What’s the ballot box issue for the Toronto mayoral election? It’s not yet clear. With only six weeks to go, there is no defining matter that has seized the minds of the electorate and driven the debate between candidates.
Now there doesn’t necessarily have to be such a topic. Not every election is a referendum on a divisive matter. But there are examples of previous Toronto mayoral elections that have been strongly defined by a single issue.
When David Miller was elected mayor in 2003, a defining issue was the island airport and Miller’s opposition to a bridge to it. I can still vividly recall standing on the subway platform staring at fear-mongering campaign ads showing 747s coming in for landing on the island.
Miller also did a good job of casting City Hall as corrupt and in need of cleaning up, which he did with the popular visual of holding a broom over his head at campaign rallies.
The island airport was an odd referendum question in that it didn’t impact many voters’ daily lives and certainly not their pocketbooks, but vibes and nostalgia are powerful political tools and Miller used them to his advantage.
Speaking of vibes, when Rob Ford won the 2010 mayoralty it wasn’t on any specific platform points but on his well-known refrain to stop the gravy train. This message resonated with many people who felt forgotten by and shut out of City Hall for too long. From that message, the enduring political tribe of Ford Nation was born.
This year’s campaign doesn’t yet have a comparable focus and one may not even arise. So far, the leading candidates are all thin on big ideas and headline-grabbing policies.
While both Mayor Olivia Chow and Coun. Brad Bradford would bristle at being told this, right now there really isn’t that much separating the two of them.
Long-time political observers will of course know there’s a big difference. But regular voters wouldn’t — not if we’re basing it on the candidates’ positioning and debate remarks to date.
Chow’s campaign slogan is to build “a more affordable, safe and caring city.” One of Bradford’s slogans is “to build a safer, more affordable, and thriving city” — in addition to his headline refrain of “a city we can be proud of.” None of this tells the voter much.
As I discussed in my past column , the left-wing Chow’s re-election strategy appears to be to move to the centre and lean into the incumbent advantage. Bradford was somewhat left-leaning a few years ago but has since made a pivot to the centre-right. That said, he’s still campaigning closer to the centre and is endorsed by many Liberal politicians.
There’s a simple campaign logic to this approach for both of these candidates: The bulk of the votes are in the centre and that seems to be what the public wants. It’s hard to fault the candidates for it but the downside is it then becomes hard for the voter to differentiate between them. The advantage may then go to Chow, as she’s the more widely known candidate, being the incumbent.
Former federal cabinet minister Chris Alexander, a late entry to the race, likewise doesn’t have a clear rallying cry and so we’re left with three people on the debate stage all making relatively sanitized, ill-defined statements.
Congestion and public safety are the two topics that you hear people of all walks of life and political views complain about the most in Toronto. They’re legitimate problems that have worsened in the past few years and they are problems that the City can have a direct hand in fixing. They’re also likely to generate different positions between candidates, which then creates genuine choice among voters. These are the matters that I would relentlessly seize on.
There’s still plenty of time for this to happen. The dynamics of the race will change when lawn signs start going up at the beginning of October and candidates release their platforms shortly after.
Until then, don’t expect a passionate response from the electorate.
National Post
Anthony Furey is a former journalist and past Toronto mayoral candidate who now works in corporate consulting.
