Toronto Centre by-election: The Exciting Conclusion

OK now you're beginning to sound ridiculous.  The Tories took a whopping 18% of the vote in TC in the last federal election.  The NDP just got 33% in the byelection and was able to get 24% with Shapcott twice.  The Tories have zero chance of taking the riding provincially or federally any time soon.

Stockholm wrote:

Even in 1990 when the stars all aligned almost perfectly for the NDP - the Liberals still held on to Toronto Centre by a narrow margin.

Though keep in mind, too, that the Liberals had the advantage of a respected incumbent with a prominent cabinet position: Ian Scott.  Which is by way of stating that had the Grits had a lesser incumbent a la neighbouring Ron Kanter or even Scott's successor Tim Murphy--let alone no incumbent at all--the NDP all but certainly would have nabbed this one, too, perhaps rather decisively.

And by extension, imagine how Cathy Crowe might have done had the Grits run a Tim Murphy-like hack this time rather than Glen Murray...

That's true - but there are also wayyyy more luxury condos in the riding than there were back in 1990 when the old riding of St. George-St. David consisted of Rosedale, Cabbagetown, the gay ghetto and some coops near the St. Laurence Market - period.

With regard to the PCs - no one expects them to win in places like St. Paul's or Toronto Centre (though they won both in 1995 under Harris) - but to actually see their vote share DECLINE in a byelection when they are running against a supposedly unpopular Liberal government and when the previous data point was the 2007 election which was widely viewed as having been a disaster for them.

edmundoconnor: "John Turmel: The fight goes on. Someday soon, all the other candidates will keel over, and he shall win with his handful of votes. THEN we'll all be sorry."
Jct: Edmund O'Connor is the only person I've ever read who thinks he'll be sorry for getting an interest-free credit card from the Bank of Canada. Maybe he'll be able to not use it and find someone to loanshark to him in the manner he's used to.

In analysing the results of this byelection - one additional thing occurred to me. In the 2007 election the NDP candidate got 18% and the Green got 9%. In this byelection, the NDP got 33% and the Green got 3%. There may be a number of explanations for this apparent mass shift from the Greens to the NDP (could it be "Horwath-mania"??). But what i find interesting is what is NOT an explanation.

Let me explain. The "conventional wisdom" among some people is that if the NDP wants to attract votes from the greens - the NDP has to talk "environment, environment, environment, environment..." and totally revamp its policies on environmental issues blah blah blah. Now, if a case could be made that in 2007 the NDP candidate had said NOTHING about the envronment and that this time the NDP candidate was an environmental superstar who would be far more attractive to people concerned about the environment - there might be some validity to this theory. But, the fact is that Cathy Crowe is a star candidate 100% because of her awesome work on social issues around poverty and homelessness and health care. While I'm sure she can give you the "party line" about the environment - she has no particular "green credentials" and there is nothing in her resume that one would think would make her particularly attractive to "green voters" in comparison to the NDP candidate in the 2007 election. Yet she managed to annhilate the Green party in the byelection and scooped most of the support that they got before.

What is the lesson in this? My analysis is that most people who vote Green don't know or care all that much about environmental issues and would be hard pressed to explain what the Green Party's specific policies are in any environmental area compared to the NDP (or the Liberals for that matter). Its largely a "none of the above" vote. I conclude that it's a total waste of time for people in the NDP to think that the NDP will win votes away from the Green party as a result of new concrete policy proposals that are meant to "outbid" the greens on the policy front. We don't need to propose making vegetarianism compulsory, nor do we have to propose a 50% carbon tax, nor do we have to propose eliminating all manufacturing and primary industry in Ontario. Instead the way to attract these people is simply to have a really dynamic candidate and a campaign that appears active and to have momentum.

With the greatest respect Sunday Hat I would suggest that your closing line is  wrong.  I would argue that those are the same criteria regardless of location.  The particulars differ of course, such as what the activism is centred around, but I think the point Stockholm makes and you expanded on are well placed irrespective of an urban-rural split.

I can only really speak about BGOS as I know it very well. 

I would suggest the observations of Stockholm and Sunday Hat are key to understanding the Green vote there.  As well, the Liberals finally have a strong Liberal candidate there federally.  I am expecting to see a large drop in the Green numbers and a steep rise in Liberal numbers.  

One of the keys to rural ridings in the personal following individuals candidates can acheive.  It is far more pronounced in my experience in rural ridings than in urban ridings - although that can be overstated and an hasty generalization.  That certainly has a lot to do with the Green growth in BGOS and has a lot to do with current Conservative strength there too. 

Uh Sunday Hat the issues of slaughterhouse regulations and industrial assessments on farm value adding attempts- such as sugar shacks are broadly a concern in rural Ontario.  The National Famers Union has been very outspoken on these issues.  And you can hardly claim that the NFU and the OLA sing from the same hand book. Pointing out the failures of a regualtory regime that makes no sense and penalizes family farmers is not right wing.

Here is some background on why the processor issue is suddenly a big one in rural Ontario right now-

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2435099

http://nfuontario.ca/%E2%80%9Crules-are-not-necessarily-sacred-principles-are%E2%80%9D

Actually I think times like this are a really good learning opportunity for everyone.   We talk a lot about local food and those sort of things, but government and the powers that be are working really hard to close down those eater-farmer connections.  The NDP should instead be working to close the divide.

My favourite bit from that second link is the panelling in the office- which is nice wood panelling by the way - is somehow a threat to food saftey.  Think about the cost to pull it all out and then replace it - with no way to recoup that cost through the business.  And then think about how the fact that no food gets processed in the office.  That's why things like this become a progressive issue.

The NDP got punished in the Church-Yonge Corridor. This was territory that was crucial to them, and to lose so heavily to the Liberals here marks this as where they really have to improve next time around.

I'm pretty sure El Farouk Khaki endorsed Cathy Crowe.

Interestingly Cabbagetown (also heavily gay) saw much better results for the NDP.

It's also interesting that the "waterfront communities" of TC are quite good NDP territory, while in Trinity-Spadina it is a weaker area for the NDP.

Changed. Heartfelt apologies.

Europeans actually demanded that their tribal allies produce the scalps of people that they killed because they didn't trust them. Then they used the fact that scalping was occurring to villify the original people as savages.

So, yes, I'm going to have to insist that its usage is racist. That's why I flagged the post as offensive last night and am glad that Maysie (and Edmund) recognized the problem.

BTW, thanks to Krago for posting the data. Very interesting.

I am not defending my usage in the slightest, but I would point out that the term is used (unthinkingly) in the British media, especially in political parlance. It shouldn't be, but it is. Given I have spent a good portion of my life in the UK, it's perhaps unsurprising that I also imbued it unthinkingly. I would suspect that if there were any sort of FN community in the UK, the media would cut it out sharpish. But since no-one has complained (to my knowledge), I think they think, no harm, no foul.

I want to thank Maysie (and Scott) for pointing that out. I like to think that I'm a progressive sort of chap, and that I confront my prejudices, rather than cosset them. This incident shows how subtle and unthinking these sorts of things can be. Now, if only Jim Pankiw could muster even a shred of reflection on his views of FNs …