The last few days  have  have full of discussion about the rise in Jack Layton’s  popularity.  Hard  to understand – Jack Layton is a man who has made a career demonizing corporations and confusing a desirable  state  of affairs  with a just state  of affairs. In any case, if  the polls are to be believed (and the they may become a self-fulfilling prophecy), Jack Layton’s  popularity will bring the NDP  to heights  not seen since the  days of Ed Broadbent. What  does this  mean for the outcome  of the election on May 2?

My predication is that it means a Conservative Majority!

Look at it this way:

- Mr. Layton’s increased  popularity in Quebec will amount to nothing in relation to the Conservatives (the NDP  will just take seats from the Bloc). It could however mean something in terms of who  will be the Opposition Leader. The conventional wisdom is that Mr.  Ignatieff  will continue to be the Opposition Leader. That is far from certain.

- in the rest of Canada Mr. Layton’s popularity will be primarily at  the expense of the Liberals. The leaking of Liberal support  to the NDP gives the Conservatives  an excellent opportunity to win some of the closer  ridings. Interestingly,  the Conservatives  could  actually get fewer votes but win more  seats.

- The relevancy of the Green Party will be a casualty of  an increase of NDP  popularity.

So, the moral  of the story is:

If you want a Harper Majority then Vote  NDP!

Here is an interesting article written in June 2010 from a respected commentator which suggest  some of the same  things:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/817622–hebert-jack-layton-s-surge-great-news-for-stephen-harper

Once in a blue moon, the political stars align in such a way as to give the federal NDP a bit of an edge over their Liberal rivals.

It is not a frequent occurrence. The last time it happened was in the lead-up to the 1988 free trade election, more than two decades ago.

For a period of months, then-NDP leader Ed Broadbent looked like a prime-minister-in-waiting.

Twenty-two years later, Jack Layton is on the way to matching Broadbent’s feat. His popularity far surpasses that of the NDP. He also towers over Liberal rival Michael Ignatieff in the public opinion polls.

According to a just released Angus Reid poll, an Ignatieff-led Liberal-NDP coalition would lose the next election to the Conservatives while a Layton-led one could secure a majority.

Those are highly hypothetical numbers. But they do reflect a trend. And they suggest that Ignatieff’s strategists are wrong to believe that a coalition with the NDP would trigger an exodus of Liberal supporters to the Conservatives but that they are right to suspect that he lacks the moral authority to take the lead of such a maneuver.

If the past is any indication, all of this is excellent news …for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

In the late eighties, Broadbent’s surging popularity gave the NDP’s pipe dream of entering the major leagues at the expense of the Liberals a big shot of momentum.

The two parties spent the 1988 campaign competing for the anti-free trade vote.

Their divisions facilitated the second Mulroney majority and helped usher in a fundamental change in Canada’s interaction with the United States.

But while the NDP came out of the 1988 vote with more seats than it had ever had, its score still left the party well short of second place. With Broadbent gone in retirement five years later, those gains were wiped out.

In 1993 the NDP did not even win back the dozen seats required to be officially recognized in the House of Commons.

It took more than a decade for the party to recover. Now, it seems that all is in place for a Liberal-NDP rematch along the 1988 battle lines.

On the heels of a stinging defeat in the last election, the Liberals are on the defensive from coast to coast to coast and going nowhere fast in Quebec and in most of Western Canada,

Like then-Liberal leader John Turner, Ignatieff is increasingly seen as a weak leader. To all intents and purposes, his party is stalled in voting intentions.

But then so is the NDP. Despite the uncertain Liberal performance, the party can’t break through a 20 percent glass ceiling nationally. In Quebec, a stand-alone NDP scores just below Harper’s unpopular Conservatives. In Ontario, it runs a distant third.

NDP strategists have apparently concluded that it is time to move in for the kill against a weakened Liberal party. Last weekend, Layton dared Ignatieff to try to force the government to split the budget bill before it is allowed to pass and Harper’s minority regime is allowed to survive.

To position the NDP as the only effective national opposition vehicle to the Conservatives, Layton is drawing new, deeper lines in the Liberal/NDP sand.

As in 1988, the next federal campaign and the potential advent of a Conservative majority could be a watershed for the country.

On this, the NDP and the Liberals are in agreement. But as in the days of the free trade debate it does seem it is all they will agree on between now and the next campaign.

Broadbent’s 1988 campaign was both his finest and his most counter-productive hour. A remake is now in the works.

On Sunday April 9, 2011 History Television began a mini-series about the Kennedy’s. The first instalment focused on John Kennedy’s rise to the presidency of the United States. Kennedy’s first foray into Federal politics was when he ran for Congress in Boston. In any case, (whether this is true of not), according to the show, in Kennedy’s first campaign he was running against two Joseph Russos – the name Joseph Russo appeared twice on the ballot. (Presumably there was another Joseph Russo in that district.) This meant that those who wanted to vote for their Joseph Russo did not know how to indicate that their vote was for their preferred Joseph Russo. The Joseph Russo vote was split and the name John Kennedy (if not the man himself) received the largest number of votes. Because of the second Joesph Russo, John Kennedy was “victorious”. This incident is also described in an excellent article by the journalist Seymour Hirsch.

The moral of the story is that the ballot itself matters in elections. What might this mean for elections in Canada?

Last night I participated in a radio show where the topic of the discussion was the election in general and voters in particular. The particular focus that interested me was the question of:  who or what do voters actually vote for?

The Canada Elections Act defines an election expense, as an expense for the purpose of promoting any of the: candidate, party or leader. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that voters vote for one or more of the candidate, the party or the leader. My guess is that the candidate is the least relevant of the three.

For example, there are voters who:

-        Always vote for the party regardless of the leader or the candidate (Brian Mulroney in a recent Steve Pakin interview said that he would vote for the Conservative candidate in his constituency)

-        Vote for the Party that has the leader they most admire (For example Jack Layton is better liked than his party)

-        Vote for the  best Candidate (In the case of Independent Candidates, it is a clear vote for the Candidate).

The current ballot is formatted to include:

Name of Candidate – Party

Or in the case of an Independent Candidate or a candidate for an unregistered political party:

Name  of Candidate – Independent

This form of ballot does not do a good job of determining who or what a voter is voting for. It guides people to vote for a party through a candidate. In other words, the candidate is the mechanism used to vote for the party. Since the election includes Independent candidates and the candidates of unregistered political parties, this is not a good ballot.

The Elections Act makes a clear distinction between the Candidate, the Party and the Leader. Therefore, it would make one more sense to have a ballot that that required people to put only one check – to divide the ballot into the categories of Candidate, Party or Leader – and allow people to specifically vote for a candidate, party or leader.

Here is a ballot that would be more honest:

“This ballot will allow you to vote for one person. The ballot will allow you to express your vote for a Candidate, Party or Leader.

If you want to vote for a Candidate – vote for one of:

John Smith

Steve Doe

Alice West

Mary Soloman

If you want to vote for a Party vote for one of:

Conservative Party

Liberal Party

New Democratic Party

Green Party

If you are voting a leader vote for one of:

Jack Layton

Stephen Harper

Michael Ignatieff

Elizabeth May”

I suggest that this would be a much more intelligent ballot.

The anecdote from “The Kennedy’s shows that the ballot itself is important in the democratic process.

This car was there for a minimum of 45 minutes:

- parked illegally

- parking officer nowhere to be found

- car was there for a minimum of 45 minutes

Let’s compare the violations in Toronto to the St. Louis Parking Violations.

When it comes to |Toronto parking officers, sometimes they are:

- waiting to be found  – Toronto Parking Police will wait to ticket you; and

- nowhere to be found.

Here is another Toronto blog with examples of Toronto Parking Police officers parking illegally.

We  are in the middle of a Federal  Election. Respect for the democratic process has been an issue in this campaign. The conservative government has  been the most heavily criticized of  the main parties.

The grounds of criticism include:

- overriding the wishes  of local  riding associations in selecting candidates;
- being held  in “contempt of  parliament”
- renaming Canada’s  parliamentary democracy “Harper Government”
- the “in and out”  financing of  the 2006 election
- the fact that Harper  has   prorogued parliament rather than face  parliament

All of these allegations are deserving of  investigation. That said, there  is  another area – which is  potentially far more  damaging – where  Mr. Harper has exhibited  a clear “contempt” for  democracy.

The Charter of  Rights – Are  Judges Now The Official  Opposition To The  Government?

April 17, 2011 will be  the 29th anniversary of the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights  and Freedoms. The Charter was radical  for  Canada because  for  the first time there were limitations  on the power of Parliament. Prior  to April  17, 1982  there was  no law  that could not be enacted  by some level of government. Canadians had  rights only to the extent that  the governments of  Canada allowed  them. The effect of the Charter of Rights was  that individual  Canadians  now had constitutional  rights  and freedoms. In other  words, there  are now  limits on the power of  government.  The Charter is a fascinating document – all Canadians should  read it. It simply defines  human interests  that are  so basic and fundamental  that governments  are  prohibited from unduly burdening them.

Examples  include:

- freedom of speech and religion
- certain rights  when interacting with the police
- Equality rights and freedom  from discrimination

How Does The Charter of  Rights Work?

In any event,  when a law  conflicts  with a Charter  right, the aggrieved  party can seek redress  in the courts where a judge has the authority to “strike  the law”. This  gives  Canadians protection from the excesses of government.

Judges across  the country look  to decisions of the Supreme Court of  Canada  for how to  interpret the meaning of charter rights. Therefore, the identity of Supreme Court of Canada judges matters a great deal in the life of Canadians. Furthermore, Supreme Court judges, once appointed can serve to the age of 75.  If you doubt the importance of Supreme Court judges and/or  if you want to learn about how  they protect you  from the excesses of governments, they you should read “Mighty Judgment” by Philip  Slayton. This newly released book is a must read for all  Canadians  and will teach you with important aspects  of Canada’s democracy that have  been left of  the political  debate.

The appointment of Supreme  Court  of Canada judges  is done  by the Prime  Minister  – historically with neither parliamentary nor public  input.  This seems  strange. Given the amount of litigation that goes  on between Canadians and the government – is it fair that the umpires  be  appointed by the government?

Interestingly, the government of Paul  Martin set the stage for some parliamentary input  into the appointment of supreme court judges. Justice  Rothstein was actually part of a group identified and considered  by the Martin government to replace  Justice Major. Furthermore, this appointment was  to be  the first where  a nominee  to the Supreme Court of Canada was to be  subjected  to some parliamentary scrutiny (“scrutiny lite” to be sure, but  it  was  at least a start). When Mr. Harper  became  Prime  Minister  he appointed  Marshall  Rothstein. Justice  Rothstein did appear before a parliamentary committee. (Mr. Harper had previously campaigned  on a platform that  included reforming  the process under  which Supreme  Court  Justices  were appointed.) Although, it was  not particularly probing, it was at least a  good start. It seems  fairly obvious that, given the importance  of Supreme Court  judges in the democratic  process,  that all nominees  should be scrutinized and that the Prime Minister  (since the judges are  in fact the “unofficial – official opposition to the government”), that the appointment of  judges should not be  at the sole  discretion of the Prime Minister.

The Worst  Abuse of Parliament and the Democratic  Process

In 2008, Mr. Harper appointed  Justice  Thomas Cromwell to  the Supreme  Court of  Canada with neither parliamentary nor  public scrutiny. Justice  Cromwell will serve until  2027. He  will have far more  influence  on the lives  of Canadians, than Mr.  Harper.

The failure to submit Justice  Cromwell  to parliamentary scrutiny is probably Mr. Harper’s  worst abuse  of  the  Parliament of  Canada and the democratic  process. It will have the most far reaching consequences.  It should be  an election issue.

Footnote: Added on April 23/11

Here is an article  by Philip Slayton on this topic.

The Green Party and Green Party supporters have the potential to make  a big  difference in the May 2 election. The Green Party is on a growth trajectory and  may become a victim of its own success. Although the Greens are unlikely to win many seats (if  any), they are likely to have an influence on the outcome of this election. Green Party supporters are most likely to take  support from the Liberals  and NDP – increasing the chance  of  a Conservative being elected – and potentially giving the Conservatives their  coveted majority.  The Conservatives, could get the same number percentage  of votes as  in 2008 and win a majority. To put it simply:

As goes the Green Party, So go the Conservatives!

It’s interesting that in the United States Ralph Nader ran for president as the Green Party Candidate (no affiliation with the Green Party of Canada). Some argued that the small number of votes he received (presumably at the expense of Al Gore), were responsible for giving George W. Bush the presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

What’s A Poor Green Party Supporter To Do?

As the above dilemma indicates, a number  of Green Party supporters  are  aware that by voting for the Green Party, they may be electing the Conservatives. This demonstrates the problem of the “first past the post system”  which will certainly be reevaluated. But, that is down the road. The question is what should  voters  do now? Vote for the Green Party with their heart, or vote  for a Liberal  with their  head?

The following considerations may be  important:

1. To Vote For A Liberal Is  To Vote Against Something And Not For Something

For a Green Party supporter to vote  for  a Liberal, is to vote against a  Conservative. I am reminded that when Rocco Rossi,  exited the race for Toronto’s Mayor, he urged voters to “vote for something, not against someone”.

A Green supporter who votes  for a Liberal  is voting against something and not for something.

2. A Vote For A Liberal Is A Vote Against Local Representation

Although the Green Party appears to gives its candidates freedom and autonomy, the Liberals  give their candidates neither freedom of judgment nor autonomy. When it comes to the Liberals: when the leader  says jump – the candidate says “how  high”? This also means a strategic vote against the Conservatives is also a vote again riding representation.

3. A Vote For A Liberal  May Result In Mr. Ignatieff Becoming Prime Minister

There is a saying: “Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t know”. Everybody except Conservatives believe that a Conservative majority would be the worst option. But, what is the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Both parties have demonstrated contempt for democracy. There is no reason to believe that the Liberals would be better at managing the economy (and there is reason to believe that they would be worse). Neither the Liberals or Conservatives give  the local  MPs  any autonomy – meaning that under neither scenario  will the riding get local representation. At the present time only those  ridings that elect independent candidates benefit from strong local representation.
4. Only A Majority Government Will Avoid A Coalition Government

It is unlikely that the Liberals  could  win a majority government.  It is possible, (but I believe unlikely) that the Conservatives could  win a majority. Remember  that any government that is a minority government will be a coalition government – meaning that the parties must come together to vote on specific bills. The self-proclaimed “Harper Government” has  been operating as a coalition government. It has always required  the support of at least  one other party.

5. A “Reckless” Coalition Is A Coalition Where Parties  Agree To Vote  Together From The Outset

Mr. Ignatieff has made it clear that he will not seek a “reckless” coalition with other parties. I don’t see that he has to. If the Harper government does not have a majority, the other parties (which command a majority) can come together to topple the government. For example, the Governor General could simply ask Mr. Ignatieff to form a government. He would then be in a minority government situation (which is exactly where the Conservatives are now). The precedent for this is the Ontario  in the 1980s where David Peterson and Bob Rae came together to topple the Conservative government of Frank  Miller. Mr. Peterson, became Premier and ran a minority government (relying on the support  of the NDP).

6. A Vote For The Greens Is A Long Term Investment in Democracy

- John F. Kennedy”

Much has been made of the “Harper Government”  contempt for democracy. None of the mainstream parties  respects the role of MPs or the principle that MPs should be responsible to their  constituents. This is demonstrated by a centralization of power in the office of the Prime Minister and “whipped votes”.  Contempt for democracy will continue as long as Canada clings to the “first past the post” voting system and any of the main parties form the government.

The only way that Canada’s government can change is through the vote. Assuming that the Greens exhibit a continuing respect for democracy, a vote for the Greens is a “long term” investment in the kind of representative democracy that Green party supporters want.

To put it simply: if you don’t vote for the Green Party candidates, they cannot win.

7. A Vote From The Heart Is A Vote That Stands For Something …

Barack Obama once noted that people were always accusing the Democrats of not standing for anything. In a rare display of wit, he countered  by saying:

“That’s not true, the problem is that we do stand for anything.”

The Ontario  Liberal  Government of David Peterson was turfed  out of office because it didn’t stand for anything (other than power for the sake of power). It  is unclear what the Liberal Party of Michael Ignatieff actually stands for (other than wanting to be the government).

Therefore, a vote for the Liberals  is NOT a “vote for something.”

Therefore, If you believe that the Green Party stands for something,

I suggest that a vote from your heart may be the same as a vote from your head!

Why are we having this election at all? The answer is simple:

This election is  NOT about the well being of the country. This  election IS about the well being of the parties and the party leaders.  To put it simply we are having this  election because:

- Harper wants  a Conservative  majority government
- Ignatieff wants to be Prime  Minister
- Layton wants  to matter to something beyond the NDP

Political  parties  are private organizations whose activities  are  largely funded by Canadian taxpayers. Consider this:

- the election of 2011 is an activity orchestrated by The Conservatives, Liberals and NDP which will  cost Canadian taxpayers in excess of 300 million dollars (Query Mr. Layton – should  this 300 million not have gone to the poor instead?)
- political parties  receive $1.95 from the taxpayers for  each vote their party receives

Canada’s registered political  parties are a tax on the democratic process. Perhaps one should consider  voting for either unregistered political  parties or Independent Candidates.

“Vote Independent – Save Your Money!”

In any case, here  are some thoughts which could  be a starting point for election analysis.

1. The Conservatives have  nowhere  to go but down.

2.   Mr. Harper is campaigning very defensively. Remember  what happened to General  Motors? His  primary advantage is that that the  election period  is only 36 days. I believe that his  support would  erode  with a longer  time frame..

3. The Liberals are a party with nowhere to go but up.

4. Mr. Ignatieff is  perceived as  a weak  leader. Remember that the most dangerous person in the fight is the person with nothing to lose.

5. In the case  of the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP the individual  candidates are basically irrelevant. The Conservatives waited a full week before even bothering to put their  candidates on their site. Occasionally, a party will override the wishes  of a  local  riding association and install a “parachute candidate”. That said,  for  the most part,  a Liberal, Conservative  or NDP  candidate is  the mechanism you use  to vote for  the party or the leader.

6. Because  the Bloc  will receive the Quebec votes,  it  is  irrelevant to any election analysis. When one analyzes the  results of an election in Canada,  one simply subtracts the Quebec votes. The Bloc is relevant to the extent its votes can be  added to the votes of other parties to affect the balance of power in Parliament.

7. The Green Party is rising in popular support. Numerically the Green party will receive  a large number  of votes. That said, in a “first  past the post system”, it  is unlikely that they will win any seats.

The Green Party is the only party where the individual candidates matter. I have been very impressed with the quality of many of the Green Party Candidates. Because  the Greens are  not the Conservatives, Liberals  or  NDP and because they have  recruited good candidates, they will continue to do better and better. In the 2008 election, in Toronto Danforth, the Green Party candidate  did better  than the Conservative candidate placing third  behind the NDP (Jack Layton) and the Liberal candidate. This  year, in Toronto Danforth,  the Green Party is  well organized   and has a superb candidate in Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu. For  the Greens this is good  news and bad news:

The Good News – This is a riding where the Greens could make a significant breakthrough.

The Bad News – The significant breakthrough means that the  best she can do is place second. That said,  a second place  finish for the Greens in Toronto  Danforth is possible and  a huge  victory.

That’s all for now .

Time to lead

Commute times in Canadian cities are no longer just a source of rush-hour irritation, but a national liability affecting the economic performance of our urban centres and requiring immediate intervention from Ottawa.

A new ranking of international cities by the Toronto Board of Trade saw major Canadian municipalities fall dramatically behind in the realm of transportation and transit, prompting big-city mayors and transit experts to call on all federal parties to address the issue in the election, or suffer the consequences.

More related to this story

• Montreal’s transit sees more action than Toronto’s but rating nothing to brag about
• Transit a hit-and-miss affair in B.C.’s Lower Mainland
• TTC enthusiasts turn a commute into entertainment

Slideshow

The rankings: Top 20 ‘overall’ cities

Media

Compare Toronto’s 80-minute commute with other major cities

Infographic

The global city ‘report card’

“We need to make this a significant election issue and it’s critical that parties develop a response,” said Michael Roschlau, president of the Canadian Urban Transit Association. “I just hope it doesn’t take a crisis to get there: that traffic congestion gets so bad, commute times get so long, that we have to react instead of being proactive.”

The rankings in the Board of Trade’s annual Scorecard on Prosperity, which measures cities on a number of economic, social and structural indicators, suggest that Canadian cities are already on the brink of crisis.

Not a single Canadian city cracked the top 10 on transportation issues, which measured such factors as commute times, transit ridership, kilometres of existing rail and vehicles per capita.

Montreal fared best, in 12th place, followed by Calgary (13), Toronto (19) and Vancouver (21), but all were outperformed by Hong Kong, Stockholm, Paris, London and New York.

And Canada’s failings in the transportation realm had a negative impact on cities’ overall rating, with Toronto dropping from fourth to eighth place due largely to its “crippling congestion.”

The report noted that Toronto’s reputation is also tarnished by its 80-minute average round-trip commute, signalling an “urgent need to invest in public transportation.”

“We would certainly hope that one of the key issues that this election is fought on is around a national transit strategy,” said Board of Trade president and CEO Carol Wilding. “There has to be a vision brought to it across all levels of government.”

Unlike other countries, Canada has never had a national transit strategy. Although Ottawa has grown increasingly involved in transit over the past 10 years, averaging investments of about $600-million a year, the funding remains ad hoc, with no predictability.

In the lead-up to this week’s federal budget, the mayors of some of Canada’s largest cities appealed to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to address transit and the $123-billion urban infrastructure deficit.

But while Mr. Flaherty promised to develop an infrastructure plan and make the transit-funding gas tax permanent through legislation, no new money was designated.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson derided the budget for being “thin on public transit” and said he looked forward to seeing the issue raised on the campaign trail.

“I hope that cities figure largely in the federal election,” he said. “There’s been years of sliding behind on economically critical steps for cities, and that trend has got to be reversed.”

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said he plans to spend much of the coming campaign “pushing the parties” on the urban agenda and noted that any leader who hopes to win a majority government will have to win ground in large cities.

“You have to shift your thinking from transit as an expense to be managed, to an investment in the future of the community,” he said.

Without a fixed source of funding, cities will remain unable to keep up with their growing populations.

The following editorial appeared in Tuesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Wisconsin+matters/4369306/story.html

The raucous Wisconsin debate over collective bargaining may be ugly at times, but it has been worth it for the splendid public education. For the first time in decades, Americans have been asked to look under the government hood at the causes of runaway spending. What they are discovering is the monopoly power of government unions that have long been on a collision course with taxpayers. Though it arrived in Madison first, this crack-up was inevitable.

In 1960, 31.9% of America’s private work force belonged to a union, compared to only 10.8% of government workers. By 2010, the numbers had more than reversed, with 36.2% of public workers in unions but only 6.9% in the private economy. The sharp rise in public union membership in the 1960s and 1970s coincided with the movement to give public unions collective bargaining rights.

For decades, as the private union movement rose in power, even leftof-centre politicians resisted collective bargaining for public unions. Why? Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

This monopoly power, in turn, gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money they collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining. In effect, union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers. In 2006 in New Jersey, this led to the preposterous episode in which Governor Jon Corzine addressed a Trenton rally of thousands of public workers and shouted, “We will fight for a fair contract.” He was promising to fight himself.

Thus the collision course with taxpayers. Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. They thus have every incentive to elect politicians who favour higher taxes and more government spending. The great expansion of state and local spending followed the rise of public unions.

Current AFL-CIO chief Rich Trumka has tried to portray Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s reforms as an attack on all unions, but they clearly are not. If anything, by reining in public union power, Mr. Walker is trying to protect private workers of all stripes from the tax increases that will eventually have to finance larger government. Regarding public finances, the interests of public union workers and those of private union taxpayers are in direct conflict. Mr. Walker is the better friend of the union manufacturing worker in Oshkosh than is Mr. Trumka.

Notice, too, how fiercely the public unions are willing to fight for collective bargaining power even if it means public job layoffs. Without Mr. Walker’s budget reforms, Wisconsin will have to begin laying off thousands of workers as early as today. The unions would rather give up those jobs -typically for their younger members -than give up their political negotiating advantages. They know some future Governor or legislature will get those jobs back, as long as they retain their inordinate political clout.

This is the imbalance of political power that Mr. Walker is trying to break up. And he is right to do so

During the 2010 municipal election parking enforcement was an issue and a frequent topic of discussion. At least one Toronto Ward 29 candidate and Rocco Rossi suggested that parking enforcement was too aggressive and that people  should get a “5 minute” grace  period. Although, I  personally think this is ridiculous (why not a 10 minute grace period), it is clear  that the behaviour of the parking enforcement people  is extremely antagonistic. That said, they (as they frequently repeat) are “just  doing their job”.

What is the job description of of a Toronto parking ticket officer? Well, I  assume their job is to ticket cars  that  are illegally parked  But, it presumably means more than just ticketing cars. Surely,  it means that they are required  to look  for cars that are illegally parked. Is there a difference between “actively seeking cars that are illegally parked” and sitting around waiting for    cars to park illegally?

On Sunday January 30, 2011 I was  lawfully parked  on a Toronto  St. Parking is allowed on this particular street on Sundays until  6:00 p.m. I left a coffee shop at 5:55 p.m. to ensure that I had my car moved  by 6:00 p.m. As I walked  down the street at 5:58 p.m. I observed a parking enforcement officer in her car  parked beside my car,  doing nothing but waiting until  the clock  struck  6:00 p.m. As I approached my car, she exited her car and approached  my car  to write an expensive ticket. I reached the car before she did, and told her that it was not 6:00  p.m. She quickly retreated. As she was retreating the clock struck  6:00 p.m.

It is obvious that this parking officer was:

- not doing what she was  paid  to do prior to 6:00 p.m. (she was sitting doing nothing, waiting for 6:00 p.m. to arriave, so that she could give give me a ticket, when she should  have  been out writing tickets for  cars  that  were actually illegally parked);
- approaching my car to write  a ticket prior  to 6:00 p.m.

Looks like  at least  some  Toronto parking ticket officers  are  simply waiting for  someone to  park illegally, rather than ticket those  who  are illegally parked.

Hard  to  respect  parking ticket officers  if  that is how  they behave.

Ten minutes  later  I  drove down the same street and  saw that Toronto  Parking Enforcement officer  illegally parked on the side  of the road, being paid  and  doing nothing.

I guess this  is just one more  example of the “Gravy Train!”

Let’s compare the violations in Toronto to the St. Louis Parking Violations.

When it comes to |Toronto parking officers, sometimes they are:

- waiting to be found; and

- nowhere to be found – Toronto parking police park illegally.

(By the way,  here is how to complain about your parking tickets.)

Posted in: City Hall, Posted Toronto, Traffic & Weather Tags: By-laws, Parking