Ontario 2011 election: the aftermath

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 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.

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 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.

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.)?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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 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.

...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.

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

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.

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.

janfromthebruce wrote:

...natural gas is, the same unrenewable resource which requires [b]"fracking"[/b] 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 [b]nuclear is not the big bad booegy man[/b] 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:

[b]BC:[/b]

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."

[b]Saskatchewan:[/b]

 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.

[b]Ontario:[/b]

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).

[b]Quebec:[/b]

 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!

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.

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%

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.

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.

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?