George Smitherman, as most of us know by this point, wants the balance of this race to be a two-horse affair between himself and Rob Ford. But from the standpoint of council’s longer-term political dynamic, the difference between a binary duel and the three-person stretch run could be quite stark.
Take the following scenario: by election-day, Joe Pantalone’s support has all but collapsed, giving Smitherman his wish. The results, in that case, will be fairly crisp: one loses, one wins, and the victor, moreover, will likely have a numerical majority – a detail that won’t be lost on many middle-of-the-road councillors whose support is essential for any mayor who aspires to deliver on their promises.
If, however, Pantalone continues to hang tough (he’s announcing a slate of endorsements this morning) and his supporters don’t get cold feet in the ballot box, we could see Ford win with less than 50%, especially if both Smitherman and Pantalone are effective at getting out their supporters. In that case, we wake up Tuesday morning to a city that voted centre-left and a mayor who is substantially right, as it were. Et voila, minority rule, writ local.
And then what?
The result would be unprecedented for post-amalgamation Toronto; after all, in 2003 — the megacity’s only broadly contested race — David Miller and Barbara Hall together accounted for 53% of votes cast, compared to John Tory’s 38%. John Nunziata, also a righty, came in with 5%. Whatever else Hall and Miller thought of one another, the centre-left won that election outright.
For exercised progressives, though probably less so Liberals, a Ford minority is a result they can take to the bank. It represents a rhetorical cudgel with which his council opponents can more strenuously bash his policies, and would stand, for a while at least, as a natural point of departure for the 2014 election.
Surely, this is the sort of forward-looking political calculus some of Pantalone’s backers have in their minds as they urge le petit gars de Trinity Spadina to stick it out to the end, despite little plausible chance of victory. He may lose, but the show must go on, right?
Indeed, the mutterings about a hung council and even someone who emerges to lead the opposition – the “day mayor and the nightmare,” as one wag put it to me – turns, theoretically, on such an outcome. If Ford gets 50% plus one over a consolidated centre-left vote for Smitherman alone, there’s no chance for progressives to claim Torontonians have delivered a politically ambiguous result.
(What’s potentially worse, if Smitherman wins a very slim numerical victory over Ford, there’s a very real question about the strength of his mandate: he may well have a Ford (Doug) on his council, after all, plus a lot of extremely pissed conservatives who will be on his case to cut, cut, cut. When I asked him about that last week, Smitherman waved aside the premise, saying he’s not worrying about the margin of victory. But in politics, as in other activities, size matters.)
Let’s return to the hung council scenario: if Ford takes office and the giant clam is overtaken by hard-core political gridlock (i.e., an anti-Ford coalition emerges that can consistently defeat the mayor’s party), the centre-left could inadvertently administer a self-inflicted wound by presenting itself as the faction that is preventing Council from doing the city’s business.
I must say I remain skeptical about this kind of outcome, but the persistence of the idea in progressive circles should invite greater public scrutiny: Could a `minority’ Ford victory lead to a more conciliatory approach (a la Mel Lastman), or will he run his show the way Stephen Harper governs Parliament (i.e., divide and conquer)? Does the prospect hand-to-hand combat at council help or harm the City of Toronto in its attempts to secure transit funding or other forms of support from the other orders? And how will this uncertain dynamic play out provincially, as we move towards a possible regime change at the other end of University Avenue?
So many questions, so little time.
25 comments
“But in politics, as in other activities, size matters.”
Was that an oblique joke about Smitherman’s penis?
I feel like I’m missing out on some rumours or something.
Heard Joe Pants on Radio 1 this morning, his slagging of the democratic process (‘I’d spoil my ballot than vote for either Smitherman or Ford’) is truely indicative of his perspective – It’s all about him. Him or nobody. He won’t work with anyone. Much like Rob Ford.
A vote for Pants is a vote against democracy and compromise necessary to make democracy work.
strength of his mandate
Counter-point: George W. Bush won by the skin of his teeth, but ruled as though he had a huge mandate. Harper won by the skin of his teeth, but rules as though he has a huge mandate.
When right-wingers score a narrow victory, they bluff and bluster and pretend it’s a huge one. And Ford is really, really good at bluff and bluster.
Could a `minority’ Ford victory lead to a more conciliatory approach
Ford doesn’t get nuance. Did Ford do anything in a conciliatory way while a councillor? No. He voted against everything and refused to ally with anyone.
Don’t expect humility from Ford.
“He voted against everything and refused to ally with anyone.”
That is a very generalized and unsubstantiated position.
Ford has allied himself with people on council, they just happen to be on the conservative side of the council and who’s “voice in council” was in the minority. These councilors deemed some of Millers proposals to be wasteful, self-serving, and/or against the needs of their riding (you do realize that these councilors are representing their constituents, which I think a lot of media organizations are forgetting. It isn’t always about the councilor, but the citizens that these councilors represent), so they vote against these projects. They are looking out for the best interest of their constituents and their tax money and if it means a constants vote against projects, then that’s what it is.
This fearmongering of a Ford mayoralty is quite sad. The election hasn’t even happened yet, but people are already speculating as to how he will act as mayor. Who knows what the makeup of the council will be (it could be more right leaning this time, which would favour Ford), nor how Ford will conduct himself if he’s actually the mayor of Toronto. There is a big difference between the positions of mayor and councilor. If Ford has to look out for the entire city, he may conduct himself appropriately. That’s the thing, no one knows for sure. Past performances do not indicate future results.
Monkey: you couldn’t be more wrong and out of touch. What makes you think Ford would all of a sudden take on some kind of statesman-like attitude? He has an ideology that he has stuck to (and to a tee). That ideology got Toronto into thi financial mess much more so than Ford’s blatant lie that the City overspends (it over projects, and possibly allocates the wrong amount of funds to some departments, but it’s budget is much more conservative than the province or the feds).
Ford has won only a handful of votes over his ten years. It has been total opposition with little to no room for compromise. He has NEVER tried to bring about consensus. The only reason he is getting endorsements is for potential positions in his exec committe.
Considering Smitherman had to veer to the right for his candidacy to gain traction, I don’t believe that a victory by Ford with less than 50% could be construed as a win by the minority. The left have there candidate in Joe Pantalone. If they want more of the same, that is who they should vote for.
Glen: What have you been watching? He veered to the centre and left to gain traction. He is campaigning as a “progressive” choice in his commercials.
LIISA,
A tax freeze, contracting out garbage and bus routes, a reduction in city employees. These are the more recent additions to his platform. None of these platform ideas were originally espoused. They are a result of competing with Rob Ford. They also coincide with the change in his trajectory. They are certainly not part of the progressive agenda.
@monkeyleader (if that really is your name)
“Past performances do not indicate future results.” It’s always incredible to see someone be entirely wrong about something. Not just a little off, but so completely out to lunch that one can’t be subtle when pointing out the mistake.
Past behaviour ALWAYS predicts future behaviour.
Ask whomever you like…statisticians, economists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians, car mechanics, CBC employees, the Pope, writers, actors, Oliver Cromwell and mathematicians. All of them would tell you the same thing; if you understand how one has acted, you can have a fairly good idea of how they will act. What do you think? That George W. Bush was a sign-carrying, activist, proto-communist until he became President, at which point he did an amazing flip-flop?
Rob Ford was a blustering bully in all his years of public service up to this point and there’s no reason to expect different when he’s Mayor. One might HOPE for better, but your pinning your future on a false hope, which makes you no better than the Pantalone supporters who hope that he’ll turn into an inspirational leader and visionary if/when he becomes Mayor. That has just as much chance of happening, which is to say none.
“The election hasn’t even happened yet, but people are already speculating as to how he will act as mayor.”
Isn’t the whole point of the election is to make a choice based on speculation on how candidate will act as mayor.
I don’t see much to support in either Ford or Smitherman or anyone else for that matter. (Pantalone’s inability to piggyback on the positives of the Miller years while distancing himself from the negatives have made him a non-starter)… I don’t see much difference in their platforms or in their rhetoric (except was the first to set the parameters despite being the latter of the two to enter the race). As for why certain so-called progressives are quaking at the thought of a Ford victory over Smitherman, it probably has less to do with any real substantive issues between the two frontrunners and more to do with the prospect of how much humble pie they will have to eat with an old council nemisis in the Mayor’s chair. Thing is, though, that whatever the outcome, they will be eating a substantial amount.
@ Liisa, the fact that Smitherman is trying to sound “progressive” notes in his campaign certainly doesn’t mean that his agenda is “progressive” in substance. What campaign have you been tuning in to?
@ Sameer
If a city has to many projects for it’s budget, then where does this money come from for these projects? It comes from taxpayer’s wallets. For a city to over project also means that they are over spending. You are correct, the city doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem… which happens to be a point made by Ford. It’s better to stick to the projects the city needs and can afford, then it is to do every single project and force the taxpayer to pay higher taxes to offset some unnecessary spending. A good leader stays within a budget and allocates funds to what the city actually needs and not what it desires.
@ Josh Hind
I would hate to be your financial advisor, because mine always tells me not to look at the past performance of a stock when consider buying it because it does not guarantee it’s future result.
My belief is that Ford (if elected) would see the need to work with council to get his ideas approved. The role of mayor and the role of a councilor are two different entities. One is looking out for a ward, while the other an entire city. Two very different roles. Since we’ve only seen Ford in the councilor role, there is no evidence to suggest that he would act that way as a mayor, since we’ve not seem him as a mayor. You may be correct that he’s attitude may continue along the same path, but he’s attitude is no different then Furious George, so really, is there a difference attitude wise between George and Rob?
Also, as a bit of advice, you may get more people to listen to your comment if you dial back your personal opinions of the commentator you are addressing. Making a personal attack on a commentator really doesn’t make for an open dialogue or makes them likely to receive your comment with an open mind.
From torontoist.com back in August of 2010:
“Yesterday, D’Sa, the WKRA, and other concerned community members finally saw their efforts pay off. In one of its final sessions before the October 25 municipal elections, Toronto’s City Council passed a motion moved by Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore Councillor Peter Milczyn to acquire the land from the school board for $6.5 million (the price tag also includes an adjacent parking lot used by Fairfield Seniors Centre).
…mayoral candidate Rob Ford was the only councillor to vote against the motion. Normally, we’d just chalk this up to Ford’s penny pinching, sigh, and call it a day, but the Etobicoke North councillor’s vote wasn’t expected to go the way it did.
In mid-April, we attended the WRKA’s “Save the Greenspace” rally at Fairfield Park, and while Ford wasn’t able to make the festivities, he did send a contingent of his campaign workers to cook hot dogs, pose for photos, and distribute “Ford for Mayor” bumper stickers, which gave the impression that he supported the cause.”
See http://torontoist.com/2010/08/fairfield_greenspace_to_stay_green.php for the complete story.
@monkeyleader (is that your married name?)
First off, we’re not talking about stocks…we’re talking about people. And if you apply the same selection criteria to inanimate objects as you do human beings, it’s no wonder you’re so off the mark. If your stock broker told you to look at a doctor and ignore his past instances of malpractice because he’ll probably do better in the future, would you follow that advice? Or to use a more personal example, if you found out a perspective lover has a long history of cheating, wouldn’t that knowledge make it difficult to establish trust? Knowing that people who cheat tend to repeat their mistakes.
Secondly, how I can launch a personal attack against a stranger who writes under an alias? Who am I really attacking? Is it you, or is it your internet character? The human or the avatar? Are you anything like “monkeyleader” in your day to day life? I have plenty of friends who go on blogs under an alias just to stir up shit. Is that you? If so, then you deserve a little abuse, don’t you think? You are just a rabble rouser after all. On the other hand, you and your alias might one in the same. In which case, I’d apologize. But since I don’t apologize to aliases, I guess we’re just stuck.
@ MONKEYLEADER
Go look at the voting records. Of 44 councillors, Ford usually voted against the other 43. When there’s a vote that comes up 43-1, that 1 is Ford.
He didn’t even ally with any of his conservative colleagues…
@ Lukev
I’ve actually looked at the voting records of Toronto. Perhaps you should too.
http://www.votetoronto.ca/test/htdocs/recordsnew.html
I see Ford’s name with a lot of other people… unlike the mythical 43-1 you seem to come up with.
@ Josh
Well, since you are such a great downtown progressive type, I guess we should be thankful for your opinion and that your view of humanity is so diminished that you can’t even allow the thought that people can change.
More recent voting records
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2010/agendas/cc.htm
show that the “mythical 43-1” happened over 30 times in the last summer alone.
I’m picturing a future North American Mayor’s conference that goes something like this:
“Oh hello Mayors Newsom, Adams, Villaraigosa… the seminar on Streetcars, Bicycle Lanes and Urban Development is down the hall to your right. Yes Mayor Bloomberg, you will be speaking at the Reforming City Schools panel discussion afterwards. Mayor Robertson, your keynote address on Property Tax Incentives for Sustainability is at 4:30 pm. No, Mayor Emmanuel, the Green Roof Heat Island Reduction presentation is not until this evening after the black tie dinner.
Oh, Mayor Ford, hi. The children’s playroom is on the left, and we have left you a pile of red crayons and budget reports that you can draw angry faces on. Would you like some juice?”
@monkeylover (I knew a Hans Monkeylover once, he was Dutch. A relative, perhaps?)
There are enough analogies about leopards not changing their spots and the incapacity of old dogs to learn new tricks to fill this entire comment section many times over. Far from being a silly stereotype or outdated folksy wisdom, I think they point to the very real idea that age and intransigence often go hand in hand. Which is not to say a person can’t change, just that change is a tough road to travel.
Obviously when trying to choose a Mayor, one ought to evaluate each candidate individually and not rest on generalities. Having done so, in my opinion Rob Ford seems likely to be just a big a buffoon in the big chair as he was from the second row. Equally, Smitherman would likely continue to act like a Liberal and Joe Pantalone will likely continue to be a follower, rather than a leader. They might surprise me after being elected, but I’m not willing to make my choice based on what I want them to be.
Oh, and I’d like to thank you for the kind words about my knowledge and my standing as a great downtown progressive. Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case…thank you anyway. There’s nothing I enjoy more than a little character assassination by someone who hides behind an alias. The implicit lack of courage makes the attack so weak, it almost inverts into being a compliment. Weird science, eh?
Correction: That last comment was directed towards @monkeyleader…not @monkeylover. How callous of me to get his/her fake name wrong.
@iSkyscraper
I looked at the voting records. Yes, there are some 43-1 decisions. But the way Lukev makes it sound, that Ford was voting by himself on the majority of decisions (which is not the case). I see a lot of combos with Ford. I also noticed a few councilors that voted by themselves as well (going back to 2008 voting records).
@ Josh Hind (leg?)
LOL… I like the monkeylover part.. is that an invitation? 🙂
It is more accurate to say that Ford, along with the responsible government group, almost never voted with the mayor’s party, but often they did vote as a block. And to be fair, the members of that group rarely advanced proposals on the floor of council that passed muster with the majority.
That said, the use of the solitary no vote is nothing new. Michael Walker did this during the last few years of Mel Lastman’s term, and Josh Matlow was often in a minority of one on contentious items before the TDSB. Less than offer direct evidence of Ford’s inability to play well with others, that approach reveals him to be more of a political animal than he likes to admit. As Walker and Matlow both understood, the lone hold-out gets the quote. It’s tactical, and with Ford, we in the media often took the bait.
@ John Lorinc
That’s a well thought out assessment of Ford, which I can agree with.
Great piece!
“…overtaken by hard-core political gridlock (i.e., an anti-Ford coalition emerges that can consistently defeat the mayor’s party”
If a majority emerges that can consistently defeat Ford – How would that be gridlock? It would seem to me that they could get a lot accomplished if they wanted to. Perhaps as much as our current mayor. Perhaps more. Who knows?
As far as I know, nothing prevents a majority of Councillors from implementing a full agenda, with or without the mayor. (ie: the mayor does not have any veto power – nor can the government fall).