Toronto after the election, continued

Bookish Agrarian: best post I've read. That's exactly what happened I think. Unfortunately everyone goes around blaming the media, other candidates, etc, rather than really learn some lessons.

Cueball: I agree with you that the NDP didn't come to bat for Pantalone (or the union members that largely make it up). The reason is that Joe was always a third or fourth tier candidate for them. No one, at any point, thought he could win. Rememeber when Giambrone was the great hope of the left? Then he flamed himself out. Pants was in the race, but rather than coalesce around him everyone scrambled to try to find an alternative candidate that could win. Shelley Carroll, please run, please? But the writing was on the wall that David Miller's agenda was going into the tank, and none of the first tier candidates were willing to lose their jobs to take a run at mission impossible. So Joe was left as the de facto choice. Unions and the NDP never thought he could win anyway (and Ford was now leading the race), so it made strategic sense for them to focus on council races to put together enough opposition to Ford to thwart his agenda. That's my read on things anyway.

Ha, Polunatic2. We had almost the exact same analysis...

Acknowleging  Stock in anyway shape or form, about this topic, at least, is probably not a wise debating tactic, Cue. He has been completely inconsistent from the get go. But of course that is not unusual. Doing so lessens your position and gives validity to his.

Watching this from afar, I personally only viewed 3 or 4 consistent voices.  The lack in consistency of opinion/consensus of course could easily be translated to the larger TO community, which is what I did. To me it means the left in TO, and by this I mean the true left, were the fuse leading to their own destruction.

The vitriol displayed here to Miller, last year, shows such a lack of emotional/political maturity that it was breathtaking.

Once you destroy a framework of the friends who really are the closest to you as possible, in this current political climate, by immature reasoning and understanding, as well as listening to the whispers of provocatuers, there is no coherent leadership, or voice. Hence inconsistent messaging and cooperation on the left. Which of course is what the corporate loving provocatuers want, and they are masters at the use of deception and division. The left just keeps on underestimating them, and eating their own friends, thinking they are smarter than those 'rednecks' on the right.

Heads up, we aren't.

Quote:

No one else was groomed for the position.

That Joe served for 30 years on council and several years as deputy mayor yet was not the "annointed one" is telling. He was eminently qualified. Was he the "perfect" candidate? Obviously not but once it was clear he was "our candidate", all stops should have been pulled to get him elected. There's obviously a story as to why Miller didn't advise Adam G to back Pantalone and "wait his turn". Maybe someone will write the book one day. 

I voted for Joe, and I encouraged other people to do so - but privately I was never very excited about doing so.  There were obviously a whole bunch of factors at play in this election, but I think my general apathy for his run was based on a few things:

First of all, I think he kind of antagonized a lot of the people who were supportive and excited about Adam (pre-scandal) by deciding to run against him.  Presumably he was hurt not to have been the 'anointed one', and in retrospect maybe we would have been better off if he had been, but it just started his whole campaign with a 'sour grapes' impression.

The other big thing with Joe, for me anyway, was that he had served for 30 years yet had very few accomplishments with resonance to point to in all that time on council.  The lit from a distinguished council veteran should be a scorecard of recognizable success stories, and while he had a few good ones his overall record didn't come across as very impressive to me. 

Add to that the fact that in the recent past he had garnered a bit of a reputation as an authoritarian (shutting down Ossington, trying to block a cafe's liquor license on Harbord) and his undying support for the Front Street Extension.  He just didn't seem like a modern city-builder.

I think you've already dissected his campaign pretty thoroughly, but I don't know if anyone has mentioned how slow he was to ramp up.  It seems like he didn't start campaigning in earnest until after Labour day.  I'm sure the received wisdom was that people don't pay much attention until then, but I don't think that's true anymore, and while he was taking it slow Rob Ford was getting a ton of media attention and building name recognition.

So, that's why I wasn't very excited about his campaign and why I donated my time and money on a council race instead.

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

Maybe Laschinger's heart wasn't in this race? Who knows, I'm sure there are inside stories to be told.

i have 3 primary thoughts on monday's election and one sidenote

1-while miller was effective at securing a number of new powers for the city of toronto via the city of toronto act, with rob ford in power, i am rather grateful that the province was sensible and prudent in not granting other powers that mayors/cities have in other jursdictions (i.e. Chicago, London etc).

2-i respect adam vaughan and it's time for progressive (and thoughtful) councillors to rally around him. 2014 should be his time to shine.

3- i agree with those pundits that have either explicitly or implicitly noted that this ford win was a long time coming following amalgamation. it's time for the city building paradigm to look at the city in its entirety -i know spacing mag, progressive voices have turned their attention and interests to see Scarborough, Etobicoke, North York etc recently; however some fundamental reconceptualizing of 'who is your city' might need to be done

sidenote- while happy for Kristyn Wong-Tam in Ward 27, Joel Dick's low support in that race would suggest that team was working the NDP lists and all the NDP support in the riding went to her. I was so disappointed for this talented (and proudly NDP) candidate.

Stockholm wrote:

As it turns out - its a good thing that a lot of people in the NDP focused on those council races rather than "throwing good money after bad" on the mayoralty. There were some very close calls at the council level and if a few narrow wins by left of centre candidates had instead been narrow losses - Ford would have a big leg up in implementing his agenda.

I think Lazy Tony makes a lot of other very valid points as to why so many people felt quite lukewarm about Pantalone from the get-go. Its a bit silly to say "Pantalone wasn't the problem, he was a great candidate! He just had terrible organization, not enough money, terrible strategy and a lack of volunteers". A big part of being a "good candidate" is being able to pick people who will organize a great campaign, motivate people to volunteer, raise money and developping a winning strategy. If none of those things materialize - at some point that candidate him or herself has to take some responsibility.

Must be picking the wrong people. How Miller overcame the Laschinger deficit is hard to explain. Maybe that is because Miller was really John F. Kennedy reincarnated.

Cueball wrote:

Actually having more than half the population turn out to vote is someting of a victory, imo. It certainly speaks to the idea that people are attempting to engage and take control of the process. That is what I take from Ford's numbers. Also, seeing the new immigrant communities becoming more involved is pretty exciting.

Or maybe not.

While strong support for Mr. Ford among older Torontonians and non-union members of the working and lower-middle classes was anticipated by pollsters – “They’re the guys on the winning side in upper North America,” said Ekos Research president Frank Graves – the strong backing he received from immigrants is imperfectly understood.

They were 20 per cent more likely to vote for Mr. Ford than Canadian-born residents of the city. “It was a surprise to me,” Mr. Graves said.

Who is saying that the, the progressive segment, were not engaged, and were silent, Cue? Do you have numbers or other reference material showing this? Or is this personal speculation?

Moreover, if new immigrants vote for reasons of bigotry, as opposed to what is best for the community, their being engaged is a regressive social action, not a progressive one.

I am. The other angle would be to say something along the lines that these communities are essentially more conservative. I don't think so. I think the progressive vote in these communities, has a hard time getting traction with their constituency because the left, and the unions have failed to deliver. The fact is that these communities are among those that for the most part are on the outside looking in. It is a real mistake to underestimate the power of the local business leaders among them, and the fact that they can easily pitch privitization as a means of opening up the coffers at city hall for more equitable distribution.

The fact that the unions and the left have failed to deliver has everything to do with why progressive voices are silent in many immigrant communities. Just taking broad sideswipes at immigrants as enraged backward reactionaries does absolutely nothing except reinforce racist stereotypes.

We take as our standpoint that all communities of people have regressive and progressive elements. We know this to be true even if we are only hearing from one element among them. I don't see how we could say otherwise and still call ourselves progressive really. Then we have to examine how it is that right wing immigrant voters are mobilizing in the cause of the right, and ask ourselves why. The answers are very obvious, just by looking at the right wing rhetoric around the "socialist elite" and privileged unions to see that this message is being conveyed and it is evidently bearing fruit.

I think that the reason that it is resonating strongly in these communities is because those on the left in those communities are demoralized by years of promises that do not bear fruit.This is not to say that this is necessarily the fault of the left and the unions. Indeed a major reason that the uniionize work force is still disproportionately white is directly linked to cutbacks that prevent new workers from being introduced to the system, while the seniority system protects those who are already entrenched.

But blame is not the issue, when the evident reality is that the unions largely act to protect the right of white workers, since that is the main body of people who are enlisted in the unionized workforce. Therefore the unions and the left appear to be part of the white establishment, just as much as the corporate managers appear to be the white establishment.

This holds, regardless of whether it is intentional or not.

I think the left and the unions must agressively confront the realities of this issue with an open mind to new inclusive solutions, and the first order of business is to listen to the message that is being conveyed. This is particularly hard to do within the union movement, beyond lip-service, because first and foremost any Union must protect the rights of its existing membership, not the theoretical membership of potential members.

Cueball wrote:

The fact that the unions and the left have failed to deliver has everything to do with why progressive voices are silent in many immigrant communities. Just taking broad sideswipes at immigrants as enraged backward reactionaries does absolutely nothing except reinforce racist stereotypes.

We take as our standpoint that all communities of people have regressive and progressive elements. We know this to be true even if we are only hearing from one element among them. I don't see how we could say otherwise and still call ourselves progressive really. Then we have to examine how it is that right wing immigrant voters are mobilizing in the cause of the right, and ask ourselves why. The answers are very obvious, just by looking at the right wing rhetoric around the "socialist elite" and privileged unions to see that this message is being conveyed and it is evidently bearing fruit.

I think that the reason that it is resonating strongly in these communities is because those on the left in those communities are demoralized by years of promises that do not bear fruit.This is not to say that this is necessarily the fault of the left and the unions. Indeed a major reason that the uniionize work force is still disproportionately white is directly linked to cutbacks that prevent new workers from being introduced to the system, while the seniority system protects those who are already entrenched.

But blame is not the issue, when the evident reality is that the unions largely act to protect the right of white workers, since that is the main body of people who are enlisted in the unionized workforce. Therefore the unions and the left appear to be part of the white establishment, just as much as the corporate managers appear to be the white establishment.

This holds, regardless of whether it is intentional or not.

I think the left and the unions must agressively confront the realities of this issue with an open mind to new inclusive solutions, and the first order of business is to listen to the message that is being conveyed. This is particularly hard to do within the union movement, beyond lip-service, because first and foremost any Union must protect the rights of its existing membership, not the theoretical membership of potential members.

Wow, cross-posted with my other but this just stopped me in my tracks.  Well written Cueball.

Cueball wrote:

Pantalone is gay?

ROFL!

Though I dropped by the thread to share this, an interview with Rob Ford on "As it happens."  

If you have Facebook, spread it around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJGR4i7fhw

I also want to add that just because someone belongs to a union and they vote for leftist candidates, that do not necessarily mean they dont have racist feelings. I get the sense that many union members feel threatened by private sector workers , and it is hard ot build alliance when you feel threatened by the "outsiders" who also happen to be made up of many non white "immigrants."

So much conflicts can be resolved if people have more empathy and get out of their comfort zone and talk to people unlike themselves.

I feel that even in a city as diverse as Toronto, people often socialize among themselves and there is a sense of segregation among different groups based on many different criterias.

Most people are polite and smile , but they don't really do anything more to reach out, and when their sense of security is threatened, they shut down entirely and just get pissed off at "the other" and vote for a guy like Rob Ford.

Its really sad...Apparently, only the rich and the elites get to be angry and pissed off during a recession.

Cueball wrote:

Maybe he just said: "fuck this shit, I am tired of being run over by the party aparatus: we will see who can do better." Hardly a big deal since there was plenty of time for one or the other to drop out before election day and solidify support around a single candidate. Perhaps, at the very least, he though he could shape the campaign, and negotiate concessions from the NDP extablishment.

I have to wonder if in this new world of "change" that long-standing service to one's community is not something to be honoured any more, that it's actually a hinderance. Looking at the results in Toronto, or even here in Manitoba tonight, as a long-standing MP lost the race for mayor and every single incumbent in Brandon who was challenged ended up defeated. Bookish Agrarian is raising the theme of broken trust, so maybe long-standing incumbency is too easily tied with being part of the "old boy's club." Maybe if the trust can be rebuilt, then long-standing service, along with a balance of new faces and new ideas, will be considered assets.

Here's what the Left should do to Ford

Ford's cost-cutting promises resonated with the business community in Toronto, winning him an endorsement from the National Post.  That he was perceived as the most business-friendly candidate had a lot more to do with his victory, IMO, than homophobia.

It's unquestionable that Ford's campaign was simple-minded and based on obfuscation and lies.  It was also the most consistent campaign.  Unlike Smitherman, Ford never wavered, repeating the same lies over and over.

Ford's cost-cutting promises resonated with the business community in Toronto, winning him an endorsement from the National Post.  That he was perceived as the most business-friendly candidate had a lot more to do with his victory, IMO, than homophobia.

I totally disagree with this. He wasn't the candidate of business. Smitherman was. I'm sure we'll see that when Smitherman releases his donors list. Ford managed to get the Post and Sun to endorse him because they'll endorse anyone that isn't a Liberal. But serious business people are scare shitless of a Ford mayoralty. The reality is, Ford was elected largely by low and middle income Torontonians. The message there is that with the on-the-ground recession still in full force and many people still struggling, people are sick and tired of spending thousands of dollars on going-away parties for departing councillors, bike lanes that most people didn't really want in the first place, construction projects that never get finished, bunny suits for councillors, etc, etc.

Farmpunk wrote:

I think there's a general dissatisfaction with the way pols conducted themselves during the recession, and municipal pols were simply the first targets in Ontario where voters had a chance to express this frustration.  Merited?  Debatable.

This tendancy is evident one province over from you. In Winnipeg, several NDP-backed councillors failed to take seats that are traditionally safe for the NDP. In Brandon, every incumbent who was challenged lost. In Dauphin, not only was the incumbent mayor thrown out, but former Mayor and MP Inky Mark lost as well.

This long article in the Globe about how Smitherman blew it is quite an interesting read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-votes/city-vot...

I was surprised to learn in the article that one of Smitherman's "strategists" was Bob Penner of Stratcom who used to poll for the NDP before they switched to Viewpoints and who also was a "key strategist" for Barbara Hall in 2003 (a lot of good that did) and that another "strategist" was Sean Hill who is in the NDP as well and used to work for Mihevc. It also mentions a plethorsa of big "L" Liberals and Tories in the campaign. It all sounds like an extreme case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"!! Enjoy.

Stockholm wrote:

This long article in the Globe about how Smitherman blew it is quite an interesting read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/city-votes/city-vot...

I was surprised to learn in the article that one of Smitherman's "strategists" was Bob Penner of Stratcom who used to poll for the NDP before they switched to Viewpoints and who also was a "key strategist" for Barbara Hall in 2003 (a lot of good that did) and that another "strategist" was Sean Hill who is in the NDP as well and used to work for Mihevc. It also mentions a plethorsa of big "L" Liberals and Tories in the campaign. It all sounds like an extreme case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"!! Enjoy.

I wasn't at all surprised by that. Indeed, these boys were doing everything they could to use their "left" connections to wring endorsements from the labour movement and left wing personalities. It looked like in the case of Mehevc it may have worked. Stratcom should be put on the left "no fly" list, and punished for their indiscretion IMO. Their organization is built on left wing causes and the union movement money, and they should definitely be cut off. If they are going to shill for the Goldman Sachs agenda, I don't see why they should be rewarded with future contracts.

on a completely different note, i did not notice Smitherman's husband during his concession speech..just his child..is he ashamed to be gay? there is a sense that he tried too hard to be like Ford he is almost ashamed of his family..

And character like Adam Giambrone feed into the cynicism, and the fact that Miller stood up for this guy was a mistake in character judgement. If you want to build a city and ask people to trust you with their money, you better choose someone who doesnt treat women like crap or have a trophy wife for a campaign , those things do not go well with the regular voters.

anyways, i agree that the car registration fee is a problem, anything a politican that can promise that will save a few bucks will be appealing to the poor and lower middle class because people are not listenning to anything else other than how they can save some extra money..