Ontario Liberal leadership race

[adma]

Interesting to note that the 3rd place candidate in the 1982 OLP leadership race, Richard Thomas (who came within six votes of defeating the PCs' Ernie Eves in Parry Sound in  '81), moved on to the Green Party and got, at 17.64%, their best pre-Y2K result in Ontario in '90 (pushing the NDP, in their Bob Rae landslide year, into their only 4th-place/lost-deposit finish)

[adma]

Ted Hsu seems to be the obvious choice. Not only is he a current Liberal MPP, he was highly respected as an M.P during his one term from 2011-2015. He also has a background with the environment and should also be regarded as interesting and given respect by the public (to the degree they're aware) as a PhD physicist.

Which'd make him the most "ivory towerish" OLP leader since Stuart Smith.

[adma]

The thing about leaders of "micro parties" like Elizabeth May or Mike Schreiner is also that people like them because no one has ever told them not to like them. Its never been in anyone's interest to ever attack or challenge May or Schreiner and I suspect both would wilt very very quickly under the klieg lights of leading a major party that elicits attacks etc...

Still, not all micro-party leaders are made equal, as the case of Annamie Paul proves.

So far only Canadians have posted in this thread, so I'll jump in. I'm surprised at the negative reaction among the Canadians here to the idea of poaching Schreiner. Even though the NDP forms the official opposition, plenty of Ontarians think of the OLP as the alternative government. There were several times during the last Parliament when the Liberals polled comparably to or higher than the Tories; there was never any meaningful span of time when the NDP did so. What hurt the OLP in 2022 was a poor campaign headed by a no-name leader.

Schreiner fixes a lot of these problems immediately. The media has covered him positively and there's every reason to think that it will continue to do so, thereby framing him as the premier-in-waiting. adma has posted repeatedly about the tendency of Canadian media to dismiss the NDP and treat elections as a Liberal-Tory two-horse race regardless of the actual facts at hand. With Schreinter they'd have their man to do that effectively. Getting him would also probably kneecap the Green Party, which received six percent of the vote in 2022; if the leader of the party those people voted for is now saying that to get green policies they should vote Liberal, that's a difficult argument to pass up.

Maybe Schreiner is a no-talent hack who would be eaten alive in Queen's Park if anyone focused their attention on him, and maybe his transportation policies would destroy the OLP in the 905. But in the short run, poaching him would do more than anything else could to project the credibility of the Liberal Party as the next government of Ontario.

Actually, relative to a potential OLP leadership bid, the best thing Schreiner has going for him is that he's as disarmingly bland and dull as Green leaders get--a boring cisgender white male with glasses--and thus *could* morph into the leadership role and even the premiership with ease in a province where, in the words of Bill Davis, "bland works".

But re polling prior to the last election: let's also remember that for those being polled, the default Liberal *brand* can be boosted by association/conflation with the spotlight-hogging federal party (you even find this pattern in Manitoba, where the provincial Liberals typically overperform in polls in between writs).  Plus, there's a difference btw/having the wind knocked out after *one* election and having the wind knocked out after *two* elections--that is, for the OLP, the looming Kitchener Centre byelection is probably a harder "get" now than it would have been had it happened during Doug Ford's first term (when there were surprisingly few byelections--and coincidentally, all of them were in previously-held Liberal seats and continued to be safe holds).  Though of course, a Schreiner Liberal leadership coupled w/Mike Morrice federally would be a godsend for the Libs in Kitchener Centre...

[adma]

I decided to do some back of the envelope math to see what seats would flip if half of the Green vote in every constituency goes to the Liberals and the seats that flip are

Guelph (the Greens are still in second)
Barrie-Springwater-Oro-Medonte (from the PCs)
Etobicoke-Lakeshore (from the PCs)
Eglinton-Lawrence (from the PCs)
Toronto-St. Paul's (from the NDP)

PC 80
NDP 30
Liberals 12

Universal swing isn't how elections work but I have nowhere else to post this so I'll post this here.

And even that's more of a "statistical exercise" than anything.  Eglinton-Lawrence and Toronto-St Paul's would be lowest-hanging-fruit Green or no Green (i.e. the sort of hitherto "natural" seats which the Libs had "no business losing" last year), while BSOM had an exceptional star-candidate circumstance (Barrie's mayor) and Etobicoke-Lakeshore also benefited from supertargeting + a weaker-than-usual PC incumbent foundation (that is, sub-40% in '18)...

[adma]

Anyway, one advantage for the Libs is that they know who is going to lead the NDP. The next leader should be someone who can offer something that Marit Stiles can't, to excite ABC voters. Their federal counterparts struck gold in 2015 with Trudeau, someone whose platform was virtually interchangeable with Mulcair's, except he was younger, more handsome, more famous, and 100x more energetic. There's not going to be someone of Trudeau's caliber, I honestly can't think of anyone who can do this. But if they can find someone who can at least be on the same level as Stiles, be that rhetorically, name-recognition, experience, whatever, the longevity of the Liberal brand just might be enough. Del Duca was supposed to do that, except he somehow turned out to be even more underwhelming than Horwath.

This is a notion that I haven't yet seen voiced: Marit Stiles as an Andrea II rather than a Rachel Notley-style premier-in-waiting charismatic figurehead.  Or, most of the voiced skepticism and concern trolling I've witnessed has less to do with who she is than with the fact that she was acclaimed for the leadership.

Yeah, the NDP can't win; forever the "Shut up, Meg" party whenever it tries to assert its opposition power, even when it comes to addressing Ford Tory shenanigans re developers and the greenbelt and what have you--though the more generic deterioration of major-media provincial political coverage, and the "reach" thereof, in recent years has something to answer for (not to mention Doug Ford's direct-to-customer populist ability to harness said disconnect on his behalf).  Thus Ford opposition becomes presented as a grassroots people's crusade, independent of anything Queen's Park.  

[adma]

Anyway, one advantage for the Libs is that they know who is going to lead the NDP. The next leader should be someone who can offer something that Marit Stiles can't, to excite ABC voters. Their federal counterparts struck gold in 2015 with Trudeau, someone whose platform was virtually interchangeable with Mulcair's, except he was younger, more handsome, more famous, and 100x more energetic. There's not going to be someone of Trudeau's caliber, I honestly can't think of anyone who can do this. But if they can find someone who can at least be on the same level as Stiles, be that rhetorically, name-recognition, experience, whatever, the longevity of the Liberal brand just might be enough. Del Duca was supposed to do that, except he somehow turned out to be even more underwhelming than Horwath.

This is a notion that I haven't yet seen voiced: Marit Stiles as an Andrea II rather than a Rachel Notley-style premier-in-waiting charismatic figurehead.  Or, most of the voiced skepticism and concern trolling I've witnessed has less to do with who she is than with the fact that she was acclaimed for the leadership.

That's not at all what I was suggesting lol. I think Marit Stiles is a huge step up from Horwath. What I mean is that because the Liberals know who the NDP leader in the next election will be, they know who they have to beat to get the ABC vote around them. So in that sense, the OLP should focus more on who is most likely to beat Stiles for the ABC vote, because it wouldn't take much of a drop for the PCs for a strong ABC Coalition to win.

Still, I'm referring to the inability-to-excite-ABC-voters part.  So if, implicitly, Marit Stiles is a "huge step up" and she's *still* unable to engender that kind of excitement, well...

[adma]

Anyway, one advantage for the Libs is that they know who is going to lead the NDP. The next leader should be someone who can offer something that Marit Stiles can't, to excite ABC voters. Their federal counterparts struck gold in 2015 with Trudeau, someone whose platform was virtually interchangeable with Mulcair's, except he was younger, more handsome, more famous, and 100x more energetic. There's not going to be someone of Trudeau's caliber, I honestly can't think of anyone who can do this. But if they can find someone who can at least be on the same level as Stiles, be that rhetorically, name-recognition, experience, whatever, the longevity of the Liberal brand just might be enough. Del Duca was supposed to do that, except he somehow turned out to be even more underwhelming than Horwath.

This is a notion that I haven't yet seen voiced: Marit Stiles as an Andrea II rather than a Rachel Notley-style premier-in-waiting charismatic figurehead.  Or, most of the voiced skepticism and concern trolling I've witnessed has less to do with who she is than with the fact that she was acclaimed for the leadership.

That's not at all what I was suggesting lol. I think Marit Stiles is a huge step up from Horwath. What I mean is that because the Liberals know who the NDP leader in the next election will be, they know who they have to beat to get the ABC vote around them. So in that sense, the OLP should focus more on who is most likely to beat Stiles for the ABC vote, because it wouldn't take much of a drop for the PCs for a strong ABC Coalition to win.

Still, I'm referring to the inability-to-excite-ABC-voters part.  So if, implicitly, Marit Stiles is a "huge step up" and she's *still* unable to engender that kind of excitement, well...

I wouldn't say she's unable to excite ABC voters, although that obviously remains to be seen. If anything, the Liberals probably have a bigger task on their hands. Right now, literally the only thing the OLP has over the NDP is brand loyalty and generally being taken more seriously as a party. Like you said that's a major advantage, but the disadvantages are also clear. Much less funding, no party status, and such a scarcity of talent that people are considering a guy who doesn't even affiliate with said party. If Ontarians want Ford out in 2026 and the Liberals don't have a solid leader, I think the NDP will close the deal by default (at least enough to deny Ford a majority).

Rereading your original quote, I probably mentally projected a "that is," predicate to your "to excite ABC voters".

But yes, as per my earlier point about the ONDP as the "shut up, Meg" party: it could well be that Stiles "can't win", much in the manner of Horwath--who as I said, was never really the dud leader she's often claimed to be; more that she was a more-than-competent leader of a party that was never seriously expected to form government...until it came to the brink of doing so.  (It'd be like the inverse of, federally, Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough both being viewable as "duds" because the NDP was at its electoral nadir under their watch--yet whatever the actual ballot-box or seat-count results, w/Alexa came a "renewal energy" that was really a foundation for the Jack Layton era.)  And that Horwath nearly blew her Hamilton mayoral race has more to do with amalgamated Hamilton (and Ottawa) being like unicity Winnipeg; that is, "socialist hordes" running for mayor facing a glass ceiling...

[adma]

I wouldn't be surprised if Fraser steps aside--it seems like he's a born political placeholder, first for the McGuinty clan following Dalton's resignation, and since 2018 as caucus leader within the legislature.  So, if he's the chosen placeholder for Naqvi, perfect...

[adma]

Toronto MP Nate Erskine-Smith launches leadership bid for Ontario Liberal Party


It's been obvious for months, but official now. NES becomes the first to declare his candidacy for the OLP leadership. Pretty well-liked and respected guy among the broad centre-left in Ontario (except some NDP activist types who see him as a faux-progressive, but NDP activists aren't voting Liberal anyway), and even some conservatives like him as a person despite disagreeing with his politics.

Now, whether he actually has the chops to lead a party, we'll have to see. Some politicians are good at getting the talking heads talking, but aren't that great at politicking, and Nate might be that kind of politician. After all, he's never been a minister or even a parl sec, so we haven't seen him in positions of making executive decisions. At the same time, if the LPC wants someone who can rally an anti-Ford coalition under the Liberal banner, he's a damn good choice.

And maybe he's positioning himself to replace Mitzie Hunter in Scarborough-Guildwood as well.

[adma]

‘We govern from right of centre’: Bonnie Crombie on how she’d lead the Ontario Liberals


Uhhh Bonnie, I think you're describing the Progressive Conservatives

Yeah, as opposed to what the Chretien/Martin Liberals referred to as the "Reform Alliance" or later as the "Alliance Conservatives".   Basically, she's bidding to be the Alison Redford to Doug Ford's Danielle Smith.

[adma]

‘We govern from right of centre’: Bonnie Crombie on how she’d lead the Ontario Liberals


Uhhh Bonnie, I think you're describing the Progressive Conservatives

Yeah, as opposed to what the Chretien/Martin Liberals referred to as the "Reform Alliance" or later as the "Alliance Conservatives".   Basically, she's bidding to be the Alison Redford to Doug Ford's Danielle Smith.

That analogy doesn't really work for two reasons. For one, Danielle Smith was an opposition leader, Ford is the premier. And I'm really not sure there's that much space on the centre-right, because the PCs have been pretty effective at knowing when to veer to the centre, and when to tack right. If I were a Liberal, I'd much rather my party focus on crushing the NDP and consolidating the centre-left

In that case, you can shift the metaphor to the '14 Toronto mayoral race, and say that she's bidding to be the John Tory to Doug Ford's, well, Doug Ford--and Ford was kind of "incumbent" as his brother's proxy.  (And Stiles would be Chow, '14-style.)

And of course, the right-wing-troll twittersphere loves to refer to "John Liberal".

[adma]

Well to be fair she's not entirely the same as Ford. Ford's not a NIMBY.

But keep in mind that that might be, indeed, his tripping point--that is, being perceived as a NIMBY is one thing, being perceived as a "Greenbelt is a scam" insensitive goon bulling ahead with pet notions for Ontario Place and Ontario Science Centre is another.  And remember: Doug Ford has *always* had that "insensitive goon" thing going--it's what galvanized Toronto voters to opt for John Tory instead in '14...

[adma]

Well to be fair she's not entirely the same as Ford. Ford's not a NIMBY.

But keep in mind that that might be, indeed, his tripping point--that is, being perceived as a NIMBY is one thing, being perceived as a "Greenbelt is a scam" insensitive goon bulling ahead with pet notions for Ontario Place and Ontario Science Centre is another.  And remember: Doug Ford has *always* had that "insensitive goon" thing going--it's what galvanized Toronto voters to opt for John Tory instead in '14...

The NIMBY thing is just my spin on it, I don't think it matters much in a provincial election (it should but I doubt it)

Well, let's keep in mind that the downfall of the Harris regime (even if by way of left-holding-the-bag Ernie Eves proxy) in '83, and that of Harper federally in '95, was the result of the insensitive-goon-ism getting the better of the party.  Or, promising the 413 might be a vote-getter; but "Greenbelt is a scam" is more of a net vote-*repeller*, in the bigger picture.  (And as with Harper and w/Harris/Eves, it might as well go beyond the leader and to the "party operatives"--such as Harper's "boys in short pants", the Sun News Network types, etc.)

[adma]

Another thing to keep in mind re OLP "potential" is that there is, and will be, a larger share of seats in the GTA (and other urban nodes) to "max out" on even compared to '14.  (And if it's still not enough for a majority--look at it this way: even a professed "right of centre" Liberal party isn't likely to rule out alliances w/NDP or Green in the name of governing power.)

[adma]

Yup. Crombie is worse than Ford on housing. Good luck getting very many voters under 40 if she wins.

Almost like Wynne '18 redux--i.e. how it was the Brahmin-ratepayer over-40s (or heck, over-60s) that were her most faithful remaining demo.

But at the same time, it's hard to see Marit Stiles (much less Mike Schreiner, duh) being in agreement over the Greenbelt being a "scam".  Remember: the under-40s concerned about housing are *also* concerned about the environment--that is, they might approve of a *measured* approach to development on the Greenbelt, but statements like that suggest a bone-headed contempt for any such "measured" approach.  Not just to the Greenbelt, but to *anything*--unless one is using the "Ontario Proud" barometer for what under 40s are thinking...

[adma]

Yup. Crombie is worse than Ford on housing. Good luck getting very many voters under 40 if she wins.

Almost like Wynne '18 redux--i.e. how it was the Brahmin-ratepayer over-40s (or heck, over-60s) that were her most faithful remaining demo.

But at the same time, it's hard to see Marit Stiles (much less Mike Schreiner, duh) being in agreement over the Greenbelt being a "scam".  Remember: the under-40s concerned about housing are *also* concerned about the environment--that is, they might approve of a *measured* approach to development on the Greenbelt, but statements like that suggest a bone-headed contempt for any such "measured" approach.  Not just to the Greenbelt, but to *anything*--unless one is using the "Ontario Proud" barometer for what under 40s are thinking...

Maslow's Hierachy, shelter trumps any kind of ability to worry about the environment.  We have reached (and surpassed) the breaking point of being able to live in the GTA on an average income.  So, I don't think this is true that these are somehow equal concerns, maybe for very wealthy under 40s (I'm thinking 200k+ salary, or excessive generational wealth from parents real estate), but not your average under 40 who isn't able to survive.

Yes, but that's if you view "shelter" in generic, utilitarian terms--like, you'll find that in practice, the under 40s most concerned about the "shelter question" are *not* the sort who'd choose generic developer fare in the Greenbelt boondocks.  They're advocating for urban intensification.

But on top of that, if these under-40s are the sort who are so desperate for shelter that they'd be on board with Doug Ford-style obtuseness--let's put it this way: their poverty goes beyond the monetary into something more broadly civic and cultural; and in an age where a lot of onetime "universal" values and concerns have become pigeonholed as more remote and elite than they were in the days of traditional media, who can blame them.  Particularly if they, themselves, are the offspring of Ford Nation, and thus never had the chance to know better--which also makes them, in their desperation for shelter, easy marks.

Any under 40 who's all on-board with Doug Ford's promise to rip down the Ontario Science Centre for "housing", with no regard for either the OSC's architectural merit or the conservation-land conditions that preclude the building of "housing" upon said land, is truly...dim.  Though yeah, maybe the whole Catch-22 is that those "precluding concerns" are probably *already* remote to the poverty-beyond-the-monetary set--which is how Ford populism can be seductive in its framing of said concerns as "elite scams"...

[adma]

And another thing to keep in mind is that there's a sliding scale of "affordability concerns"--and the kinds of under-40s seeking "affordability" in Greenbelt sprawl isn't the more authentically sympathy-drawing "intensification" crowd, but more like old-school middle-class suburbans and blue-collar-aristocrats who find they can no longer afford their desired bang for the buck within the 416.  Sort of like modern versions of...Doug Ford's parents (who were around 40 when they built their Etobicoke spread in the 70s)

[adma]

I don't really know anything about Peel Region deamalgamation, which appears to be the primary positive accomplishment she can point to, but it doesn't really matter how popular it is locally when most OLP members aren't from Mississauga. I find it hard to imagine that she would be able to register enough new members to make up the gap.

Maybe by way of the LPC.  That is, the brand *is* still inherently strong in Mississauga, even if the provincial party's the weaker element (and even through that weakness, they managed fairly good mid-30s shares in most Mississauga ridings last year).

[adma]

Perhaps if the opposition tells Ontario youth who want new housing that they're stupid for wanting that, it'll successfully change their minds. It's an interesting thought.

No, the stupidity is not in Ontario youth wanting new housing.  The stupidity is in a *particular solution to the problem* that's offered as a Hobson's choice.

Or, the kinds of housing-hungry under-40s who'd be on board with "the greenbelt is a scam" are the sort whose ultimate aspirational values are delineated here.
 
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/bad-manors-wagner?fbclid=IwAR3WPTGpCyXCmwMwNW0uKAnddoSDw1N2BYwJOUvrEsgLoz_qCDCLTwvKlHA

And incidentally, the author of that piece is under 40.  Which leaves me wondering how much this whole argument over youth, housing, etc is using "youth" as convenient next-gen window-dressing for age-old notions like "silent majority", "lumpenproletariat", etc...

So, let's present this duality...

(a) the POV that might view Greta Thunberg as a spokesperson for her generation.

(b) the POV that might view Greta Thunberg as a fantasy fixation by elites and aging boomers who *want* her to be a spokesperson for her generation.

The former might, in terms of Canada, reflect Justin/Jagmeet under-40-targeting; the latter would be the tack taken by the Ford/Poilievre realm.

The notion of a Millennial/Post-Millennial lumpenproletariat is ill-understood; yet it might address the cohort for whom those kinds of environmental or "civic" concerns might seem remote and greybeardy and who might view, I don't know, Drake as more of a positive, aspirational cultural figurehead than Greta.  And *those* are the ones who might demand "housing" with an utter unconcern as to what gets impacted in the name of said housing, and who'd paint those who *do* have such concern with a broad NIMBY or "rich privileged elite" brush.  Instead of learning something from them, "othering" them.

And since this thread *is* about the Ontario Liberal leadership race, let's remember that in recent times when the federal and provincial Liberals have been most "boxed in" (under Iggy in '11, under Wynne in '18), it's been as a "rich privileged elite" rump.  However, lest we forget, the leakage was *not* solely to the Conservatives...

[adma]

Perhaps if the opposition tells Ontario youth who want new housing that they're stupid for wanting that, it'll successfully change their minds. It's an interesting thought.

No, the stupidity is not in Ontario youth wanting new housing.  The stupidity is in a *particular solution to the problem* that's offered as a Hobson's choice.

I mean, it's a philosophical discussion at this point.  People want what they want, for a variety of reasons, trying to be the person to dictate what someone should want, or what solution should exist  (this "I know what's best for you!!! And it's not housing near where you work, where your family lives, where your culture and community exists) isn't my idea of appropriate. And it's not like it's an excessive "want" that isn't what generations of Canadians were used to prior to the last 10 years - just a comfortable place to live near family and friends.  I don't think the Greenbelt is any more of a novel idea or piece of land than all the development that has occurred in the GTA in past.  This argument that well, I get to have mine (ie. I get to have a house on land that at some point had to be developed, no matter how far back you want to go, to the detriment of the Indigenous communities if you want to go that far back), but this new generation shouldn't get theirs, isn't one that sits well.  And let's be honest a big part of this land, and the Highway 413, pass mostly through North Brampton and Milton - it's not a coincidence that it is the Toronto 416 elite (read white) "old stock" Ontarians, who are against new development in areas that would likely house new immigrant (non-white) groups, and all this being done under the guise of environmentalism.

Well, in which case, said "immigrant groups" are the new lumpenproletariat--and have been exploited by the Fords, Harper/Kenney, etc thusly.  (And maybe as such, it's the pivot from "youth" to "immigrant groups" in this discussion that's important in delineating the issue.)

And in that light, maybe you're better off framing the opposite number not in white/old stock terms, so much as in "Laurentian Elite" terms--and the superframing of *any* legitimate Canadian-style concerns over environment, preservation, etc as "Laurentian Elite" or "Laurentian Consensus" is about as efficient a way of "othering" those concerns as one can get.  (Or as the Fords might say:  "Hey, folks, 'those people' don't speak for people like you who work hard to earn your keep.")

So yeah.  It's not about "age" or "youth" per se.  And even the "immigrant group" cultural divide can be blurry, depending on what said immigrants choose for themselves once they come to Canada.  (And some of it is "education divide" as well, or more properly kind-of-education divide--that is, the marginalization of "Laurentian Elite" concerns might as well correlate to the increasing marginalization of humanities relative to STEM or career-geared education.)

But honestly (and arguably innocently) I think the matter of "immigrant groups" is peripheral to the concerns of said 416 (white) elite rallying for the Greenbelt (not that it *hasn't* been subliminally central to past conservationist controversies--like the White vs Asian undercurrent to the debate over "monster homes" in 80s/90s Vancouver).  Or at most, they might look at it the way I'm framing it; that is, said suburbanizing "immigrant groups" and "new Canadians" as an easily duped lumpenproletariat.  "Not evil; just misguided."  Many of whom came to Canada as, well, "cultural refugees" in extremis--that is, Canada as a tabula rasa where they could be free to do what they want; but once they find out some kind, *any* kind*, of land use "regulations" are in place, it reminds them of the oppressive regimes they sought to escape.  (And I'm not talking about "English only" regulations, I'm talking about "don't tear down this designated 19th century farmhouse or rip down this heritage orchard for your personal abode" kinds of regulations.)

Because frankly, said environmentalist so-called "white" elite would *love* to have said "New Canadians" as part of their big tent of concerns (after all, Greta-ism is "international" by nature)--and in practice, when they do, it's in the event that the offspring of said "New Canadians" enroll in an environmental-studies or adjacent-minded program at U of T or TMU or some such institution and thus are "drawn into the dialogue".  (And that's where we go full circle back to "under-40s".)

(ETA: though the "where you work" matter might be subtly important here--that is, all those Amazon-type distribution centres have to go *somewhere*, and those who work in them likewise have to live somewhere--the "suburb as company town" argument.)

[adma]

First round: Hsu 10, Naqvi 21.3, Erskine-Smith 25.7, Crombie 43.0.
Second Round: Naqvi 24.0, Erskine-Smith 29.3, Crombie 46.7.
Third Round: Erskine-Smith 46.6, Crombie 53.4.

Whether one likes it or not, there's a lot of "anti-Crombie promiscuous progressives" in the OLP tent--not that they're unlikely to get in line, of course...

[adma]

The Brampton ridings are interesting, the ones Crombie didn't win, perhaps influenced by the Peel region breakup.  There is the South Asian factor for Naqvi winning 2 of the seats, but NES winning one in Brampton is bizarre.  Not his demographic at all, and if there was any part of Brampton that skews left, it would be the eastern part, not the south-west where he won.

Actually, it might be more the *kind* of "skewing left" we're dealing with--Brampton South contains the heart of old Brampton, which is the most old-stock older-urban part of the city and hence the sort of territory where whatever left lean that exists might be more NES-amenable than the rest...