Pop quiz: What did we learn about the new-and-improved George Smitherman this week?
Here’s one answer: If you don’t have a platform, much less an articulated reason for running, it’s crucial to be making plenty of noise to remind voters you’re in the race.
Smitherman’s plodding march to coronation is still long on sound and short on light, but the show appears to have entered a third act.
In Act I, we had much strategic silence interrupted by the occasional photo-op. Smitherman then threw campaign manager Jeff Bangs overboard in favour of Toronto District school board chair Bruce Davis, a Mel Lastman operative turned development lobbyist who promised Torontonians they’d be seeing more George.
Act II — a scene really — was marked by scintillating “policy announcements” such as (i) not selling Toronto Hydro; and (ii) pestering Ottawa to designate the Rouge River valley as a national park — a pointless bit of advocacy that, Smitherman vowed, would be one of his “top priorities.”
Act III, which appears to have begun last week in response to media critiques of Act II, looks to be about showcasing Smitherman’s pitbull persona, in case you missed the memo.
Tuesday saw him skewering Rocco Rossi’s “competence to be mayor” in response to Rossi’s subway building scheme. On Wednesday, Smitherman summoned the media hordes to slam a “previously secret” plan to develop a “shiny” new TTC head office, darkly warning the commission’s leadership to “reflect carefully” before proceeding.
But of course the scene-stealer was his Stentorian j’accuse at Rob Ford over Ford’s public inanities about AIDS.
“You said, on the floor of council, ‘If you’re not doing needles and you’re not gay, you wouldn’t get AIDS – that’s the bottom line,’” reported the Globe and Mail. “And I’d like you, Mr. Ford, to explain to people how your character, and especially these comments, is justifiable now that you present yourself as someone who wishes to be mayor of the city of Toronto.”
Smitherman’s camp even managed to squeeze a bit more juice out of that lemon the next day when Ford’s people tweeted an indignant rebuttal.
Feeling good yet?
I certainly don’t question Smitherman’s views on HIV/AIDS, and god knows there’s no shortage of fodder in Ford’s grab-bag of obnoxious bluster.
But wasn’t there something transparently tactical in Smitherman’s attack?
As he did when he ran Barbara Hall’s team in 2003, Smitherman knows that no campaign is complete without the special ops guys who spend months quietly preparing detailed briefing books on the opponents’ records and their foibles. It’s all about looking well-informed and being able to change the channel when circumstances dictate.
Indeed, the question to ask about Smitherman’s hit on Ford is, why now? Was it about looking for ways to hoover up some undecided progressive voters as right-of-centre supporters decamp for, um, bluer pastures? Was it about creating an illusion of momentum in a campaign that hasn’t generated any substance? Was it a response to worrisome internal polling? Or perhaps it served as a proactive defensive measure? After all, Smitherman knows he’s going to be facing some heavy shelling over e-health Ontario and may want to get a head start in the mud-slinging that awaits us
The other way of looking at George’s shot across Ford’s bow is to consider all the groups he hasn’t defended with such righteousness. Yes, Ford’s blather about HIV/AIDS is well worth condemning. But I certainly didn’t hear Smitherman confront Ford on his ceaseless and equally offensive attacks on city workers, public sector unions, homeless people, etc. Why not? Because he’ll lose votes if he does. It’s not about principle.
In any event, the gambit succeeded in shifting the recent media narrative about Ford’s chances, and I’m guessing this won’t be the last time Smitherman’s rivals get spanked. Like any good magician, he knows he needs to divert his audience’s attention so they don’t start thinking about what, if anything, is happening back stage.
photo by Yvonne Bambrick
16 comments
John: It’s seems possible that we’ll be trading an a-political mayor with lofty ideas for an ultra-political mayor with no ideas. I wonder if that’s a push? But then, maybe you don’t agree with me that David Miller was probably the more politically naive, yet visionary man we’ve ever had as Mayor…well…other than John Sewell, of course. But how about that (and I know I’m rambling a bit)…why is it that all the progressive Mayors don’t know how to play the game?
The trade-off for a real operator like Smitherman is that we’ll get a guy who’s an expert at the game but while his expertise is an advantage it’s also crippling; will he be able to take any risks?
Smitherman’s AIDS diversion came at the Toronto Real Estate Board’s debate. It was meant to keep Ford’s land transfer tax elimination promise off the front page of all the papers. Smitherman executed the strategy so well that not only did it stay off the front page, I don’t think it made any of the papers at all.
Ernie,
I wasn’t at the debate, but there’s a certain irony in his gambit if it is as you describe, given Smitherman’s pledge from earlier in the campaign to scrap the vehicle registration levy.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2010/02/03/smitherman-targets-david-miller-s-vehicle-registration-tax-as-straw-that-broke-the-camel-s-back.aspx.
JL
John, I don’t think there’s anything ironic about it. Smitherman tested the wind, saw people were unhappy with the new taxes, noted that the vehicle tax is much less important to the city’s finances than the land transfer tax and that the vehicle tax hits considerably more voters. It was an easy political calculation. What Smitherman doesn’t want to concede yet is that next to Ford he is Tax Cutter Lite. Eventually he will have to but so far the Tax Cutter reputation is one that gets him a receptive audience among the Toronto Tea Party set.
Off topic, but I wanted to comment on what David Amborsk said in the link John posted:
“…the vehicle tax has the added effect of potentially discouraging car ownership.”
I must disagree with this statement. With our lousy urban, regional, and national public transit systems, discouraging vehicle ownership through financial means only creates second class citizens. People who must take far too long commuting, and are unable to take advantage of the social and professional opportunities that access to a car brings. For example, as Glen points out regularly, most job creation in the GTA is happening outside the city proper. By making it harder for lower income people to buy a car, it means these people may never get a chance take advantage of these job opportunities, or at best spend several hours per day commuting to them. Waiting several decades for our transit systems to (possibly) meet their needs is not an option.
The focus should be on reducing car dependency, not car ownership. Having a car is fine, but is it necessary to use it to get to the bank when it is only a 5 minute walk away? Is it necessary to use it to get all the way downtown and pay for parking when there is free parking at Yorkdale subway station – and the train my be faster than driving anyways? If your lifestyle doesn’t warrant owning a vehicle, then more power to you. However, in the Greater Toronto Area, or even Toronto proper, it is unrealistic to expect everybody to live without a car.
If you want to reduce car ownership, then improve public transit and urban design. People who need a car will still get one. Adding a $60 cash grab to car ownership is not going to make a 60 minute bus ride any more competitive to a 20 minute drive.
What a horrible point of view. Don’t state as fact that Transfer City is cheap, beacuse it isn’t. It’s Billions of dollars on something that won’t get one person out of their car. And you want to build it because it’s the quickest option? Isn’t it more important to build it “right” than it is to build it “quick”? We only need 3 subways. 1) Sheppard from Downsview to Scarborough Town Centre and around the bend back to Kennedy. 2) DRL from Pape, along the rail corridor to save money, and back up to Dundas West. 3) Eglinton. That’s it. Then build your LRT’s to supplement this foundation AND buy a burrowing machine that expands one stop per year. THAT is how you build a city. By building transit that is: 1) Fast. 2) Cheap. 3) Reliable. That is what a subway is. That is NOT what the LRT is.
I’m sorry…. subways are cheap? What year are you living in?
If we can’t get the government to fund even half of Transit City, how will we ever get them to pay for the 50 km of new subway lines you’re proposing… subways which now cost well over $300M/km? Transit City may not be “ideal” but it is more realistic…. and saying it won’t get one person out of their car is ludicrous.
Good Post Ben!
That had been my problem with TC. It is being sold to us as being imperative for disadvantaged neighborhoods. That it will stimulate “avenueizatoin”. Th reality is that what people in those neighborhoods need most is access to jobs. TC does not provide that. The most recent Statscan employment report shows once again that Toronto is unable to create opportunity. While Ontario lead the way in job creation, the city of Toronto’s unemployment rate went up to 9.5%. The planning department is aware of the tax realities in having the “Avenue Plans” come to fruition. It has produced some reports on the difficulty of any redevelopment being anything other than condos. The preferred, ground floor retail with one or two levels of offices above and the remainder condos, will not materialize. So long as the city has in place a beggar they neighbor tax policy that offers below cost services to residential property owners and taxes renters and businesses to make up the rest, the situation (and the city’s finances) will only get worse. People in disadvantage neighborhoods would be better served by not subsidizing Rosedale etc., and the money earmarked for TC lines through their neighborhood would be better off spent buying them cars.
http://www.demographia.com/db-tr-econ.pdf
http://www.uctc.net/papers/544.pdf
A $60 annual tax is not going to make the difference between car ownership or not, and is hardly going to create a class divide.
Why is Northwest Toronto always ignored when people scream for more subways?
Have to agree with Ben here. I have a new immigrant friend who did not own a car and is having a hard time finding a decent job. He had to work as security guard for a while, and had to travel from downtown to Markham or Brampton (wherever the job took him) for night shift. Can you imagine the hardship that was put on him? He once walked 15km from Brampton to North York, at midnight! Now that he owns a car and does delivery job and likes it much better.
If you take public transit long enough, it will only encourage private car ownership.
Oh to have a place to sit, and have 6 inches of space around you!
“We only need 3 subways.”
You forgot about the SRT, JW.
I’m saying that attempts to discourage vehicle ownership financially through, at best, controversial taxation ultimately works to create a group of second class citizens. It may only be $60, but living one side street north of Steeles it is $60 that I can spend elsewhere.
Also for the record, when I was talking about improving public transit and urban design, I was talking about it in general terms. I was not trying to show support for one transit and urban planning strategy over another. I already took this thread off topic to express my frustration with anti-car ideologies in contemporary planning theory, and there are plenty of other blog postings here to discuss Transit City.
John, you nailed him!
To Mr. Smitherman:
Smitherman, as a gay man I’m *desperate* to support a candidate that has a similar take on life.
Your shamefully ludicrous attack on Ford’s equally shameful and ludicrous comments are equally transparent.
Tell me why you want to be Mayor, and I might vote for you, “I want the job” is not sufficient reason.
And stop with the LAME attack on yesterday’s news. Ford will give you more ammo when he walks out of his house (any) morning.
RE: Ben
“I’m saying that attempts to discourage vehicle ownership financially through, at best, controversial taxation ultimately works to create a group of second class citizens. It may only be $60, but living one side street north of Steeles it is $60 that I can spend elsewhere.”
Oh PLEASE… $60 per year is minuscule compared to the cost of owning and operating a car… I commute from downtown to the GTA for my job and I spend almost $400 / month on gas, insurance + parking alone… throw in the cost of the vehicle itself… $60 per year is nothing… what a stupid argument.