Toronto Mayoral By Election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In fact, an awful lot of municipal experts would argue the reverse: that amalgamated urban-rural city-county entities like present-day Ottawa are inane and simplistic forced marriages.  That is, to claim that 1000+ square miles extending well into farm and rural territory is an "ideal" size and setup for a city is like a 13-year-old boy viewing virtual sexbots as an "ideal" barometer for femininity...

In general it makes sense to cover the core of a metropolitan region with whatever your principal local authority happens to be, and the complete planning disasters that so many North American and, as it happens, Australian cities are apt to be demonstrates this nicely. But, yes, the 1990s fetish for the unitary authority (as it was/is called in Britain) is really very questionable, as they often end up being difficult to run to the point of being unmanageable, and as local politics often devolves into nasty conflict between different towns, suburbs or districts, all quite convinced that they're being screwed over to someone else's benefit.* A weak metropolitan authority for general coordination extending far out into the commuter belt (very unfashionable, but I maintain a fundamentally good idea: but it does have to cover a very wide area, otherwise it's pointless), a strong city council and weak boroughs for local representation and grassroots involvement in the political process strikes me as the best way of going about things, as a general rule.

_{*Toronto has, of course, provided examples of both the problems caused by metropolitan areas bursting their bounds, and of the problems caused by trying to solve this with a unitary authority!}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Amalgamation has been a disaster and was purely conceived to keep progressives from running cities.

Did progressives run cities, though? Sometimes the inner urban core, but generally not a lot else, and that's not really as 'the city' when it's only a relatively small proportion of the population of the continuous built-up area as, by the 1990s, it usually was. Poverty of ambition there!

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Amalgamation was perfectly logical given the massive expansion of Toronto since the 1970s and I've never seen a credible argument against the general principal, but it would have been a good idea to have converted the old municipalities into borough councils (effective just swapping around the power balance of what where then existing arrangements). It is also quite ridiculous to have such a large city with so few councillors: that's a state of affairs that positively encourages alienation from the electorate, though the public choice calculation amongst existing local politicians to prefer there to be very few of them is obvious enough.

Or even staying with the traditional upper/lower municipal structure would have been fine imo. Making Toronto a single-tier municipality didn't cut costs in any significant way, and in many ways actually increased red tape (planning and zoning in particular is an utter mess in Toronto, in large part due to grandfathered regulations and bylaws).

As for council size, Canadian city councils are very small in comparison to UK ones, but Canada also has provinces, an additional level of government. The role and scope of municipal governments are more limited, so I'm really not sure if larger council sizes would necessarily lead to better governance.

[Hatman 🍁]

Amalgamation has been a disaster and was purely conceived to keep progressives from running cities.

Did progressives run cities, though? Sometimes the inner urban core, but generally not a lot else, and that's not really as 'the city' when it's only a relatively small proportion of the population of the continuous built-up area as, by the 1990s, it usually was. Poverty of ambition there!

More often than they do now. Ottawa had an NDP mayor in the 1980s. That will never happen again.

Amalgamation was perfectly logical given the massive expansion of Toronto since the 1970s and I've never seen a credible argument against the general principal, but it would have been a good idea to have converted the old municipalities into borough councils (effective just swapping around the power balance of what where then existing arrangements). It is also quite ridiculous to have such a large city with so few councillors: that's a state of affairs that positively encourages alienation from the electorate, though the public choice calculation amongst existing local politicians to prefer there to be very few of them is obvious enough.

Yes, it is quite ridiculous to have such a large city with so few councillors and no borough councils. I would be a lot more supportive of amalgamation if there were more democracy at the local level. More councillors, with boroughs, like you suggested. But that's not what amalgamation meant in Ontario. In addition to trying to keep progressives from running things, it was an overall attempt to reduce the number of politicians. Same reason Harris cut the size of the Ontario legislature.

[DL]

There have been NDP-affiliated mayors in other Canadian cities over the years. Vancouver, Burnaby, Nanaimo and Victoria obviously. Hamilton now has Andrea Horwath and London and Sudbury have had them off and on Edmonton has had NDP linked mayors off and on since the 1960s!

Interesting the closest Winnipeg ever came to having an NDP mayor was Glen Murray in the late 90s before he became a Liberal.

Of course Quebec is a whole other thing...the mayor of Rimouski is a former NDP MP and while Valerie Plante is officially non-partisan, she has been active in the NDP-friendly Broadbent Institute.

[DL]

Getting back to the mayoral election - the spin from the debate has been surprisingly (to me) positive for Olivia Chow. She has never been all that good a debater but the consensus is that she did very well despite being under attack from all the other candidates.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2023/05/17/torontos-mayoral-debate-season-kicks-off-with-a-protest-many-winning-lines-and-one-clear-loser.html

"I’ve rubbed up against this even before sitting down to write: None of the candidates looked terrible to me, but I thought, honestly, that Olivia Chow came out looking best: she seemed relaxed and comfortable, and like the only candidate on stage who was enjoying herself while the others did their best to furrow their brows and sound stern. She was speaking passionately and apparently off the cuff, often about people she knew, or about eye-level experiences such as waiting for the bus, or about her (admittedly long-ago) experience at city hall. Everyone else was shouting about math. The other candidates were aiming their remarks mostly at Chow, making the debate about her. While she sometimes seemed in need of a better answer to specific questions about specific parts of her plans, she appeared to shrug off the attacks and talk about how she plans to run the city. That’s how it looked to me."

[adma]

Amalgamation was perfectly logical given the massive expansion of Toronto since the 1970s and I've never seen a credible argument against the general principal, but it would have been a good idea to have converted the old municipalities into borough councils (effective just swapping around the power balance of what where then existing arrangements). It is also quite ridiculous to have such a large city with so few councillors: that's a state of affairs that positively encourages alienation from the electorate, though the public choice calculation amongst existing local politicians to prefer there to be very few of them is obvious enough.

Lest we forget, the former outer municipalities were called "boroughs" from 1966 until they got uppity and elevated their titular status to "cities" one by one (except for East York, which latterly labelled itself "Canada's Only Borough")

[adma]

Did progressives run cities, though? Sometimes the inner urban core, but generally not a lot else, and that's not really as 'the city' when it's only a relatively small proportion of the population of the continuous built-up area as, by the 1990s, it usually was. Poverty of ambition there!

More often than they do now. Ottawa had an NDP mayor in the 1980s. That will never happen again.

And let's not forget that amalgamation also skunked Hamilton; which is why Andrea Horwath barely won her mayoral bid last year.

Though one net effect effect of these amalgamations is that they have a way of making the former core city geographies even *more* progressive than when they were standalones.  (I remember the Torontonian hand-wringing in the 80s and 90s over how the left just couldn't dislodge the likes of Eggleton & Rowlands--and it was also an era when NDP/progressives didn't have today's vice grip on City or Metro Council within that geography.  But conversely, the NDP tended to be *more* viable in the outer municipalities then than now: the post-Rae backlash really did a number on party infrastructure within those jurisdictions.)

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Abolish elected local goverment postion, simply have the MP's serve double duty and be in charge of the provision of local services. Devolve zoning and planning descions back to the provincial government.

[adma]

Abolish elected local goverment postion, simply have the MP's serve double duty and be in charge of the provision of local services. Devolve zoning and planning descions back to the provincial government.

That's like a sarcastic version of what Doug Ford has *exactly* in mind.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Abolish elected local goverment postion, simply have the MP's serve double duty and be in charge of the provision of local services. Devolve zoning and planning descions back to the provincial government.

That's like a sarcastic version of what Doug Ford has *exactly* in mind.

No that's literally what Singapore does, with the big cachet it's a city state

[DL]

In the 1980s didn’t Margaret Thatcher dissolve the Greater London Council and put London under her direct rule just to prevent Ken Livingston from being mayor?

[adma]

Abolish elected local goverment postion, simply have the MP's serve double duty and be in charge of the provision of local services. Devolve zoning and planning descions back to the provincial government.

That's like a sarcastic version of what Doug Ford has *exactly* in mind.

No that's literally what Singapore does, with the big cachet it's a city state

That would go down about as well with Torontonians as "Singapore justice", if you get my drift.

[DL]

Did you know that Paris had no mayor until the late 1970s when Jacques Chirac first won the newly created post. For 100 years prior to that the central French government ruled Paris. Ever since the Paris Commune of 1871 there was a reluctance to let Paris have its own mayor

[MaxQue]

I don't think we'll ever agree, unfortunately, and it honestly flummoxes me that people could not want the wonders of amalgamation. Regardless, we should probably stop derailing the thread.

Just wondering, why is a discussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of amalgamation considered to be derailing the thread? A thread about a Toronto mayoral election is inevitably going to have some degree of discussion about issues that affect Toronto and amalgamation is one of them.

Well it's not an issue in this particular campaign, which is what the thread is about. Amalgamation of Toronto in its current form is a done deal, and further expansion of the City of Toronto isn't being proposed by anyone. There are ongoing discussions about municipal re-organization in Peel Region, but that's a whole another topic.

Anyway, if amalgamation was meant to stop left-wing candidates from winning Toronto's mayoralty, the seemingly inevitable election of Chow will disprove that (wouldn't even be the first time, David Miller won under current boundaries too). Amalgamation was part of a neoliberal efficiency craze that took place in the 1990s, and while I'm sympathetic to a lot of the moves made as part of that era, the amalgamation of Toronto and the sale of the 407 are examples of how some of the Harris-era measures went too far (on the 407 I would argue the problem wasn't privatization, the problem was that only the 407 was privatized and ETR doesn't have any competition...but Ontario's not ready for that discussion lol).

Can't blame the derailing though. This election has been a total snooze-fest.

Seems that one got solved today and Peel Region will be dissolved (for our UK friends, the Berkshire solution has been chosen there)

[DL]

More often than they do now. Ottawa had an NDP mayor in the 1980s. That will never happen again.

It may be a while but as the old saying goes "never say never". Demographic change is happening and in Toronto areas like Scarborough and North York that were once considered "suburbs" are increasingly almost "inner city" and places like Mississauga which was once considered a WASPy exurb is now more like an extension of Scarborough. Places like Ajax that were once also considered upper-middle class WASP are now home to large Black populations and new developments that are much more "working class. Brampton was once synonymous with Bill Davis small town WASP Ontario - now its overwhelmingly South Asian.

There are projections that by the end of this century Canada could have a population of 100 million. That would likely mean that Greater Ottawa will be triple its current population and what are now leafy WASP exurbs and farmland will likely be densely populated suburbs largely populated by racialized people etc... and the urbanized areas of Ottawa will spill beyond the current boundaries. I don't think anyone knows that the voting patters will be in - say - 2070.

[Hatman 🍁]

There have been NDP-affiliated mayors in other Canadian cities over the years. Vancouver, Burnaby, Nanaimo and Victoria obviously. Hamilton now has Andrea Horwath and London and Sudbury have had them off and on Edmonton has had NDP linked mayors off and on since the 1960s!

Of those, only Hamilton and Sudbury are amalgamated cities. And Andrea only barely won her mayoral race, as the centre and centre right was galvanized to block her. Sudbury has the advantage of having some NDP friendly suburbs, unlike every other city in the province. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Did progressives run cities, though? Sometimes the inner urban core, but generally not a lot else, and that's not really as 'the city' when it's only a relatively small proportion of the population of the continuous built-up area as, by the 1990s, it usually was. Poverty of ambition there!

More often than they do now. Ottawa had an NDP mayor in the 1980s. That will never happen again.

And let's not forget that amalgamation also skunked Hamilton; which is why Andrea Horwath barely won her mayoral bid last year.

Though one net effect effect of these amalgamations is that they have a way of making the former core city geographies even *more* progressive than when they were standalones.  (I remember the Torontonian hand-wringing in the 80s and 90s over how the left just couldn't dislodge the likes of Eggleton & Rowlands--and it was also an era when NDP/progressives didn't have today's vice grip on City or Metro Council within that geography.  But conversely, the NDP tended to be *more* viable in the outer municipalities then than now: the post-Rae backlash really did a number on party infrastructure within those jurisdictions.)

To be fair, changing demographics have meant that the old city cores have become much more progressive since the 1980s. Even in the last 20 years. In the 2006 Ottawa election, Alex Munter was essentially tied with Larry O'Brien in the old city, but in last year's mayoral election, McKenney easily won the old city. Both Mutner and McKenney got similar city wide vote totals. Seems like the city has become more polarized.

[DL]

Similarly, as recently as 1991 when there was an election for mayor of the old city of Toronto - Jack Layton lost by a 2-1 margin to a lackluster rightwing dowager named June Rowlands. Back in those days wards that are now in Davenport and Parkdale-High Park were routinely electing rightwing councillors - which would be be very very unlikely these days.

If Toronto under the old boundaries that existed pre-amalgamation were electing a mayor now - it would be an open and shut win for an NDP aligned progressive. In fact under those boundaries Jennifer Keesmat probably could have beat John Tory in 2018 and there would never have been a mayor Rob Ford.

BTW: Back in the 70s and 80s the perennial mayor of Scarborough was Gus Harris who was an old-school New Democrat who spoke with a heavy Glasgow accent. He was not particularly "progressive" as mayor but he was NDP pedigree.

[Benjamin Frank]

This is off topic for the Toronto mayoral by election, but since the discussion has largely gone into city almagamation, this is going the other way and probably effects the provincial Liberal leadership race.

The city of Mississauga has asked the province to be taken out of the Peel region and be an independent polity at the regional level and the provincial government has agreed to study that possibility. If granted, this would likely involve a lot of work for the Mississauga government and would almost certainly take Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie out of the running for the Liberal leadership race.

All of the talk of Nathaniel Erskine Smith, Yasir Naqvi and Ted Hsu for the provincial Liberal leadership, Bonnie Crombie had a wide lead in the early polls anyway and had seemed to be seriously considering running.

[Continential]

This is off topic for the Toronto mayoral by election, but since the discussion has largely gone into city almagamation, this is going the other way and probably effects the provincial Liberal leadership race.

Moronic decision, if anything Peel should be amalgamated together because it is filled with near identical McMansions/ugly houses for miles with some retail shops/strip malls sprinkled in between, and there is little which separates Mississauga from Brampton.

[Benjamin Frank]

This is off topic for the Toronto mayoral by election, but since the discussion has largely gone into city almagamation, this is going the other way and probably effects the provincial Liberal leadership race.

Moronic decision, if anything Peel should be amalgamated together because it is filled with near identical McMansions/ugly houses for miles with some retail shops/strip malls sprinkled in between, and there is little which separates Mississauga from Brampton.

I don't judge on esthetics. I'm a utilitarian: 'function over form.'

This is an article on the reasoning. It seems to be a 'done deal.'

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/brampton-and-mississauga-to-become-separate-cities-source-says-1.6403015

[adma]

This is off topic for the Toronto mayoral by election, but since the discussion has largely gone into city almagamation, this is going the other way and probably effects the provincial Liberal leadership race.

Moronic decision, if anything Peel should be amalgamated together because it is filled with near identical McMansions/ugly houses for miles with some retail shops/strip malls sprinkled in between, and there is little which separates Mississauga from Brampton.

Well, technically, there *is*: a big industrial buffer + the 407, power line corridors, etc  Mississauga & Brampton are more discrete than it appears (indeed, the suburbanization of Mayfield West means that Brampton and *Caledon* are on the verge of blurring more than Brampton & Mississauga--that is, unless Brampton winds up annexing everything N to the proposed 413 corridor)

[adma]

Similarly, as recently as 1991 when there was an election for mayor of the old city of Toronto - Jack Layton lost by a 2-1 margin to a lackluster rightwing dowager named June Rowlands. Back in those days wards that are now in Davenport and Parkdale-High Park were routinely electing rightwing councillors - which would be be very very unlikely these days.

If Toronto under the old boundaries that existed pre-amalgamation were electing a mayor now - it would be an open and shut win for an NDP aligned progressive. In fact under those boundaries Jennifer Keesmat probably could have beat John Tory in 2018 and there would never have been a mayor Rob Ford.

BTW: Back in the 70s and 80s the perennial mayor of Scarborough was Gus Harris who was an old-school New Democrat who spoke with a heavy Glasgow accent. He was not particularly "progressive" as mayor but he was NDP pedigree.

Looking at 1985's Toronto results, out of 11 wards, 4 elected NDPers to Metro, and 2 to City Council.  That's it.  (There were maybe a couple of prog-leaning "unaffiliateds" in the mix.)

ETA: the two "downtownest" wards had a complete delegation.  Which meant that all the rest of Toronto had, NDP-delegation-wise, were 2 Metro councillors.

[Hatman 🍁]

MSR trying their best to steal the election for Bailao. You hate to see it:

Chow 30 (-1)
Bailão 21 (+6) (!!!)
Matlow 14 (+4)
Saunders 10 (-2)
Hunter 9 (nc)
Furey 7 (nc)
Bradford 4 (-2)