Raise the Hammer

first, this article has nothing to do with hamilton.

regardless, i don't see how a popular politician attempting to re-enter politics after a failed yet important mayoral campaign is a problem. i wouldn't categorize olivia chow as a "serial quitter" as much as someone who has attempted to better the lives of her constituents and city in the most effective way possible. if she didn't enter the mayoral race you would have had no progressive voice in that election, and i think anyone who advocated for responsible urban development was hoping for her success.

the libertarian creed of "the market is a perfect, efficient machine" as espoused in this article feels a bit out of place. we talk about public spending a lot because it's just that, public. you don't get to see the receipts for the liquid lunches and golf "meetings" your bosses attend (tax deductible nonetheless). not to mention the fact that this market is distorted by corporate welfare implemented by governments that still believe in voodoo economics despite the mounting evidence against it. anyways, what that has to do with chow isn't really clear aside from the fact that she probably isn't a free marketeer and the writer is.

i don't like chow's brand of politics at all, but she has conviction and a belief that her views are best for those she wants to represent. the fact that this race is going to be hers to lose shows that people believe the same thing. i don't think assigning a dollar sign to democracy really has much value when there are much more egregious expenses we can examine.

first, this article has nothing to do with hamilton.

+1

Personally, RTH should be split into two sections -- Hamilton-issues (written by anyone) -- and non-directly-Hamilton-issues (written by Hamiltonians).

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-07-30 15:07:14

"if she didn't enter the mayoral race you would have had no progressive voice in that election"

Might not another progressive have run in her stead? Someone, perhaps, that chose not to run against Chow for fear of vote-splitting, or out of respect? Or is the progressive bench strength in Canada's largest city that wan?

Democracy costs money. In the context of the decisions being made, $1 million is a comparatively small amount.

For example, let's look at just one decision that Chow promised to make differently than Tory: Spending an extra $480 million on the Gardiner Boondoggle.

See how it works? That investment of $1 million just paid itself back 480-fold. And that's only one decision over a 4-year term.

This particular argument has a long and sleazy history in Canadian politics. For example, in 1945, when he presented to Parliament his spending estimates for the Second World War, C.D. Howe was deliberately misquoted by John Diefenbaker as saying, "What's a million."

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-07-29 11:13:50

"That investment of $1 million just paid itself back 480-fold"

Isn't council's spending and policy direction dictated by a voting majority?

Haven't been keeping track, but how much did Toronto council end up spending to resolve the Gardiner issue?

Isn't council's spending and policy direction dictated by a voting majority?

This is true but the mayor does have some political resources to convince councillors of how to vote. In the Gardiner debate all it would have taken was a couple votes, one by the mayor and one or two by councillors he/she persuaded.

It's a bit rich quoting Adam Vaughan, her oppponent in the riding, who resigned his council seat to run in the by-election when she vacated her seat to run for mayor. Isn't his comment a bit like the coffee calling the kettle black?

I also find the smear of comparing the cost of a by-election to alleged fraudulent expenses by senators a little off-side ...

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-07-29 13:58:00

Politicians who decry the dollar figure cost of elections should not be allowed to run in said elections; perhaps the rule should be extended to the voting privileges of so-called budget hawks. Two quotes in parenthesis:

We know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

"As for her current job, teaching at Ryerson University, she's only had it since March." What do you care? That's their problem--and the election is now, and there's sure to be a tough campaign with an often short-fused Adam. Guess we'll see this letter in the Star soon, eh Ben? Run yourself as a candidate.Being noisy & being of substance not the same thing.

@highasageorgiapine

'first, this article has nothing to do with hamilton.'

RTH's submission guidelines (you can read them on the site) allow for non-Hamilton focused articles at the Editor's discretion. Variety is the spice of life. I submitted this because Hamilton has long been a hot bed of NDP support and I thought it might be of interest to some RTH readers (you read it and commented, so...). Pls keep in mind that it takes time to craft an Op-Ed piece. Whatever your thoughts on the content and validity or the article your comments should be respectful not smug.

'the libertarian creed of "the market is a perfect, efficient machine" as espoused in this article '

You took a leap there didn't you? I provided 2 examples of how one employer in the private sector routinely evaluates the value of it's employees and services. This was an anecdotal example making the point that employee costs verses value should be measured. The private sector is very wasteful and I don't espouse that 'libertarian creed' (yikes, are we in the Eton debate club? ;) ) at all.

@ KevinLove
'Democracy costs money. In the context of the decisions being made, $1 million is a comparatively small amount.'

If Olivia could convince me that she'd save us more than she will cost us then I'd be interested. Certainly as mayor, if she'd have run an effective campaign and been able to corral the council into kiboshing the Gardiner hybrid nonsense then she would indeed be worth many more of her by-election boondoggles. But she has yet to convince me that she can save me more than she costs.

@RobF
'It's a bit rich quoting Adam Vaughan, her opponent in the riding, who resigned his council seat to run in the by-election when she vacated her seat to run for mayor. Isn't his comment a bit like the coffee calling the kettle black?'

Yes it is! Good point. But I can forgive one resignation for the sake of career mobility. Olivia is just job hopping now. How many times is too much?

'I also find the smear of comparing the cost of a by-election to alleged fraudulent expenses by senators a little off-side ...'

Why? We vote people in (or not, in the case of the Senate) and they waste our money. We should call them on it. Olivia is wasting our money by quitting all the time. Find a job and stick with it. What will she move onto next before coming back again?

@matthewsweet
'Politicians who decry the dollar figure cost of elections should not be allowed to run in said elections'

I don't believe Vaughn is decrying the cost of elections per se - just the additional cost of running unnecessary by-elections. And why shouldn't he or anyone question the cost of elections? If we can find a way to control the costs better and get the same or better value shouldn't we embrace that?

Thanks for the comments folks. It's heartening to see that we are all willing to pay for our democracy (warts n all) :)

RTH's submission guidelines (you can read them on the site) allow for non-Hamilton focused articles at the Editor's discretion.

Where? http://raisethehammer.org/submissions says nothing to this. Neither does the site's page discussing it's raison d'etre: http://raisethehammer.org/about . Interestingly, it does name you as living in Hamilton after moving from Toronto, but this article appears to refute that - perhaps some housekeeping is in order as it looks like you've moved back.

I submitted this because Hamilton has long been a hot bed of NDP support and I thought it might be of interest to some RTH readers (you read it and commented, so...).

This "hot bed of support" for the NDP doesn't seem to translate into votes, though. It's only been in the past decade or so that the Dippers have won over Hamilton, and that is probably more tied to the trevails of Stelco and Dofasco, as well as the Liberal implosion. Hamilton was very much a Grit town for most of the past half century.

Pls keep in mind that it takes time to craft an Op-Ed piece. Whatever your thoughts on the content and validity or the article your comments should be respectful not smug.

You wrote it on your time. Nobody forced you to. If you can't take the criticism, don't write it. Your responses could well be told the same thing.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2015-07-30 17:43:59

Ben, Olivia Chow quit once ... repeating Adam Vaughan's rhetoric doesn't change the facts. She resigned as MP to run for mayor. He resigned his council seat to run for her federal seat. How is she "wasting our money by quitting all the time"?

And again, I make distinctions between waste and fraud ... the senate scandal is about fraudulent expense claims by political appointees. Tying that into a discussion about Olivia Chow running again for her old seat slightly redrawn is basically a smear.

Like her or not, Olivia Chow is a politician/activist ... she ran for mayor because a lot of people asked her to thinking that a serious challenger for Rob Ford was more important for the City. Tory ran and won, the NDP wants to win the seat back, she's out of the game and wants back in. I don't see this as her not knowing what she wants to do. Political life is about timing, timing you don't control. The question for voters in the riding is do you think she'd represent you better than the other candidates ... Adam Vaughan's no slouch and I'd list it as a race to watch, not the least because Vaughan and Chow are both advocates for urban policy at the federal level. We need to have a vigorous debate about that in the heart of the country's biggest city ... Liberal and NDP policies are not one and the same.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-07-29 18:57:39

@ hey ben
'As for her current job, teaching at Ryerson University, she's only had it since March." What do you care'

I care because it shows she can't stick to anything and she doesn't appear to know what she wants to do. It's the same as looking through a resume that skits all over the place. What do you want to do exactly?

'Guess we'll see this letter in the Star soon, eh Ben?'
Would that be a problem? Is it not OK to try and communicate your opinions and generate discussion? If you're going to poke at least prod a little deeper.

'Run yourself as a candidate.Being noisy & being of substance not the same thing.'
Some of us grumble to ourselves and do nothing. Some of us don't pay attention at all. Some of us try to stay informed and join the discussion. Some of us take action on the sidelines or directly in government. I like to stay informed and join the discussion. If the argument here has no substance then pls call me on it - that's why we have a comment feature. I'll decide what role I play in our democracy thanks all the same.

Dog & pony show: Priceless

rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/tom-mulcair-holds-press-conference-presto-olivia-chow-official-

news.nationalpost.com/toronto/would-be-ndp-candidate-threatens-legal-action-over-adam-giambrones-nomination-in-scarborough

theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sudbury-candidate-releases-recording-of-liberals-offering-job/article22471968/

cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2010/Koop-Bittner.pdf

vimeo.com/64337555

thetyee.ca/Books/2014/04/19/Ottawa-Command-and-Control/

I care because it shows she can't stick to anything and she doesn't appear to know what she wants to do. It's the same as looking through a resume that skits all over the place. What do you want to do exactly?

Sounds like the career of Sir John A. Macdonald... without the booze.

There are many other people who have made valuable contributions to Canada and the world who could be described in the same way. Indeed, many had a history of abject failure, even bankruptcy before they made valuable contributions to history. People ranging from Thomas Edison to that college drop-out, Steve Jobs.

I am not a fan of Olivia Chow, but I find this argument rather distasteful. I don't want politicians who have done nothing else with their lives.

Sounds like the career of Sir John A. Macdonald... without the booze.

???

Sir John A. was a lawyer from about 1830-1847, then moved to politics.

What part of a 17 year legal career, followed by a political career from 1847 until his death, is like Olivia Chow's inability to decide on a formal career is anything like this.

Also the booze thing is a great point. Trying to score a cheap laugh at someone battling alcoholism is always funny. Do you know anything about it? It certainly seems not.

I don't want politicians who have done nothing else with their lives.

Are you a fan of the CPC and Mr. Harper? He's a career politico. No private sector experience, aside from working for right-leaning think tanks.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2015-07-29 17:50:37

Sir John A. was, at times, a lawyer, soldier, businessman and politician. If you want politicians who have only done one thing, Sir John A. is not your man.

As to the booze, he himself is famous for making jokes about his own drinking. To paraphrase one of his own jokes, I would prefer Sir John A. drunk to many of our present politicians sober.

And no, I am not a fan of Mr. Harper. Among other things, by advising the Crown to prorogue parliament when he had lost the confidence of the Commons, he succeeded in temporarily making Canada no longer a democratic country. A rather dirty trick. In my opinion, the Governor General should have exercised his constitutional "referee" role and refused the advice.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2015-07-29 19:37:09

@RobF

'How is she "wasting our money by quitting all the time"?'
The by-election she forced cost about a million dollars. So, in order for Olivia to try out other opportunities we all had to dig deep to help her. If her campaign had introduced new ideas, generated an interesting discussion or demonstrated her much heralded leadership skills then there may have been some value. But she failed to ignite anything. And now she bails again - no doubt costing Ryerson some cash too. To me this demonstrates selfish behaviour and a lack of a clear direction - not something I want in a politician.

In terms of comparing by-election waste to fraud, that is indeed an unfair comparison if taken literally. The broad strokes of my argument is that this all demonstrates a lack of respect for tax payers dollars and inherently self interested behaviour. But I agree that this is somewhat apples and oranges and I don't mean to put her behaviour in the same bucket by any means.

'Political life is about timing'

Exactly! You make my point for me. Olivia is all about opportunity and timing and screw the cost and the tax payer. SI'm guessing that she is only running now because she senses that the NDP may win power. Olivia is all about Olivia. She could affect change and pursue her agenda in many ways, she doesn't have to ravage the public purse to do so. Yet she chooses to, time and again.

@KevinLove

'I don't want politicians who have done nothing else with their lives.' Neither do I. Olivia has mostly been a public servant all her life. I am impressed with her volunteer activism work and I believe that may be where she is best suited - working at the ground level maybe with a NFP. I would prefer a politician who has gained some experience in other areas, so we can get the benefit of that knowledge. Career politicians are like any other life long public servant - they tend to melt into the furniture and find it difficult to overhaul the system from within or bring anything innovative to the table.

Truthfully I am a little conflicted about this topic (it might not seem so...;) ). I like the direction the NDP is heading and, like many Canadians, I have many reasons for wanting a change of party. And I always liked Olivia and Jack's social policies. But a political career is not something to dabble with on a whim moving this way and that. Pick a path and go with it.

Enjoying this discussion, thanks for contributing.

Ben is spot on.

It occurs to me that this line of argument would disqualify myself from standing for election. I've done a lot of things in my life. I've been an infantry officer in the Canadian Forces in The Royal Canadian Regiment and The Royal Regiment of Canada. I've got a degree in geophysics, but never took a job in that field. I've worked in manufacturing on the shop floor, as a supervisor and in quality assurance. Now I'm a professional Accountant.

Does this mean that I am disqualified from standing for election?

I found that the author was not so much critical of a variety of experience, but rather vacillating political aspirations.

1991-1997: city council
1997: failed run for federal seat
1997-2004: city council
2004: failed run for federal seat
2004-2006: city council
2006: successful fun for federal seat
2006-2014: MP
2014: failed mayoral run

I don't see Chow as a serial quitter. I just see a politicians whose loyalties are fragmented between constituents and party. Inevitably, that causes its own tensions.

thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/07/30/the-irritating-way-olivia-chow-took-the-plunge-salutin.html

I don't see Chow as a serial quitter. I just see a politicians whose loyalties are fragmented between constituents and party. Inevitably, that causes its own tensions.

A pretty fair assessment.

Comment edited by RobF on 2015-07-31 12:38:17

Whether this politican is red, blue, or orange -- the flipping between federal seat and municipal seat isn't a dealbreaker to me. As long as enough somethings good can get done, the politican can get my vote -- even if they want to be back in a city seat later.

Let's look carefully at what's proposed, including transit improvements, and in some cases we may need to vote strategically -- very important this election cycle because of the near-equal-split of three major parties. Was that particular politician more effective (than others) at getting specific goals (that you like) done in the past?

Even if it means voting for Olivia Chow.

Or even if it means NOT voting for Olivia Chow.

A choice. This may mean setting aside some dislike of something they did in the past (like a particular flip flop), if they successfully did other things that was even more important. Look at the transit planning disruption Rob Ford did, when not enough votes went to Chow at the time -- do you want a Ford to come into power just because you didn't like Chow? (Side note -- one survey interestingly showed that 9% of Canada are orange-versus-blue "anything-but-Liberals" flippers -- and this could apply to Chow-vs-Ford flippers. In retrospect, many regretted not voting for Chow instead of Ford). Even if the success is simply preventing something worse being done by a different party.

Since we don't have a proportional voting system, Sometimes we have to swallow a bitter pill strategically because our vote has more power than usual (near even splits like this upcoming Federal election). On the other hand -- maybe the competing person has a great platform and you should vote for them instead of Chow. Support what's important in the coming years.

Needless to say, I'm looking forward to seeing more various warmer colors (reds and oranges, rather than blues) in the parliament seat layout during this cycle. I do have some concern about financials, given Ontario's financial situation (albiet we're more flexible at bouncing back far faster than debt-plagued nations such as Greece with its 80% tax evasion culture even widespread among the Greek middle class -- in that light, Ontario is well off compared to them). I'm also additionally fully aware that even scandal-plagued Liberals have managed the books light-years better than Conservatives did lately -- their brands of government waste is simply labelled, packaged and marketted very differently. So we need to look at overall government efficiency too. I'm also even fully aware some socialist-minded democratic governments (i.e. Norway) run extremely massive surpluses that they now essentially have a trillon-dollar wealth fund for the whole population. So it's not so clear cut when pundits say "hello bankruptcy" if NDP or Liberals comes to power.

...incidentially, it looks like a minority government, no matter what color -- and minority Canadian governments have been historically good at "getting things done". The sitting government has multiple alternate choices of different parties to agree to various legislation with. None may have a majority, but any pair, red+orange, blue+orange, and red+blue would be a majority - and that's why more legislation gets passed during minority Canadian governments! At least until one party gets so steamed they collapse the government and a new election occurs...

(I wonder if it's time for Canadian coalition governments in this new era where we've slowly become a 3-party system instead of a 2-party system.)

In comment boards of other forums, blanket statements thrown about about each other being the most wasteful government color ever, is silly. Some people think cars are a waste. Others think bikes are a waste. Others go, "Look! A squirrel!" All of our government choices in history in humankind have a waste factor, and we can be mad about elements of that, but we can take solace in that Canada is relatively efficient compared to a lot of the 200-ish of the world countries -- even Ontario looks efficient. We need to look deeper than that. So, let's analyze our choices carefully and how they impact our future.

We're lucky to be Canada.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-07-31 04:56:07

My wise friend, she asks to remind Ben this isn't the Shropshire Ontario tea & bitters debating club. The job is to keep or change government by however needs to get it done. You get candidates--you vote or not. Use a lectern or not, Benny, at a nomination meeting if you're a member and want a different candidate for your new citizenship vote. Else, canvas for not Olivia. Like over 'ome. Benny, got to get members to make a government, pastor Ben.

Puppy Chow and her fellow comrades will win in October and drive this country in to a depression. Lest we never forget what the NDP did to Ontario in 1990-1995. We'll need another Harris to fix it... history repeats itself... same old story.

You're blaming the global, world-wide recession of 1989-90 on Bob Rae and the NDP?

You're minimizing their role in the effects and length of time it took our province to recover (which to date is has not fully)?

I agree with Ben on this one. There is opportunism and then there is crass opportunism. Would she be running if the NDP didn't have a chance to form government? I'd bet not. She is not a politician of conviction at this stage of her career.

The other question to ask is why she lost the Mayor's race. She was the front runner going into the campaign but just coasted on her name not offering any creative ideas. She is doing the same thing now in her return bid.

Its hard for me to agree with this reasoning. Would you call her wasteful if she had quit her riding in order to retire from politics? I don't think so --- we would consider that the cost of having a democratic system where anyone (even people who might have reasons to leave office) can represent us if they find electoral support. How then is it wasteful for her to quit and then run in an election where there was clearly a lot of support for her platform? She finished with 23% of the popular vote after entering the race as the front-runner. She clearly added something important to the public discourse, regardless of whether or not she managed to turn that into a victory.

Comment edited by AnjoMan on 2015-08-05 15:43:33