At last week’s Spacing launch, one left-leaning councilor laid out the bare bones of Joe Pantalone’s campaign strategy: the veteran, this person predicted, will emerge as a kind of Jean Chretien figure — le petit gars de Trinity-Spadina, if you will — who offers voters a calm harbour of positivism while fiscal pitbulls Rocco Rossi, George Smitherman and Rob Ford rip one another to shreds.
After months of relentlessly divisive rhetoric, voters will be ready to embrace Pantalone’s steady-as-she goes candidacy. If he takes just 35% of the votes, Pantalone could prevail in a field where the right is deeply split, or so the logic goes.
But does Pantalone have anything going for him besides the math? And is the math, in fact, correct, or will the various drum-thumpers on the right succeed in boosting voter turnout among the ranks of Toronto’s aggrieved?
I am not persuaded by the Chretien model. The analogy, for one thing, is imprecise: Yes, the wily parliamentarian understood how to capitalize on being underestimated. But the fact is that he won in 1993 because voters were hungry to punish the Brian Mulroney/Kim Campbell Tories for all sorts of reasons.
Torontonians also seem to be in a fairly punitive frame of mind this year, but Pantalone doesn’t automatically emerge on the sunny side of that dynamic just because there’s so much competition on the right.
Then there’s the related problem of what, precisely, he stands for. When I asked him the other night, Pantalone talked about diversity, the environment, protecting the livability of the city, and so on.
Mayor David Miller this week will also launch an all-out PR offensive against Dalton McGuinty over the Transit City funding, to which Pantalone will no doubt add his voice (although he may want to think twice about joining a scorched earth campaign against someone with whom he may eventually need to do business).
That’s all fine, but as was apparent at last week’s debate in Scarborough, Pantalone has yet to find a crisply defined issue on which he can hang his hat. Those who attended heard five candidates dump back-loaders full of criticism on this council’s record, plus one who mildly countered those accusations but didn’t have anything concrete to offer by way of alternative to either the right-wingers or the current administration.
The conventional wisdom about campaign tactics is that it’s a long war and you don’t want to peak early. Keep the powder dry, it’s just April and all that. Maybe, but Pantalone has to give left-of-centre voters something to get worked up about.
A couple of suggestions:
• Promise transit users a reloadable smart card by the end of the next term (TTC general manager Gary Webster told Spacing that Torontonians shouldn’t expect anything of the sort for at least seven more years, which seems outrageous).
• Deliver municipal voting reform for the 2014 election (see BetterBallots.to).
• Transform Yonge south of Bloor into a pedestrian mall/bike corridor, based on the revitalization of Broadway in New York.
John Laschinger, Pantalone’s campaign manager and former manager of Miller’s and Adam Giambrone’s campaigns, was listening carefully at last week’s debate and he’s certainly mulling over the question of how to position the man who gets to be the standard bearer for Miller’s legacy.
Herewith, an opportunity to ante up your own ideas. As this race gains momentum, what should a compelling progressive mayoral platform consist of?
26 comments
I don’t think the math is right either.
I think Smitherman and Rocco will fight over the right-wing North-Yorker vote and at some point a clear winner will emerge.
Then the angry centre will vote for whoever is least associated with Miller – and that’s anyone but Pantalone. He’s got no chance.
I agree with Josh. There’s a pendulum swing that’s happening back to the right (don’t worry lefties, it’ll eventually swing back) and, unless there’s a truly staggering split equally among the right, Pantalone has no chance. Personally, I think Smitherman is heading to the same defeat that Barbara Hall did (in fact Smitherman ran her campaign). She ran pretty much on name recognition alone and slowly lost out to a John Tory VS David Miller campaign as they actually presented new ideas. Remember how wacky that election was with accusations of bribery from John Nunziata and the bizarre antics of Tom Jakobek?
Personally, I think it’ll be down to Rossi or Ford in the end, unless Smitherman starts speaking up or a star candidate from the left comes forward. The only ones that stand a chance (Jack Layon or Olivia Chow) have already said they’re happy in federal politics.
And Miller’s fight for Transit City is hopeless. Most of his base are NDP supporters and the provincial Liberals know very well much of outer 416 vote Liberal. The Liberals cut it because it was the biggest cost cut with the least direct political liability. They’re certainly not going to give a damn about his one and only legacy. It’s nasty politics, but it’s the way it works.
Chris and Josh: while I admire your thoughtfulness I don’t think you’ve considered how and why people vote. Or even how campaigns are run.
Simply put, an election is 15% candidate and 85% organization (which also includes money). Smitherman, hands down, will be the leader in this with his Ontario caucus members owing him. He is a bigtime Liberal fundraiser.
Pantleone will have a lot of labour and lefty organizational and financial support. There is literally a built-in 15% vote for him at minimum (about the % Gaimrbone had in a poll when he launched his ill-fated campaign). Its up to Pants to build on that.
People vote much differently at a municipal level that at any other level. But even it you want to go down party lines, it’s pretty simple to look at previous provincial and federal election results in Toronto:
NDP: 25%
CON: 25%
LIB: 45%
Other: 5%
Pantelone, being the lone lefty, will get anywhere from 15%-20%. Smitherman will get 30 at minimum. Rossi, Thomson, Ford, etc split the remaining 40%.
Ford will only get about 10% of the vote, similar to Jakobek and Nunziata. There is no way Ford can go a whole election without yelling that someone is a “waste of skin” or throwing beer on someone’s head. He’s an ass through and through, and the sooner he publicly displays that he’ll be out of the race. Thomson is as smart as sandpaper — read her campaign web site and you’ll realize she has nothing costed out, just back of napkin math. Rossi could get 20-25%, but no more. As much discontent as there is in the media world, people will make up their minds 3 weeks before the election, and the nobodies (Thomson and Rossi) wil fade while the names (Smitherman and Pants) will get much more attention. Though, as Mr Lorinc points out, Pantelone has his work cut out for him.
This is by far Smitherman’s to lose. He will not fall as far as Hall simply because he learned the lessons of her campaign, and he seems to have much more personality than Hall (who is as exciting as a lump of coal).
@Moses Do you assume that there aren’t shifts in the electorate, especially at different levels of government? While obviously the members of the city unions will vote for pantalone, how many of the city workers live in Toronto itself?
Rob ford has shown that he’s the most well organized of all the righties. Smitherman has large liabilities as well, not the least of which is ehealth.
@Christopher I think transit city is a sad result of Miller trying to do too much at once and him trying to tie it to a legacy. If we want to see successful transit expansion, we should be emulating Spain. They expanded their Barcelona and Madrid Metros very quickly and cost-effectivly within the 20 years after the end of fascism. They did it as a steady, consistent expansion.
If Toronto spent 1/10th of the extra spending since miller took office (to the tune of $2.5B i think?) we’d be building 3km of subway a year. Subways also have the benefit of less hostility by locals.
I’d also add that the subway expansion couldn’t be halted by provincial budget cuts if we did it ourself.
I find all the ‘mainstream’ candidates lack some kind of relatively attainable vision for the future. If you read Keith Cole’s platform, it’s immediately apparent what type of progressive items a left-leaning candidate should be proposing to counter all the negativity from the right. So far, all that Pantelone has been offering is the status quo, which makes him appear more like John Turner than Jean Chretien.
I don’t buy all this left/right stuff. Maybe it is different uptown, but down where I live, there is a growing split between the new generation of forward-looking, entrepreneurial-minded can-do, self-organizing progressives and the paranoid, authoritarian, reflexively pro-union pinkos of yesteryear.
David Miller straddled both camps, but generally his occasional arrogance was outweighed by actual Vision. But the only lefties Pantalone stands with are the angry, grey-haired folks who called children scabs for cleaning up their local park during the strike. And as Lorinc points out, Pantalone has no vision at all to balance his authoritarian reflexes.
As far as I am concerned, there is no progressive candidate in this race.
@John That’s an interesting insight. Of all the “lefties” that I know, almost every single one of them hates unions, but they hate them because they hold people back through rigid seniority rules and protecting bad workers. But I’m also 29 and a young professional. We all have horror stories of working as contractors with union shops. The (as you describe it) authoritarian types are mostly over 40 – but also at the age where most politicians sit at.
But there is also a shift with age. Virtually every student supports the NDP because they want tuition cuts, but as soon as they leave school, get a job, and start paying income taxes they shift away from their positions.
Miller did do a beautiful job at straddling the two, but it collapsed after the garbage strike.
In the last 2 civic elections the split in the vote has tended to be between the Toronto canidate and the one from the suburbs. If someone like Rob Ford can mobilize the voters in the east and west and get them out to vote they could very easily defeat someone from the old City of Toronto.
I agree with John’s comment that ‘left’ and ‘right’ don’t make much sense and that the ‘left’ is enigmatic. I don’t think people who classify themselves as ‘left,’ or are called ‘left,’ (at least with regard to Toronto’s election) are advocating the eradication of capitalism or believe that profit=theft. It seems that many ‘progressive’ ideas actually work in the interest of business, though of a particular kind (‘green,’ usually in favour of small-scale over corporate, responsible, sustainable, etc.). I find it bizarre that a proposal to beautify a street or make room for pedestrians or bikes is considered ‘left.’ Since when did driving a car become ‘right wing’?
Rob Ford is to mayoral prospects what Ron Paul was to Republican presidential prospects: his following might be loud and enthusiastic and in-your-face, but it has its disgruntled-protesty ceiling–he’d only win through some extraordinarily fragmented FPTP situation.
Due to his personality quirks, I wouldn’t even go too far for the “if 905ers could vote” argument; just because they share certain ideas on governance doesn’t mean they’d endorse someone this coarse and bombastic–as opposed to someone more tempered such as Doug Holyday…
@John
I agree with your question about this lefty/righty thingy. I am a NDP-voting union-hater (though will probably be liberal-voting next time around), I am a car-owning cyclist-commuter, I want my own property tax increased but commercial tax slashed, I like to see more public transit but have reservations towards TC, I moved from burb to inner city but want Gardiner to stay… what does that make me? A lefty or righty? Com’on, life is more complicated than left vs. right, and it is a good thing that city politics does not have to follow party line.
Pantalone is my local councilor. He set up a dump site on my street last summer and, although he claimed to be opposed, completely ignored invitations to visit the site and see for himself what was actually going on. He wouldn’t even respond to emails with questions from his constituents. His staff were equally non-communicative. I expect more from my elected representatives.
Let’s not even get into his opposition to business growth on Harbord, and the way he caters to the older Italian/Portugese when this riding is far more diverse. I keep seeing him described as a leftist but the guy is uptight, and a rigid thinker.
We can do better.
Yu,
I will tell you what your views make you…… a good candidate for Mayor. You got my vote :).
I don’t think people who classify themselves as ‘left,’ or are called ‘left,’ (at least with regard to Toronto’s election) are advocating the eradication of capitalism or believe that profit=theft. It seems that many ‘progressive’ ideas actually work in the interest of business, though of a particular kind (’green,’ usually in favour of small-scale over corporate, responsible, sustainable, etc.)
Naomi Klein and her acolytes, and to a bit of a lesser extent the provincial NDP, would disagree with you. :-/
@Adam Rob Ford puts on quite a show, but he’s actually pretty mellow and even likeable in person. People like him who are frustrated about the city getting in their way are more popular than you might think. Personally I would like to see more contracting out and he even supports bike lanes (at least downtown).
Ford is not even worth discussing seriously. This is a man who beleives AIDS is only a gay issue, has been investigated for spousal abuse, has lied to the media when he was caught being a drunk ass at a Leafs game (handing out biz cards too), and runs a city hall office on no money (which some would question who pays for his office stuff — a company? A rich money-backer? which leads to quesitons about his integrity).
He does not know how to do his job: he thinks its his job to investigate each residents complaint, not that of a proper city employee. he berates City staff who show up to help residents and his MO is to oppose government. Why on earth would anyone vote for a person who hates who he works for? Imagine going to a job interview and telling your potential boss that what he does sucks and if hired will do everything to make that job obsolete.
Please, do not take this man seriously. If we wanted a crazy man to run city hall I’d vote for Zanta or Don Andrews, the white supremist running for mayor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Andrews
@Mick, etc., progressive voters would be wise not to adopt an ostrich approach to Ford’s candidacy, whatever else they think of the man. With a lack-lustre left-of-centre candidate and a middle-of-the-roader (George Smitherman) who labours beneath a serious popularity deficit, the outcome of this race remains a toss up as far as I can see. Won’t be Giorgio Mammolitti, and won’t be Sarah Thomson. That much is certain. But Ford, for all his tantrums and personal misdeeds, could well become a contender absent a serious and compelling rival on the centre-left.
Even I can’t disagree on that count–which is why I’d rather not join in the chorus predicting Ford’ll blow up real good like Jakobek. His following may have a ceiling, but it has a floor, too…I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s within the 15-30% range in the end. Indeed, now that he’s in the race, I’d like to see how he ranks in *current* mayoral-choice numbers–strong and scary second, perhaps?
@Mick Who’d of thought in 1990 that Mike Harris would’ve been premier? Well it happened 5 years later – after he campaigned on significantly cutting government down. And while I think people are wrong that he “attacked cities” (I grew up in rural eastern Ontario during his tenure and he did the same kinds of cuts there), after the NDP government’s handling of the province it was no surprise that he was elected after them.
I’m not endorsing Harris or Ford, but don’t think the electorate at large doesn’t react. They do; it’s how Thatcher, Reagan, Harper, etc all got into office.
I’d certainly hate to see Rob Ford elected mayor. But just as there seemed to be an inordinate number of Spacing commentators who grossly overestimated Councillor Giambrone’s ability as a mayoral candidate (or even his abilities as a councillor or TTC Chair), there seem to be an inordinate number who are quick to brush off Ford’s chances.
samg: No one grossly over estimated Giambrone’s ability. Spacing itself suggested Mihevc become TTC chair in 2006. And Giambrone has overseen the largest expansion plans and growth of the TTC is decades.
On the other hand, Ford has accomplished nothing. Nothing nothing nothing nothing. He is not a team player is a complete ideologue to the neo-con movement.
If anyone here that wants to compare province and federal politic patterns to city elections is nutso. The closer a voter gets to home the more progressive they vote. Politicians like Ford say No NO NO NO NO all the time and show next to no vision. His vision is he wants a big job title, not to help anyone else but his own ego. Watching Ford for 10 years its easy to see this. That’s not being “quick to brush off Ford’s chances”, its about thinking realistically about a man with a proven track record of fear and loathing.
sorry Mick, but the TTC expansion was primarily a Miller initiative… As for Counc. G.s status as TTC Chair, on the eve of his mayoral launch, he did his damdest to distance himself from criticisms of the TTC by saying he wasn’t primarily responsible as chair (thereby underscoring his lack of understanding of what governance means). There were several commentators on posting on Spacing who bought into the Councillor Giambrone hype based on the people who signed up for his campaign. Just a few days before Mr. G’s campaign imploded, I recall there were people on this board calling me delusional for not having bought into the hype. You say that nobody grossly overestimated Mr. G. I think the postings from just before and during his campaign launch suggest a different story.
@Mick You’re deluding yourself. Again, I’m not endorsing their policies, but Mike Harris, Margaret Thatcher, and Stephen Harper accomplished little before ultimately becoming electorally successful. Sometimes all you have to do is sit back for awhile and repeatedly say “this is bad” and then eventually “I told you so” (OK, this isn’t accurate for Harper, but it is for Thatcher and Harris). The fact is that the right is seizing on Miller’s failures and it’s already defining the election. Transit expansion isn’t showing to the common man who is still waiting for 3 streetcars to go by or busses on Steeles not even stopping because they’re so full. Transit city was largely funded by the province, which is why they’re so screwed now.
Taxes and spending are up higher than inflation, but there’s little the average person can say they’re benefiting. This is a dangerous precedent and it ads up over time. Now the “I told you so” crowd is out in full swing. The apex was the garbage strike when Miller pretty much gave in to virtually all of the Union’s demands. The grandfathering clause was given, though it’s the same way other municipalities got rid of excess benefits, still subjected us to over a month without basic city services. Added to this, the current employees got huge raises when the taxpayers were most certainly not.
If Miller was willing to dangle out the possibility of contracting this out and focus on city services instead of who provides them, he’d be in running contention for a third term and progressives could hold their heads up high. Not so.
“Again, I’m not endorsing their policies, but Mike Harris, Margaret Thatcher, and Stephen Harper accomplished little before ultimately becoming electorally successful.”
What do you mean by “accomplished little”? Being elected members and party leaders isn’t exactly “little”–and besides, compared to Rob Ford, Harris/Thatcher/Harper had solid steady-as-she-goes electoral packages and a lack of obtrusive personal skeletons. In that respect, their successes had more kinship with David Miller (who, by such a benchmark, also “achieved little”) than Rob Ford…
@Adam I was responding to Mick’s comment that Rob Ford had accomplished little and didn’t mean it literally; I interpreted it as accomplishing little in affecting change until their actual election.
Except that unlike pre-leadership Harris/Thatcher/Harper, Rob Ford has also achieved a lot in looking, well, buffoonishly unfit for the higher office he’s aiming for–even by Mel Lastman standards…