above, the NDP has also had a mixed history of gay rights, with even Tommy Douglas once calling it a mental illness.  So what's the point of taking shots at each other?

The NDP also proved in the last election that it will do anything to get power as well - it supported more language laws in Quebec and the abolition of the Clarity Act just to get votes from BQ voters.  It was opportunistic and shallow, and Rex Murphy did a piece in June calling the NDP out on it.

 

Btw, Jéan Chrétien even got an award from a gay rights group for his stance on gay marriage:

 

http://www.cglcc.ca/news_pressrelease25NOV04.asp

adma

Debater wrote:
Paul Ferreira sounds like a sore loser.  He needs to be careful about blaming his loss on homophobia unless there is evidence to support it.  He has lost every time he has run, except for the brief win in 2007.  He seems to be one of those candidates who perpetually runs for election and refuses to accept the verdict of the voters:

"This was Ferreira’s fifth election campaign, including two provincial runs in 2007 and runs for the NDP federally in 2004 and 2006."

Well, to fuel your fire, it's actually his sixth, at least--he made a federal run for Brampton Centre in 1997.  (And did better than any non-Oshawa 905-belt New Democrat that year.)

Otherwise, re the perpetual-losing-candidate part: yeah, so was Chris Charlton, Wayne Marston, Irene Mathyssen (save 1990 provincially), John Rafferty, and you can now throw Tarys Natyshak into the mix.  (And waaaay back, Mel Swart, of course.)  And next to those records, losing twice with over 40% of the vote (and better than Mike Sullivan's federal gain!) is pretty darn good for a perennial loser.

Life, the unive...

So do you want to compare historical Liberals to TC Douglas.  As backwards as Douglas was, historically speaking he was far more compassionate than the overwhelming number of people, including Liberals who wanted to throw people in jail.  So let's get a little real here.

But you were talking about current Liberals.  And the simple reality is you are 100% wrong.  As I said, Liberals will say and do anything to get power.  In some instances that might mean supporting equal marriage to create a wedge agains the Conservatives, in many others that will be a whisper campaign against candidates and their orientation.  As I said I have experienced that from TWO Liberals campaigns.  That seems a little too often to be a coincidence.

edmundoconnor

So, Debater, you are able to categorically refute the claim that Liberal supporters conducted a homophobic whispering campaign with the express intention of preventing Paul Ferreira winning, and that there will be zero evidence to the contrary, correct? Good to know.

I would also note that the one NDP MP who refused to endorse gay marriage was swiftly shown the door. Martin seemed to prefer keeping his anti-gay MPs in caucus. Why is that? And before we think this was all in the mists of time, Alan Tonks voted against Bill C-389 this year. This year. I think expediency conquered principle with the Liberals, as it always does.

Anyone who seriously thinks that the Ontario Liberal Party does not harbour homophobes in its midst might want to come back to reality.

ghoris

Very strange results in Windsor (at least to me, on the other side of the country). The NDP wins the Windsor seats overwhelmingly at the federal level, but lost by 10+ points provincially. The Tories own Essex federally but the NDP won provincially. Windsor West was supposed to be a pickup for the NDP and Windsor-Tecumseh was supposed to be safe for Dwight Duncan, yet Windsor-Tecumseh was actually a slightly closer race than Windsor West.  Any Windsor-area babblers who can offer some insights?

edmundoconnor

Top ONDP targets in 2015:

Thunder Bay-Atikokan (LIB led NDP by 452 votes)

Sudbury (LIB led NDP by 501 votes)

York South–Weston (LIB led NDP by 842 votes)

Scarborough–Rouge River (LIB led NDP by 2,145 votes)

Oshawa (PC led NDP by 2,374 votes)

Thunder Bay–Superior North (LIB led NDP by 2,654 votes)

Windsor–Tecumseh (!) (LIB led NDP by 3,775 votes)

edmundoconnor

Other ridings deserving of attention include Scarborough Southwest (NDP almost doubled its 2007 vote in 2011, firmly shoving the PCs into the ditch) and Windsor West.

Stockholm

...and let's not forget York West where the NDP took 32% of the vote and narrowed the gap quite a bit.

Also, now that the NDP has won Bramalea-Gore-Malton...it will be interesting to see if that beach head can lead to possibilities in neighbouring ridings with similar demographic profiles.

takeitslowly

we might have an earlier election before 2015!

Stockholm

Keep in mind that if we avoid an election until 2014 or thereabouts - there will be a new electoral map that will add a lot of new urban and suburban ridings

edmundoconnor

takeitslowly wrote:

we might have an earlier election before 2015!

I was hoping no-one would mention that possibility. Since 2008, I have gone through 2 federal elections, 1 municipal election, 1 provincial election and 2 provincial by-elections. I would like a rest, and an opportunity to reacquaint myself with my single malt collection.

edmundoconnor

Stockholm wrote:

Keep in mind that if we avoid an election until 2014 or thereabouts - there will be a new electoral map that will add a lot of new urban and suburban ridings

How many ridings is it estimated we'll be at, post-2014?

Wilf Day

edmundoconnor wrote:

How many ridings is it estimated we'll be at, post-2014?

I find it odd that there has been no discussion about this.

Will McGuinty copy Mike Harris by using the same boundaries as the federal ridings? Most MPPs are unhappy about this, because the communities of interest used to determine federal ridings don't take much account of provincial matters like school board districts, hospital catchment areas, and so on.

Most MPPs would like to revert to a provincial boundaries commission. The fact that Harper, with a majority, will appoint all members of the Ontario federal ridings Commission will also concern McGuinty's caucus.

Furthermore, there is the northern Ontario problem: the north (north of the French River) has ten provincial MPPs but nine federal MPs, and continues to lose population. Federally, even with 124 MPs for Ontario after this year's census, the North cannot get more than nine. Will McGuinty take the opportunity to set up even more than 124 provincial ridings, so that the North can keep its 10? The NDP caucus would vote for that.

theleftyinvestor

Well Mike Harris wanted to shrink government so he chose to mirror federal boundaries, which coincidentally happened to be a reasonably smaller number instead of the 130 Ontario had at the time.

If the federal boundaries go up to 124 seats, then we're almost back where we started in 1995. Which means the only remaining justification for copying the feds is to avoid the cost of a boundaries commission.

I suppose once the federal number is finalized, Ontario should think about whether it's more worthwhile to cough up MPP salaries for 15-20 more people, or to re-establish a boundaries commission to keep the number of seats down in the low 100s.

adma

As an aside, re Milton Chan's Election Prediction Project, I wonder if the poster "Double J" is the present incarnation of I'm Always Right and his sock puppets of yore.  (His entries for Ontario look boneheaded enough.)

Wilf Day

theleftyinvestor wrote:

I suppose once the federal number is finalized, Ontario should think about whether it's more worthwhile to cough up MPP salaries for 15-20 more people, or to re-establish a boundaries commission to keep the number of seats down in the low 100s.

One thing I'm sure of, is that Ontario's provincial ridings will not become even larger than federal ridings. In every other province, provincial ridings are smaller than federal ridings. With federal ridings going from 103 in the 1990s to the coming 124, provincial ridings should go from 130 in the 1990s to 157.

Centrist

dp

Centrist

janfromthebruce wrote:
...natural gas is, the same unrenewable resource which requires "fracking" which is a process that is destroying safe and healthy water. Look it up if you don't know what that is.

I guess what I am saying, there are pluses and minuses to varios forms of energy production, and nuclear is not the big bad booegy man that some like to paint.

Interesting, in that Canadian attitudes change phenomenonally on these same matters as one moves from west to east!

Case in point:

BC:

1. In BC, a moratorium of uranium exploration was instituted approximately 30 years ago, during the early 1980's, by the then right-wing dinosaur Socreds - and that moratorium remains to this day. Again that's a "moratorium" on uranium "exporation", much less than even a moratorium on any uranium mine proposal. And 2 large uranium deposits are extant in BC's southern interior.

2. That BC uranium "exploration" moratorium during the early 1980's was in deference to the public outcry about the then proposed major Blizzard deposit east of Kelowna (go figure) and the potential for water contamination from mining tailings. Parties of all political stripes support same again to this day.

3. Also - any BC political party that dares propose a nuclear power plant would be committing political suicide.

4. Northeast BC will apparently become Canada's largest natural gas producer by the end of this decade (surpassing Alberta) largely due to FRACKING! And BC NDP energy critic John Horgan approves of same fracking - only providing lip service to water use and water contamination:

Quote:
We're drilling three kilometres in to the ground before we're doing the fracking," [BC NDP energy critic] Mr. Horgan said. He's concerned about water use but his greater worry is global competition. "We need to get going," Mr. Horgan said. "We're not the only people who are awash in gas."

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2195213.html#ixzz1aLXaURXf

Saskatchewan:

 1. Unlike BC and its moratorium on uranium "exploration" due to concerns about water contamination, SK seems to permit uranium mining all over despite these concerns. All political parties seem to support same there. Go figure.

Ontario:

1. All political parties also seem to support nuclear energy, despite it high cost and historical propensity for huge construction cost overruns - irrespective about potential public fears about another Chernobyl (like in BC).

Quebec:

 1. Fracking seems to be as negative as uranium "exploration" as well as nuclear power is in BC and has not been approved due to huge political opposition there.

So which region of Canada is more progressive and are regional positions on these matters progressive or not?! Are we all parochial? Curious minds wanna know! Tongue out

Wilf Day

Stockholm wrote:

Keep in mind that if we avoid an election until 2014 or thereabouts - there will be a new electoral map that will add a lot of new urban and suburban ridings

As being discussed already here:

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/more-electoral-maps

Wilf Day

Robin Sears:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1066901--how-to-lose-an-election

Quote:
. . . to the frustration of both men, Andrea Horwath took a page from Ronald Reagan’s book and smiled her way to success. In the debate, she didn’t quite say “There you go again” to her two opponents. But her dismissive maternal gaze at their sound bites said it all. A greenhorn and a first-timer, the NDP leader should not have been able to take her party from the mid-teens to the mid-twenties in popularity for the first time in 15 years.

Her platform may have been constructed with more than a few wobbly planks, her responses to complex questions on climate change and energy pricing, tax policy and fiscal verities may have made both lefty policy wonks and Bay Street wince, but she understood two political fundamentals: likability trumps angry partisanship, and optimism and confidence trump fear. What her opponents will now discover is that she has a steel spine behind that smile.

I am so looking forward to this. She first showed her steel on Hamilton City Council, where she made such a reputation that she stormed into the House in the 2004 by-election with 63.6 per cent of the vote, up from the NDP's 29.4 per cent in that riding six months earlier. If McGuinty thinks he can bluff his way around her, he is badly advised; but Liberal Premiers generally get good advice, although they may not admit it in public.

janfromthebruce

[quote=Centris

Ontario:

1. All political parties also seem to support nuclear energy, despite it high cost and historical propensity for huge construction cost overruns - irrespective about potential public fears about another Chernobyl (like in BC).

Well in part that is the problem eg. potential public fears about another Chernobyl. uses a graphite-moderated nuclear power reactor .

Which is now obsolete. And thus it was that type of system which has a higher potential for meltdown.

Ontario uses a Candu system which is quite different and has a proven track record - no meltdowns. So it is the fear tactic which in Ontario's case, is completely bogus.

 

That said, I don't think that reactors should be built in areas where they are prone to earth quakes.

 

And I did cringe when I read the quote by an NDP about drilling for natural gas and fracking. What I am most concerned about is the privatization of electricity/energy generation which is essentially happening in Ontario, by giving license to private providers (eg. industrial wind turbines, solar and so on) to make private deals with whoever (eg. farmers), and guarantee them a higher rate of return than the pay to nuclear. And I have to laugh, here are this private companies basically receiving "corporate welfare" and yet, they see nothing wrong with it, but it's those same folks who "want taxcuts" and "less govt" and "reduced regulations" for others.

 

Finally, you are correct that there are differences across Canada, and it is knee jerk reactions. There are plus and minus tallies to be done, and I can tell you that when wind turbines were coming the majority were all for wind, until the problems started to happen, and nobody could talk about those problems because of secret contracts (with gag orders).

 

So which region of Canada is more progressive and are regional positions on these matters progressive or not?! Are we all parochial? Curious minds wanna know! Tongue out

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

mimeguy

Ken S. - "Yes, the Green Party is in serious shape.  The blogs I know of are totally silent. But they have been for some time, so I am guessing this was the expected result. The GPO had been the example held up by the grassroots of what the Green Party of Canada could be like. Both organizations are comatose and broke. And eMe hasnt a glue about organizational needs, as well as being abrasive to anyone that does not think she walks on water."

 

I will agree that both the Green Party of Ontario and the Green Party of Canada are not in good shape.  Stockholm of course wants the Green Party dead and seize any opportunity to say so but of course I disagree with his conclusion. 

Both parties will be operating on very little money over the next few years and, more importantly, our message and support completely collapsed in 2011.  There are completely different reasons for this of course but the common ground is local organizing and riding work between elections.  Both organizations have a very low "active" membership compared to total membership which of course happens in all political parties but when you are as small as we are as a party that renders you paper thin on the ground and in many places, non-existent.

Ontario Greens should have seen the writing on the wall in 3 by-elections which should have warned that the results of the 2007 election was the anomaly it was due to the one school board/religion in the schools debate and that a strong presence needs to be maintained between elections.  I don't thinkthe school issue was the entire issue as much as it brought voter frustrations with the larger parties to a head which resulted in what all Greens want; many voters took a serious look at the Greens as an alternative.  The youth vote went further by electing the Greens as official opposition in the 2007 student vote. 

Both the federal and Ontario Greens were unable to capitalize on the advantage gained in 2008 (federally) and 2007 (provincially). National media only plays a small part in this.  In both 2011 elections there was Green Party coverage but I think local media vanished in many places.  I know it did locally here in Trinity Spadina federally.  I had much more exposure as a candidate here in TS in 2008 than Rachel Barney did in 2011.  Combine that with the collapse of the liberal party overall and many liberal votes going either NDP or conservative and you can see the results in the drop in the Green vote.  

Provincially here in Trinity Spadina it was a much more significant evaporation of support.  2007 saw the local Greens completely benefit from the education issue and voter frustration.  We had a candidate who refused to campaign in 2007 after winning the nomination and only two or three volunteers running around desperately trying to get signs up and brochures delivered, scoring 11% of the vote with 4,500 votes.  Compare that to Tim Grant who is a well known and respected community member, worked between elections on fund raising and getting his name out there, one of the largest campaigns in Toronto in this election with 10 - 15 regular volunteers knocking on more doors that either federal campaigns locally achieved and with more money.  The result was 5% of the vote on only 2,400 votes.  One issue we kept hearing while campaigning was a real worry over Tim Hudak winning and talk of strategic voting again.  Others were voting liberal because they were tired of Rosario and we heard this from NDP supporters as well.  I met a lot of people who said they were debating between the NDP and Greens and I think we lost many of those individual debates in the end.

The main wake up call that the Greens need to pay attention to is the collapse of the youth vote in both elections.  Many Greens will argue that social media and the internet are fertile battle grounds and I'm still not convinced that this is true.  In a survey conducted by Apathy is Boring it was revealed that the majority of students felt that they would pay more attention to a politician if she/he made a visit to their school as opposed to having a facebook account or strong web presence.  Many young voters federally still see the party as an environmental party but don't see a major difference between the NDP defence of the environment and the Green defence of the issue.  This is where the difference is the most poignant as they see the NDP much further ahead in social issues dealing with poverty, education and other important issues.  They aren't registering any serious messaging from the Green party on other major issues that are relevant to them.  Yet the Greens insist they are a party of youth. How do we explain being elected as the official opposition in 2007 and then being wiped out in the next election. Keep in mind as well that many of the students who voted in 2007 were eligible voters in 2011 when you consider the secondary school share and even more who participated in 2006 federally. 

Both Rob Strang and Mike Schreiner were elected in the student vote in this election with the third to the Green candidate in Parry Sound/Muskoka.  This was a reelection win for Strang who won in 2007.  The only Green to achieve reelection.

Percentages rise and fall with the participation level.  The actual amount of votes won tells a different story.  There is still a core vote out there that hasn't changed since 2004.  That is at least some good news.  In Trinity Spadina we took a big step forward but only a small one backward.  Rachel Barney (federal) still hung onto the core vote won in 2006 and some of the gains we made in 2008.

 

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Mike – Simcoe Grey  - 4,084 votes  8%  Federal vote – Jace Metheral 3482 votes 5.4%

Student vote 2007  - Mike Schreiner Green Party of Ontario 1229 votes  29.8% elected

2007 - Peter Ellis – GRN – 5,051 votes  -- 11.61%

Leader comparison - Frank de Jong GPO leader -  2007 Davenport – 3,061 votes-   10.26%   --- 2011 Davenport  - 840 votes – 2.6%

Rob Strang – Dufferin-Caledon – 14% - 5540  Federal vote – 7,137 14%

Student vote 2011  - Rob Strang  Green Party of Ontario  1405 30.20 elected

2007 - Rob Strang  GRN  6, 408  16.31%

Tim Grant -  Trinity Spadina – 2,405 votes  – 5%  Federal Vote – Rachel Barney – 3279 votes – 5%

Dan King  - GRN  - 4,549 -- 11.65%

Student vote – Trinity Spadina - Tim Grant Green Party of Ontario 300 votes  16.1%

Student Vote 2011 -  Green Party of Ontario   3 seats  54302 votes  16.53%

2007 student vote - Greens captured 17 seats – enough for Official Opposition status – with 24.2 % of ballots cast.

Student vote 2011 - Federal  results  5 seats 17%

Lord Palmerston

mimeguy wrote:
I know it did locally here in Trinity Spadina federally.  I had much more exposure as a candidate here in TS in 2008 than Rachel Barney did in 2011.  Combine that with the collapse of the liberal party overall and many liberal votes going either NDP or conservative and you can see the results in the drop in the Green vote.  

Provincially here in Trinity Spadina it was a much more significant evaporation of support.  2007 saw the local Greens completely benefit from the education issue and voter frustration.  We had a candidate who refused to campaign in 2007 after winning the nomination and only two or three volunteers running around desperately trying to get signs up and brochures delivered, scoring 11% of the vote with 4,500 votes.  Compare that to Tim Grant who is a well known and respected community member, worked between elections on fund raising and getting his name out there, one of the largest campaigns in Toronto in this election with 10 - 15 regular volunteers knocking on more doors that either federal campaigns locally achieved and with more money.  The result was 5% of the vote on only 2,400 votes.  One issue we kept hearing while campaigning was a real worry over Tim Hudak winning and talk of strategic voting again.  Others were voting liberal because they were tired of Rosario and we heard this from NDP supporters as well.  I met a lot of people who said they were debating between the NDP and Greens and I think we lost many of those individual debates in the end.

Tim Grant was an excellent candidate and quite visible in the community.  He is also clearly on the Left.  If it's any consolation, he did better than Greens in neighboring ridings.  I think he'd have made a better MPP than Marchese.  The dissatisfaction with Marchese is quite evident - 35,000 voted for Olivia Chow in May, yet less than 20,000 voted for him.  I do agree a lot of progressives who considered voting Green came back to the NDP fold after it became evident the race between Marchese and Sarah Thomson was very close. 

I hope Tim considers running for office again.  He could make a good city councillor should Adam Vaughan decide to run for mayor.  Or even run for the NDP nomination.  

Stockholm

I have to disagree with a couple of points LP.

1. Yes, its true that Olivia Chow took 35,000 votes compared to less than 20,000 for Rosario (quite a contrast to how in 2003 Rosario won big and then Olivia lost a year later). BUT, the turnout was significantly lower provincially and also federally the NDP vote probably went up by 10,000 votes just by virtue of the party moving into second place in all the polls - Olivia won by modest margins in 2006 and 2008 and was thought to be in some danger at the start of the campaign. While I agree that Marhese is past his prime and that the ONDP needs new blood in the riding - what I really learned from the contrast of May and October 2011 is that there is a really big chunk of voters in T-S who do not differentiate very much between the Liberals and NDP and just vote for whichever of the two parties is seen to be bigger and stronger.

2. I don't think that "a lot of progressives who considered voting Green came back to the NDP fold after it became evident the race between Marchese and Sarah Thomson was very close" - for simple reason that NO ONE expected it to be close in TS at all. I think that the conventional wisdom right to the end was that Rosario would win in a walk because ONDP support was way up and a rising tide raises all ships. The word on the street was that Sarah Thomson had a very weak underfunded and under-resourced campaign (all true) and that she was an abrasive unattractive candidate who tended to lose votes the more people she met (also true). In retrospect, the Liberals would have had a good chance at winning if they had run a decent candidate and put any effort into the riding - why? because we now know that about 10,000 voters will just automatically vote Liberal if the Liberals are ahead of the NDP in the province-wide polls and would all vote NDP if the Liberals fell back to third place.

 

mimeguy

I think Stockholm makes a good point here.  Sarah Thomson, as I heard, did not have much support from local federal liberals and didn't have much of a team.  I also know that some key people quit the campaign.  When voter participation drops it becomes very precarious for an incumbent whose support thinks he/she will automatically win.  I know our sights were not in thinking Rosario would lose but in beating the liberals or at least finishing ahead of the conservatives.  In 2007 the liberals recruited Kate Holloway and then abandoned her to reading talking points and statistics.  I'm not sure the liberals considered TS a winnable riding.  I do think that a lot of liberals stayed in the fold out of concern for a conservative rise.  If the provincial turnout had been similar to the federal turnout then I think Rosario would have had a larger margin.      

It all changes in the next federal and provincial election when Trinity Spadina is divided.  Much will depend on how it is divided, whether by north/south boundaries or the old east/west.  I don't think Rosario will stay and I understand he has wanted to retire for awhile.  So I think the two new ridings will be intense election ground, especially with a conservative rise which has been happening federally over the last two elections.  

howeird beale

Yeah, she's just strange, with that rictus smile like she's going into a steep dive.

Uhhh, the Woman's Post that she published... did anyone ever read it? I saw the pink boxes but I never saw a newspaper in one. From the get-go they looked derelict. The first time I saw one i wondered if it was 30 years old, like how you used to stumble on old Badger boxes. Light pink boxes, dull fonts, no papers, no slogan... wtf?? It looked like a product that failed in 1978.

I think McGuinty figured he'd send her on a suicide run against Marchese: force the NDP to spend resources on one of their core seats and get rid of her in the process.

adma

Stockholm wrote:
2. I don't think that "a lot of progressives who considered voting Green came back to the NDP fold after it became evident the race between Marchese and Sarah Thomson was very close" - for simple reason that NO ONE expected it to be close in TS at all. I think that the conventional wisdom right to the end was that Rosario would win in a walk because ONDP support was way up and a rising tide raises all ships.

And compounding the illusionary case for Rosario (as well as possible campaign complacency) was the fact that this was, literally, Jack'n'Olivia's home riding--on paper, if *any* seat begged to reap the benefits of the posthumous Orange Crush, it was this one.  How, now, can anyone beat an NDP incumbent, here...

adma

howeird beale wrote:
Uhhh, the Woman's Post that she published... did anyone ever read it? I saw the pink boxes but I never saw a newspaper in one. From the get-go they looked derelict. The first time I saw one i wondered if it was 30 years old, like how you used to stumble on old Badger boxes. Light pink boxes, dull fonts, no papers, no slogan... wtf?? It looked like a product that failed in 1978.

So, Sarah Thomson as the Judi McLeod of the so-called centre?

Pages

Topic locked