For the past year or so, it has been taken for granted that this year’s race for mayor will pit Gérald Tremblay against Benoît Labonté, with Richard Bergeron nipping at their heels. Increasingly, though, it’s looking as if that won’t be the case after all, as some are now suggesting that Louise Harel is gearing up to run for mayor. According to the political analysis blog L’Élection libre, Harel’s aim is to push both Bergeron and Labonté out of their leadership positions in order to run for a united Vision Montréal-Projet Montréal ticket.
Quand Louise Harel affirmait que « Montréal est complètement désorganisée », il fallait lire le sous-entendu: « je vais réorganiser Montréal ». L’ancienne député péquiste s’est retirée de la politique provinciale en novembre pour mieux se lancer en politique municipale. Son plan de match: fusionner Projet Montréal et Vision Montréal afin de devenir la mairesse de Montréal.
Selon mes sources, pas une journée ne se passe sans que Richard Bergeron, chef de Projet Montréal, ne reçoive son lot d’appels de membres du réseau Harel ou de diverses personnalités qu’elle a acquises à sa cause. Le propos est toujours le même: « démissionne Richard, laisse la fusion se faire ». Harel tisse son réseau dans l’ombre et il ne lui manque que la pièce maîtresse – la reddition de Bergeron – pour arriver, triomphante, à la tête d’un Vision Montréal qu’elle a contribué à désorganiser.
En effet, si on blâme beaucoup le maire Labonté pour son manque de leadership, force est de constater que plusieurs des membres démissionnaires de la dernière année attendent beaucoup de Harel. Qu’on pense simplement à Claire St-Arnaud, ex-conseillère municipale de Maisonneuve-Longue-Pointe et amie de Louise Harel depuis 25 ans. Ou Robert Laramée, qui avait été battu par Benoît Labonté par 839 voix en 2005 (alors que ce dernier était dans le Union Montréal de Gérald Tremblay). Ou Christine Hernandez, ex-présidente de Vision Montréal dans Outremont, qui a fini troisième derrière Union Montréal et Projet Montréal et qui aurait gagné advenant une fusion avec ce dernier parti.
For nearly three decades, Harel represented the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve in the National Assembly, and she has always been popular in her home riding. But she was also the PQ minister responsible for the municipal mergers, a controversial legacy she might have trouble shrugging off. She continues to insist that the mergers were the right thing to do, but she is a fierce critic of the new decentralized borough system, which she says takes far too much power out of the hands of City Hall, creating a fragmented city that is difficult to govern. Speculation is building about how the election will pan out.
But let’s look beyond the election and assume that Harel wins. What kind of a mayor could we expect? Would she focus most of her energies on dismantling the borough system that has been established since the mergers? Would she align herself more closely with the progressive policies of Projet Montréal or the more conservative Vision Montréal? Most importantly, how would she differ in her policies and approach from Gérald Tremblay, whose tenure as mayor has accomplished some interesting things (the demolition of the Pine/Park interchange and the construction of the de Maisonneuve bike path, for instance) but seems to lack an overall sense of direction?
Photo by Fred Mahieu
17 comments
What makes Tremblay a (sometimes) great mayor is that he is not ideologically driven. He is an administrator, a manager, he wants to fix things and make them better.
What I would fear from someone like Harel, who I happen to like, is that she would play politics. This city has been paralyzed by administration after administration due to insipid politicking.
Can someone tell me: how common is it that cities have municipal parties? I’ve been told that most major cities do not have parties at that level. Is that true? If so, that could be an answer as to why we’ve been hobbled by such crappy municipal governing over and over again.
Leila, en Europe tout les partis politiques majeurs sont aussi présents au niveau municipal.
South of the border (I write from California) that logo of hers (or her party’s?) strongly recalls the Obama “O”. Coincidence? Does it have the same resonance up there?
It’s a coincidence! That’s not her logo, it’s the Parti Québécois logo.
The real mistake was de-merging after the mergers were already over and done with. What a goshdarn financial fiasco! Every plan such as this would undoubtedly have benefits, and downsides, but we never gave it much of a chance for it all to stabilize. Are we better off now that the mergers have been annulled? Maybe so some might say, but we certainly are poorer than we would have been otherwise!
Bobierto: That’s a “Q” actually. hehe And that was around long before Obama was even thinking about the presidency.
Hmmm thanks for the replies! I’ve spent a lot of time in Mtl and managed never to notice the PQ’s logo. And I’m more fascinated with y’all’s politics than most Amurricans. To answer Leila’s question, many US cities have nonpartisan elections, although at a practical level everybody knows which party a candidate, and often a city is dominated by one party regardless of its nonpartisan status (eg Boston = Democratic; San Diego = Republican). I think the majority of the largest cities follow the national parties though.
Hello Spacing Montréal its readers,
I can confirm here and now, and with 100% percent certainty, that Richard Bergeron WILL be a candidate FOR MAYOR of Montréal this coming november 1st.
Projet Montréal was itself created out of the frustration with the many years of political gamesmanship and careerism that has been all too prevalent in city hall.
Our party leader, with his years of experience in Urban Planning and Transport issues, with the help of Projet Montréal well-rounded membership, has put together credible and progressive policies for the smart growth and TOD development of Montréal.
We would hardly allow this work and these ideas to be waylaid in the interest of electability.
We’ll see you in city hall on november 2nd.
I don’t get this fixation in Montreal with mergers and mega city and une ile, une ville… at the end of the day, these are merely administrative boundaries. Whether we live in the Plateau or Hampstead, or St Laurent, we all consider ourselves part of the Montreal collective and proudly consider ourselves to be Montrealers first. The municipalities amount to neighborhoods and Montreal is, if anything, a city of neighborhoods and neighborhood affiliations. That politicians are obsessed with size is, in my opinion, purely political and a power game. Hubris. Plain and simple. Furthermore, the argument that somehow having a sprinkling of municipalities on the island of Montreal confuses foreign investors and is a perceptual problem in terms of Montreal’s international brand is malarky; every global city is made up of many municipalities. The core of LA’s west side has Beverly Hills, Culver City, West Hollywood, and Santa Monica. They are all separate cities (with their own fire and police forces I might add) but everyone considers themselves to be Angelenos. The reality is, smaller cities or administrative districts are better managed and tended to. Before West Hollywood became a city in 1984, it was one of the seediest, and dumpiest parts of LA. Today it rivals Beverly Hills for cleanliness and the title of garden city. Not to mention, it’s urban planning and social policies are among the best in the state of California. It is the most highly sought-after places to live in Los Angeles. Just an example.
two words. we’re doomed.
@ Edward
It’s not about what we consider ourselves being part of, it’s about governance. The actual borough system simply doesn’t work. There is way too many layers of local governments in Montreal. Add on top of that a provincial government that doesn’t care and a mayor without leadership. Unless we create a Bloc Montréalais at the provincial level to defend Montreal at the Assemblée nationale, there’s not much that can be done except defeating Gérald Tremblay in November 2009.
Laila, for what it’s worth, Toronto doesn’t have municipal political parties. But political parties continue to be mentioned as a way of getting a greater turnout in elections and getting people more engaged between elections. I’m not convinced that parties will automatically have that effect but it is a more popular sentiment in Toronto now than it was a few years ago.
Steve81 – I don’t disagree with anything you have stated. However, I’m referencing the former Montreal island municipalities, that is, the indepedent municipalities that the provincial government and Mme Harel were hell bent on eliminating from the map. And I am speaking to the rhetoric that has been used in the past by the proponents of a mega city. I just don’t believe that bigger is better. Certainly bigger = less accountability. And like you, I am a firm believer that the city of Montreal needs more autonomy and power in almost every domain possible.
Hi all,
The current political mess in Montreal is certainly not Harel’s fault.
In internal PQ assemblies, one of the three scenarios was to merge all 114 cities or so of Greater Montreal, from South shore to St-jerome and everything in between. The idea was to have a strong Montreal with a streamlined property fiscal system and to lower costs by having less bureaucracy. No more very cheap suburbs or expensive center. Out of the window the usual sterile bullshit of banlieues vs Montréal… it would have been one big city where everyone paid his fair share.
The sheer size of this merger was the main reason why the minister dropped it to a more manageable “let’s merge the island first, then see how it goes, before merging more”…
The western suburbs did not like it one bit, they would have lost their bilingual status, fearing they would lose service in a unilingual French Ville de Montréal… Charest won his first elections on this paranoia, even though English speaking citizens can currently get an excellent service at la Ville de Montréal.
Like all great ideas, it never materialized, citizen groups were not too happy with fewer elect reps. The formulas was watered down that it became counter-productive, that’s what happen when you try to please everyone. Damn politicians.
Charest worsened things promising demergers, which were actually not 100% demergers…. ugh…
P.S. Projet Montreal get lost. Are political parties allowed to post propaganda on this blog??
While it sounds good: streamlined and less bloated bureaucracy, lower costs, etc… it just doesn’t work.
If Montreal can only stop coruption. It will be good. Stop contract to 2 or 3 compagnies. Millions of dollars. Societe d`habitation….COmpteurs d`eau.
In Outremont to contract to Desseau…the Cinéma of Outremont and the center intergenerationnel…ans it`s only what we know…imagine the rest.
Comment by Blanche.
Someone told me you do not speak good enough English. SO WHAT.
Do not let that cr*b stop you. Absolutely that would fall definition of discrimination.
Blind people are running states. Do they have to see what the twine towel use to look like?