By RANDY RICHMOND THE LONDON FREE PRESS

Grey-haired, 81-year-old Stephana Johnston is the kind of person to give the provincial Liberals fits when she waits outside Dalton McGuinty’s campaign bus this fall.

Leaning against her walker, she looks frail — except when she starts talking about wind power.

“We are suffering and it is a horror story and you are responsible because you agreed to the Green Energy Act,” Johnston tells Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Liberal MPP Maria Van Bommel.

With the next Ontario election only five months away, wind energy and the Green Energy Act is on track to become a huge issue of the campaign.

Johnston says she had to move from her home on the north shore of Lake Erie near Long Point after nearby wind turbines started interrupting her sleep.

“There are some nights when I wake up and just everything inside me is quivering. It has compromised my immune system. I am going everywhere I can go to prevent what has happened to us,” she vows.

Slowed by her walker but energized by her anger, Johnston still marched down the main street of Strathroy Saturday with about 80 others to protest wind turbines.

The peaceful protest march erupted into a raucous, hour-long confrontation with Van Bommel.

Van Bommel could barely finish a sentence without being shouted down by furious protesters who demanded she support a moratorium on turbines until research proves they are safe.

At times she had to stop and simply take the barrage of insults from protesters, some in tears and some claiming she betrayed their friendship.

“Imagine when (McGuinty’s) bus is met 28 days straight with crowds like that in Strathroy,” says John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

Urban dwellers and political analysts are underestimating the anger in rural and small town Ontario over wind turbines, he says. “This is the fight for the life and death of rural life. There is a huge anger out there and I think it is going to get worse.”

For wind energy opponents, the stakes are high. “This is our only shot,” Laforet says.

Wind Concerns — a coalition of 57 groups — will likely endorse either parties or individual candidates and encourage rural residents unhappy with McGuinty to work on getting him ousted.

Eighty municipalities representing two million people have called for a moratorium on wind farms, Laforet adds.

“There a lot of people looking for something to do. Direct political action is the most effective thing a resident of Ontario with concerns about wind can do.”

Hundreds of wind turbines have been installed or proposed in many areas of Southwestern Ontario, a 10-riding region dominated by McGuinty’s Liberals.

Opponents say turbines emit low-pitched sounds that disrupt the body’s rhythms and cause headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate irritability and concentration problems.

Proponents say there is no proof of ill effects and turbines are better for the environment and personal health than the coal-fired generating plants they are supposed to replace.

“It’s a very emotional issue and I think we have to recognize that,” Van Bommel said Saturday after the protest. “There are many things that are going to be election issues in rural Ontario. I‘m sure the Green Energy Act will be uppermost in many people’s minds.”

randy.richmond@sunmedia.ca

Twitter.com/RandyRatLFPress

I can’t find the video on youtube but here is the ABC News coverage of it.

I stand by my view that Speaker Peters went too far. Suspending an opposition MPP over their over the top attacks on the Government indefinitely is arbitrary and anti-democratic. In this case it was also selective enforcement of the standing orders. It is safe to say it is now clear he has lost control of the House, which makes his ability to preside over debate questionable. The longer this goes on, the more damage it inflicts on his ability to be Speaker, and sadly the office of Speaker.

Yes the rules allow such a suspension in theory because in 1939 the Standing Orders were amended, but that doesn’t make it right. It has also never been done. In Constitutional Law there is the matter of ’spent powers’ (those which not have been exercised and therefore are deemed ‘spent’) The Sergeant-at-Arms also carries a sword to run through folks (this is clearly a spent power) Who is for that custom coming to a  legislature near you? One has to also consider the shift in our politics since then, and the precedent set the last time a member defied the Speaker in this way.

Alvin Curling did the very same thing in 1995 that Bill Murdoch did in 2009. Both refused to comply with a Speaker’s order to leave the Chamber for the rest of the sessional day. Precedent is an important part of a Speaker’s job and decision making.

One resulted in a standstill for 18 hours, the other resulted in a suspension thirty minutes in after the Speaker took two breaks to consult whomever he consulted.

That person or people gave bad advice and handed the Speaker the nuclear option and resulted in days of chaos. Frankly it did exactly what the Progressive Conservatives wanted, kicked up a fuss and stalled the HST implementation bill.

Gilles Bisson – the NDP House Leader earns the ‘gentleman and scholar’ award for recognizing the disruption the whole PC Caucus was causing was of a greater concern to the Parliamentary Privilege than the Murdoch and Hillier sideshow playing out within the deafening banging that was killing any chance of debate.

On Monday it would have been fair to say the whole PC Caucus deserved to be thrown out for the day as each individual member refused to come to order upon repeated requests by the Speaker.  The Speaker started naming some MPPs by riding, but if you watch the footage gives up part way through, clearly recognizing he was about 30 minutes away from expelling a whole party for the session.

To those who are using the ‘he was just following the rules argument’ every PC member present should have been named and escorted out for the day on Monday. But the Speaker didn’t try to do that because it had become abundantly clear he had lost control of the House and even his worst tool in the box wasn’t enough to regain it. The fact the threat of suspension didn’t work, and once he had suspended one member, he found himself suspending another shortly there after and then decided to ignore the routine of calling members to order with the threat of naming them demonstrates he even gets he went too far.

I support a fair and free debate in all forums and think it is unfortunate we’re so far passed that in our politics that government MPPs are ineffective sheep – regardless of party and opposition MPPs have zero ability to impact legislation.

McGuinty has proven to be as dismissive as Harris was of opposition, whether citizen-led or across the aisle and in some ways worse.

His refusal to allow for travelling hearings on the most significant tax measure this province has seen in a long time is motivated purely by politics and not what is in the best interest of Ontario or the legislative process. Its simply in the best interest of Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party.

The Ontario NDP should be commended for holding a consistent, coherent position on public hearings and the HST. They should also be commended on supporting civility in the Legislature even if the Government’s tactics and the Official Opposition’s response has made that about as realistic as meaningful public hearings on the HST.

With that said – I still believe the Speaker went too far and the House Leaders and Speaker will need to work out a plan for Speaker Peters to climb down and re-instate the members in question as part of any deal. Leaving this heavy handed precedence in place too severely limits MPPs ability to stand up to government.

Until then, I hope Hillier and Murdoch can continue to hold out for some time without access to the washroom or food, because however irresponsible their actions are deemed to be – both are defending their rights to be in that Chamber and standing up for democracy.

As an individual, I find the number of unemployed in Canada to be staggering. Five hundred thousand people is massive. If every single unemployed person lived in one city, it would be the size of Hamilton.

This is an unprecedented economic downtown, and at least in Ontario, unemployment in key sectors like manufacturing have been raising for years leading up to the full blown recession. One thing Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc all seemed to agree on is that the Employment Insurance program in Canada was not suited to meet the needs of workers laid off in these numbers or during this kind of downturn. That’s why proposals for reform, which would see EI easier accessed, fairer for Canadians from coast to coast, and benefits more generous is in fact important.

Keep in mind, when times were good, the Federal government had huge surpluses in the EI account, and re-directed those funds for other government priorities and cut premiums for workers to reflect the predicted needs of the EI program. That worked when the economy was hitting new highs, and unemployment was at historic lows. I don’t necessarily endorse one party’s plan for reforming Employment Insurance, and I see this type of a reform as being more like a band aid on a broader challenge, but I do believe it is an important band aid and one I would like to see parliament work cooperatively on in the fall, instead of sending Canadians to another election that no one really wants.

Opposition parties also need to be very careful as Canadians have never elected four minority governments in a row, and polls show most Canadians want the stability a majority government brings. While the Bloc poses a significant challenge to any party forming a majority government, politicians and political operatives would be well advised to heed Canadian’s warnings about the desire to elect a majority and recognize forcing an election could cause a volatile political situation, where voters who aren’t married to a particular party vote strategically for the perceived winner, just to end the silly hour going on in Parliament.

For the Liberals and the Conservatives this could be really good or really bad. For the NDP and the Bloc it can only be bad. For Canadians, it’s un-necessary.

Let’s hope the election madness calms down long enough for all parties to genuinely try to do something to help unemployed people, and can come up with something more creative than temporary work at Elections Canada to do it.

Code 46 movie download

Frank Klees is a man of experience. With fourteen years serving as an MPP, experience in the cabinets of both Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, along with years of work in the business sphere, Mr. Klees brings this experience to his campaign and its policies. Combined with this experience is a practical streak tending towards getting elected. In this interview he spoke about staying away from the lightning rod issue of the Human Rights Commission along with his position on handling the HST issue if elected premier, both positions practical and not overly ideological.

Mr. Klees has stressed the importance of winning the next election in order to provide “direction” for Ontario, and in his responses here he elaborates on many of the ways he would seek to do this.

For more on Frank Klees’ campaign, visit http://www.frankklees.com/

Embed this video:
<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYGK+WMA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="268" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

‘Good luck with your next municipal campaign’  

No one could expect the Provincial Liberals to want to see a candidate that disagrees with them elected to anything, but if you knew that Provincial Liberals literally emptied out political staff from MPP, Ministry and the Premier’s Offices to fight their campaigns with the unfair advantage of salaried managers and workers whose pay cheques not only do not count towards campaign expenses, but are covered by the taxpayer – you’d know this threat was even more disgusting. The opposition parties have no where near as many staff to complete in this completely ethic-less cesspool the Ontario Liberal Party has been able to exploit in all bi-elections since 2003 and the general election of 2007.

In fairness the Ontario Liberal Party has company. During the 2006 municipal election I ran in, Paul Ainslie’s current Executive Assistant and Constituency Assistant were each campaigning, and neither took a leave of absence. I’d bet he wasn’t the only Councillor who did so either. 

I am not a candidate for public office. But, I certainly would not allow that decision to be impacted by the threats of a man whose profession limits him to hiding in campaign offices and deep inside Queen’s Park, and whose function has virtually no involvement with any of the aspects of politics that actually matters. People and policy. I will not be bullied, I will not be threatened and those who seek to try and use tactics like this against me should consider themselves warned. 

If I were to seek public office again and you intend on using taxpayer dollars illegally, whether collecting or directing someone else to collect a salary while not doing the job, for a day, for a week or for a month, whether using a publicly funded print shop to print flyer’s or create other materials – I promise I would document it, and where possible record you in the act, and I would seek legal action against the candidate and campaign who benefited in addition to posting the names and faces of the staff involved.

This has nothing to do with me, it has to do with a simple principle. Elections should be free and fair. Fair means that one side doesn’t use paid staff illegally while the other relies on volunteers. Fair means the Government of Ontario doesn’t hijack your right to vote for the candidate of your choice, by silencing or trying to silence an outspoken member of your community.

When I stand on principle, I stand strong and I stand tall. I am unwavering in my determination to defend those who are mistreated, ignored or marginalized by government and one thing I’ve learned since seeking public office and losing – you don’t need to be a candidate or a politician to have an impact. Since losing, I’ve learned to appreciate the office of Citizen. It’s one I am working harder and harder with each day to live up to the responsibility I have as a holder of this office. It sees me stand up against injustice where I see it, it sees me stand up and fight back against bullies and the moneyed interests that back them. It’s seen me step back from partisan politics, and recognize that when a government is doing something that harms you community, it doesn’t matter what party it is, it’s wrong and needs to be vigourisly fought.  

To be frank, Guildwood has taken enough crap from Liberal Caucus Services Bureau. Liberal members in Scarborough Guildwood have been denied two democratic nomination meetings in a row, in favour of the party picked candidate. In the case of Margarett Best, an individual who has not, and does not live in the riding, or even the City of Toronto for that matter. (Her campaign was run by paid staff from Queen’s Park.) We’ve watched as Liberal Caucus Services Bureau has expanded their attack on democratic rights, from members of their party to our community’s right to stand up and defend the environment or participate in a fair and accountable process. 

Many know when Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman took swipes at members of my community over our opposition to a wind farm project that has seen a process tainted with lying, incompetent developers, bussed in organizers and a lobby that has literally bought the ear of the Ontario Liberal Party with hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, I was the closest thing to a politician that stood up. Our MPP (Margarett Best) said nothing, or City Councillor (Paul Ainslie) was off attempting a hostile take over of the Toronto Zoo board, and it was my voice that stood up and said ‘residents will not lay down’ in response to the Premier legislating our rights away. I promised we’d get stronger and louder. Promise made, promise soon to be delivered.  

I did interviews across Ontario speaking out against an anti-democratic, anti-environment so called ‘Green Energy Act’ on behalf of all Ontarians who will be negatively affected by the bought and paid for Liberal government’s bill. I talked about the lobbyists that wrote it, and donated enough until the price was right for it’s introduction. 

I also – very openly ended my association with the Ontario Liberal Party and pledged not to vote for a candidate who took part in the removal of my democratic rights. 

Noticing a lack of coverage of the Ontario NDP leadership race and believing this was bad for democracy, I decided to lend my blog to ensuring Ontarians and New Democrats knew who each of the candidates who sought the leadership were. When the Progressive Conservative leadership race came along, I decided to do the same. When the Green Party of Ontario leadership race starts later this year, I will once again do the same. Why? Because I believe people should be able to get a real sense of who it is who wants to lead their province and has a right to know what those people stand for. I’m doing my part to help, while educating myself on my options as a voter who is seeking someone who will stand up for him.

For that and my refusal to support a political party that has attacked my community Dean Rivando seems to believe I should be prevented from speaking out and being heard. His veiled threat makes it clear he believes those who stand up and in opposition to the Ontario Liberal Party should be attacked with an army of taxpayer funded political soliders. I wonder what it must be like in the mind of someone who is so used to watching tax dollars being used for improper political purposes, that they don’t think twice before throwing a thinly veiled threat of such action out publicly. The only good news is real people in Ontario don’t drink nearly as much ‘Dalton Kool Aid’ as the boys and girls at Liberal Caucus Services Bureau, and I am can’t even to begin to understand how this is anything but clear abuse of taxpayers money. 

Threats do not scare me. Words will never intimate me. I will never run in fear from doing what I know is right. Even if I were to seek public office, and even if you used all the resources at your disposal as creatively and illegally as you could think of and you defeated me, you still would not silence me. I lost the last election remember? I’m a stronger voice for my community than I was before I ran. 

The Premier needs to decide if he wants to surround himself with the kind of folks who think this kind of behaviour is appropriate. Taxpayers, especially those in Scarborough Guildwood need to decide how they feel knowing that someone who is standing up for them is now receiving public intimidation from a member of the Premier’s staff to not dare seek to stand up and be their voice, certainly not if that person wants to be a public office holder some day. 

My message is simple to those who find common cause and purpose in what I stand for – I’m not going anywhere, I won’t let a weasel hiding behind a computer, afraid to meet or speak to a real voter dictate whether or not I will stand up or in what capacity I have a right to do so. 

I will always speak out, I will always stand up and I will do so without fear – because regardless of what my opponents decide to do in response, it is the right thing to do, and that sure as hell makes it easier to sleep at night, and look in the mirror in the morning and be proud of what you see. 

I call on the Premier to stand up, and speak out against the kind of crap that sees these tactics used by his government and his party and ensure all Ontarians that no one, that no community will ever again be flooded with taxpayer paid staff working illegally on campaigns. There is a bi-election soon to be called in St. Paul’s – wouldn’t that be a good place to change the strategy and end this corrupt and anti democratic use of resources to impact an outcome? How can the Premier oppose the level playing field needed for a free and fair election?

I hope to have a response from Liberal Caucus Services Bureau or the Premier’s Office disassociating Dean Rivando‘s comments and pledging not to use taxpayer funded staff to interfere in any elections anywhere in Ontario. My email address is john.laforet@laforet.ca 

Around this point in the Ontario NDP leadership race in March 2009, working with Jeff Hume, I began covering the race and giving candidates an equal opportunity to get their message out unfiltered, while providing other bloggers with some original content to work with as they chose. 

daybreakers spierig

Currently, I’m in the process of setting up the remaining interviews with candidates, and hope to have footage to share from these one on ones soon. 

As with the Ontario NDP leadership race, my coverage will be done with an open mind, fairness for all candidates and a simple goal – to provide bloggers with original content to work with, to provide a wider audience with introductions to the four candidates who will shape the future of the official opposition, and one of three leaders who will be in a position to form the next government in Ontario. 

I have to say, I have sincerely enjoyed my new role as a political active, non partisan. Doing things like covering the Ontario NDP leadership race, focusing my activism on local issues that go well beyond the limits of partisan politics has been quite the experience as well. It is my hope that using new media tools to cover this leadership race will open up the process, the issues and the candidates to folks across Ontario. 

Until there is footage of the sit down interviews with the Ontario PC Candidates to post, I am going to share with you a number of my favourite videos that Jeff Hume so expertly produced as part of our coverage of the Ontario NDP race to give you a flavour of what is to come.

Enjoy. 

Greg Elmer – Professor of Media Studies at Ryerson University on New Media and Conventions
 

Campaigns Talking Get Out the Vote Strategies

Andrea Horwath – Just Before First Ballot Result Interview

Andrea Horwath Friday Rally

Emergency Policy Resolution on US Steel (Stelco) Layoffs

Andrea Horwath Pre Convention Interview

Peter Tabuns Pre Convention Interview

Gilles Bisson Pre Convention Interview

Michael Prue – Part One Pre Convention Interview – Michael Prue the Man

Michael Prue – Part Two Pre Convention Video – Prue the Candidate

Ray Lam did nothing wrong. Someone looking for a way to silence his voice opted to do so with smear and public humiliation instead of better arguments. Instead of beating him on the issues, or with stronger rhetorical or oratory skills they dragged the bottom of the barrel and entered into the realm of desperate gutter politics to tear him down. It is shameful. In fact considerably more shameful than anything Ray did. 

What makes Ray so unworthy to hold public office? This 22 year old, gay community activist who has dedicated himself to a number of community causes touched the breast of a smiling woman at a party and someone took a picture. Four years ago, a picture was taken of him in his underwear, and a shirt. Considering both shots appear staged and don’t seem to have any impact on Vancouver False Creek, I recognize why it wasn’t a good idea to have these pictures taken, but at the same time, I don’t see it as disqualifying him from holding public office. 

His opponents decided to stop at nothing to silence his voice, to deny his supporters a champion for their causes and they succeeded by bullying him out of the race. They did so by trying to destroy his reputation. My belief is those in public life need to recognize these types of attacks for what they are – attacks on democracy. You will never convince me anyone who is ‘upset’ at Lam’s actions actually cares about what he did. They are using it to silence his voice, to defeat him unfairly and above all to win themselves. It is an attempt to discredit him, making him and his party not viable in that race. When the Liberals take that seat, their candidate should feel the guilt of knowing how illegitimate her win is. It is as illegitimate as her demand for an apology from Lam, like he somehow did something to her. She should be apologizing for letting her own desperation to win, comprise her ethics or sense any of decency she had before entering public life.  

I wish Lam had stood up and hit back. He had every right to defend himself, his supporters and the issues he speaks for. He should be in the race and should not have allowed self righteous indignation to force him out and silence him on the way. It takes a lot of courage to put your name on a ballot. Especially when you’re young and not connected or cynical. He had that courage and the destructive attacks on him, hurt the chances of other young candidates getting involved in public life. All for a single riding, this man’s story and picture became national news. 

For Premier Gordon ‘glug-glug-vroom-vroom’ Campbell to somehow think this disqualifies someone from holding public office but his episode of drunk driving while Premier doesn’t is the height of hypocrisy. If there is anyone who should be a champion of ‘we’re all human, and prone to doing things we’d wish others wouldn’t judge us for’ – it is the drunk driving Premier himself. 

It’s safe to say, all politicians are human. That is important. We need people who understand what it’s like to be a real person. Politicians are only useful so long as they remember, and feel what we feel. Somethings should not be commented on by a political rival and generally the only things that are fair game are: record, plans, public statements and actions that have a direct impact on one’s ability or the approach they would take as an elected representative. I doubt Lam would have made his term about touching breasts in public or pulling his pants down in the legislature and trust the voters of Vancouver False Creek if not denied the ability to make up their own minds, would have also recognized that one can touch a breast and still be a good representative. 

I know a thing or two about attacking an opponent in politics. I have in the past, very strongly pushed back against an opponent of mine, but did so on things he said and did that were completely relevant to the race. I never would or have attacked anyone on anything personal, because it simply not relevant. What matters is what you’re going to do with the office you’re seeking and whether you can be taken at your word. How you spend your down time, doesn’t (unless it will result in a criminal code violation, which would result in your removal from office).

Let’s talk hypocrisy for a minute. I hate hypocrisy. It’s worse than lying in my books – and lying is bad enough. 

Premier ‘glug-glug-vroom-vroom’ Campbell decided Lam’s conduct was an election issue. If so, should folks also judge the judgement of a man who while running the forth largest government in Canada thinks drinking and driving is appropriate? Normally I wouldn’t touch it, but if Premier ‘glug-glug-vroom-vroom’ Campbell thinks the bar is this low (and we know he knows about bars, at least in Maui where he was arrested for drunk driving) shouldn’t this too be fair game? 

I’ll leave you to decide whose action is worse. Especially if you’re a BC voter. One thing is for sure, the Maui police department probably would not have arrested Campbell if he had committed Lam’s supposed offense. Unfortunately, Campbell and his party felt it was fair to destroy a young candidate and community activist over what can only be described as frivolous crap, and that to me shows a level of mean spiritedness and callousness I would not want to associate with. 

Below are two pictures. Which of these do you believe is most concerning for a public office holder?

BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s Mugshot

Ray Lam’s Boob Shot

When it was a 24 person effort the Mayor’s Deputy Communications Director “described the online petition and other similar groups on Facebook as an example of democracy at work.” Online petition calls for mayor’s ouster – Toronto Sun, March 10th 2009 I honestly wonder what the Mayor’s office thinks about a petition with 1401 signatures and at what point an online petition like this has the potential to impact the Mayor’s political agenda and questions like will he run in 2010. 

Take a look at the wording of the petition, and click on the link to view the comments folks have been leaving when they sign.

“To:  Mayor David Miller & Toronto City Council

It is time to leave office as Mayor; your services are no longer required. 

The people of Toronto are taking a stand to Mayor David Miller’s endless abuse of OUR hard earned money. Giving the city of Toronto employees a 2% raise increase during a global recession is absurd! Raising property taxes and your reckless spending will no longer be tolerated. 

It’s time that Mayor David Miller and his gang of thieves are thrown out of office. Mayor David Miller and the Toronto City council are out of touch with our community and our city. 

We are Torontonians who love our city. We will ensure that a responsible leader is put in office, one who is in touch with our city, our province, and our country. 

Impeach Mayor David Miller from office now! 

Sincerely,

The Undersigned“

The link to the petition itself is here: IMPEACH TORONTO MAYOR DAVID MILLER NOW!

My primary interest in this effort is watching the relationship between online activism and new media evolve with traditional political structures and traditional media. It’s a really dry topic if you’re not into that stuff, but if you are like me, stuff like this is fascinating. 

In many ways something like this can be easily dismissed (as many opposition groups are by government) because the powers that be will look at something like this and say “It’s 1400 people. The Mayor had 333 000 votes in the last election.” I guess for me though, when you consider how few people sign petitions, I begin to wonder if the signatures of 1400 possibly represent the making of a political force, something that could become a legitimate problem by November 2010. 

To the Mayor’s credit though, he has more friends on Twitter than this petition has signatures. 

One thing is for sure, the impact social networking tools and the internet will continue to have on politics moving forward is immense. I suspect especially at the operation level of campaigns, online tools are going to continue to have a major influence on how we do our politics. For me at least, the use of the internet as a political tool is a very neat thing to watch unfold. In many ways, I think this petition demonstrates how much less control our politicians have over the system compared to the pre-internet days. 

Just imagine for a moment what happens if each of these 1400 people (whose email address the petition administrator is likely storing) makes 100 phone calls during the 2010 election, donates 100 bucks or drops 100 flyers. No one can say they will, or that they will be coordinated in any political effort, but the potential is there, and sure is interesting to watch. 

Comments have been turned off after this post became the target for pornographic and pharmaceutical spam. Should you wish to comment – email me at john.laforet@laforet.ca and I will manually post it. 

Of the Mayor’s allies, should Miller not run I would suspect Vaughen, Carroll, Giambrone, De Baeremaeker and possibly Bussin would be interested in running for the top job. Because they are all current Miller allies, should he run they would all likely sit quietly and continue to support him. Even if he didn’t run, I would expect that Carroll would carry the Mayor’s flag into battle and most of his Council supporters would fall in.

Miller’s opposition is considerably less organized and has a far bigger challenge. Councillors like Ford, Mammolitti, Nunziatta, and Ootes are too controversial or lack the required name recognition to successfully run for Mayor. Because of this, they lack the ability to raise the required million bucks and build broad enough support to actually make it happen. Of Miller’s opposition, Michael Thompson, Karen Stintz and Denzil Minnon-Wong have all been auditioning for Mayoral runs basically since their last election to Council.

The biggest factor weighing on the minds of any current Councillor who is thinking of reaching for the Mayor’s Chair must be the possibility for defeat. Should they run and lose, unlike a Councillor who is running for Parliament or the Legislature, or a party leader who is seeking to be Premier or Prime Minister, losers are without seats. It is basically game over for them at that point. At least in the municipal arena. Jane Pitfield is the last current member of Council to run and lose a Mayor’s race. Currently she is the President of the 53 member Caledon Heritage Foundation, which is a considerable step down from Toronto City Councillor or Mayor. The only other current member of Council to run for Mayor did so in 2003, it was David Miller and an open race with no incumbent.

Pitfield’s defeat probably will give pause to members of Miller’s vocal opposition, as it demonstrated simply not being Miller isn’t enough to beat him. If any current member of Council is to run against the Mayor they will need to do it with the open support of others. My guess is somewhere between Minnon-Wong, Thompson and Stintz we will see one candidate who is sick of sitting around and losing fight after fight, stand up to either win, or no longer be a member of a Council that is steering the City in a direction they don’t want it to go. That ultimately was Pitfield’s articulation of balancing the risk and reward.

On paper a well financed right of centre candidate is a good idea and could do well, providing the right of centre vote is unified and their campaign is coherent. That being said the possibility of George Smitherman stepping into the ring probably complicates matters for any possible challengers. If Smitherman is in, he won’t formally enter until far closer to the election itself. His advantage is a strong, organized Liberal following in Toronto, where the overwhelming majority of MPP’s, MP’s and voters are Liberal. His involvement with Bob Rae’s last two leadership campaigns also has him in good stead with many Liberal operatives who know a thing or two about running and winning elections. All of this is before his considerable resume is taken into account.

The risk here is that Minnon-Wong, Thompson and Stintz will all wait to watch what Smitherman does in hopes of not having to risk their day job unless victory is possible. But should Smitherman not run, and if these guys have put their ambitions on ice in fear of a possible third place finish; Toronto runs the risk of either seeing a repeat of the 2006 election, where a Councillor with limited name recognition runs a distant second, or what is more likely, a repeat of the 2000 election where an incumbent Mayor, people aren’t sure about, faces off against candidates with limited political and management experience.

In 2009 I believe it would be wise for people interested in how the 2010 Mayor’s race will shape up to watch Minnon-Wong, Thompson, Stintz and Smitherman. Of course, with a 200 dollar entry fee, there will likely be at least three dozen other people throwing their hats into the ring, but fewer than a handful to watch seriously.