LARRY'S CORNER- Hamilton's Former Mayor Speaks

Post Election Analysis

By Larry Di Ianni
(posted October 22, 2008)

Unlike the Mayoralty election which I was strongly favoured to win, and would have if I had run half the campaign I ran this time, I was considered a long-shot in this Federal run. It makes it easier to explain your loss when that occurs. I was running against an incumbent who had been busy doing constituency work, and I was running against an NPD machine that always concentrates on keeping what it has while making incidental gains where it can.

But I had a shot at winning! Why? For the following reasons: Firstly, my opponent is not considered a bright Federal light. He has made a virtue out of not being a shining star and even put out a video extolling his mediocrity. Secondly, the Conservative candidate is a dud. He ran in 2006, but didn’t use his time well to bone up on local issues. He lost every debate and lost even supporters whenever he opened his mouth. The most embarrassing moment came at the Stoney Creek Chamber/News debate when he was asked about ‘equalization’ payments and answered that he would ensure that transportation issues would be addressed. The Chamber questioner sat there expressionless at the cluelessness of the answer, as did his incredulous supporters who cringed at the Palin-like responses.
I, on the other hand, had name recognition. I knew the issues and could debate with the best of them. I also had a jump start on the campaign, having started to door-knock in February and actually did knock on more than 10,000 doors before and after the writ was dropped.

And yet, I lost by more than 6,000 votes! How and why did that happen?

Here is a quick analysis of the big picture, and it doesn’t account for the very nasty, dirty campaign that the other parties ran against me: The NDP kept its base of support from the 2006 election surpassing its vote total by a few hundred votes. That was good enough to win. The Conservatives actually lost a few thousand votes since the 2006 election, at a time when the national polls were trending upwards. This reflects the weakness of the local candidate. I actually polled nearly 28% of the vote, almost two points higher than the national average for the Liberal party, yet we got 6,000 votes fewer than the 2006 election. These were clearly not anti-Di Ianni votes. Had they been, the voters would have gone out to vote against me and for one of the other candidates. Rather, these were Liberal voters who were disenchanted, un-inspired and chose to stay home and not vote rather than to vote against their party. This was the difference.

I sensed this reaction at the doors. I ran essentially two campaigns. One was pre-writ and the other was post-writ. During the pre-writ campaign, concentrating mostly in the Hamilton East portion of the riding, I was on my own as a Liberal candidate. No election had been called and I was presenting myself as the candidate for the party. I was warmly received by most of the residents. We amassed a total of 1500 sign locations in an NDP strong-hold and I was sailing, I thought. Then the writ was dropped.
This is when I had to shoulder M. Dion’s unpopularity and the confusion over the Green Shift which became a magnet for negative advertising.

“We like you, Larry, but not your leader,” became a recurring refrain. “Vote locally; vote Larry” I responded hoping that people would do just that. “We don’t need another tax even on carbon” was also an often-repeated statement. “Well let me explain it to you” I would dutifully say and take questioners through the reality of the policy ending with a nice big tax reduction as the final selling point. The irony is that people believed the extra tax on carbon but didn’t believe that there would ever or could ever be a tax reduction. “Governments just don’t do that” was a prevailing attitude.

From these responses I knew we were in for a tough, tough fight. But fight we did. We had an energized, clean, well-funded campaign. We had over 5000 sign locations even though some signs were taken down as quickly as we put them up, we won the sign war. We got more favourable press than any of the other candidates, and we had a winning agenda for the environment, the economy and people’s wallets in spite of the confusion of trying to explain it. And we had stark differences, and therefore choice for voters, among the candidates: a labour work horse, a no-name Conservative, inarticulate dud, and a former educator, Councillor and Mayor who understood the issues. We also had several other contenders: an articulate Green party candidate, a former Progressive Conservative who disliked Mr. Harper and an anti-Children’s Aid, anti-Courts child advocate to bring in the zany element to the election.

The result across Hamilton and Canada-wide is as we know it. An increased minority for the Conservatives, an increase for the Bloc and NDP, and a crushing defeat for the Liberals. This is how people have spoken. This Parliament has been built by Canadians and it should be respected. The Prime Minister is making conciliatory sounds, the Liberals are into another leadership contest, the NDP have saved their jobs and will be telling everyone how they are the only ones standing up for ‘ordinary families’ but won’t be able to produce one tangible deliverable for them; and Hamilton might be shut out of Cabinet again. The only saving grace is that our community did elect nearly two government representatives. I say ‘nearly’ two because Niagara West Glanbrook is only partially in our municipality. However, Mr. Dean Allison and Mr. David Sweet are decent individuals who will serve us well. I hope one of them, especially David Sweet, is named to cabinet. Hamilton’s voice should not be muted within the chambers of power. And the way our system works, back-benchers have little influence. Cabinet has a lot. And the Prime Minister (especially this P.M.) has the most. For the sake of our community and our country, I hope the government does well. I have my suspicions, but time will tell.

BACK TO LARRY'S CORNER

HOME