King of Kensington
Senior Member
That is true nationally, but in the City of Toronto itself that's probably not the case.
|
|
|
- Thread starter SJD_Toronto
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
One observation on this election. I would hope right wing politicians stop criticising immigrants after this. Seems like their brand and resonates more in immigrant rich areas than in more urbane areas.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Why? Toronto is the biggest immigrant magnet in this country. I find it hard to believe that Toronto would somehow be exceptional in attracting the least educated immigrants. Is there evidence for this?
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Not so much that (although it's true that in the 416 area code immigrants are poorer and less educated than in 905, and in other metros), but that less educated native born Canadians are greatly underrepresented in Toronto, and the highly educated are over-represented).
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
nice job greg. what do you think about tory's team?
King of Kensington
Senior Member
2011 NHS, City of Toronto, 25 and older:
Non-immigrants: 42.9% have a university degree
Immigrants: 31.4% have a university degree
I also checked immigrants for Canada as a whole, and it was basically the same proportion (31%). But that exceeds the national average. The reason for the lower proportion for native born Canadians compared to immigrants is they're much more likely to live in places that have lower educational attainments. 23% of all Canadians 25 and older have university degrees.
Non-immigrants: 42.9% have a university degree
Immigrants: 31.4% have a university degree
I also checked immigrants for Canada as a whole, and it was basically the same proportion (31%). But that exceeds the national average. The reason for the lower proportion for native born Canadians compared to immigrants is they're much more likely to live in places that have lower educational attainments. 23% of all Canadians 25 and older have university degrees.
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
If it's not education, then perhaps it's a correlation between sheer willful ignorance and Ford support.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
What bothers me about this kind of talk is that it's just as bad as some of the crap from Ford nation.
Now I don't like the Fords. But people voted for them in droves. In two elections. It behooves us to find out why. And attacking them and writing them off is counterproductive in my most humble opinion.
In this election, people who wanted a right leaning candidate had a choice. They still chose Ford. I'd love to know why.
Surely it's more than the anti-establishment vote.
Forgotten
Active Member
Not so fast.
The only question is which discredited polling firm do you run?
salsa
Senior Member
You have a point.
rbt
Senior Member
Much more interesting would be to compare children of immigrants (1st generation Canadians) against more established Canadian (3rd/4th/+ generations) families.
Immigrants themselves may not have degrees, but I'd be willing to bet in most cases their children have a higher than average education for Canadians.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
In Canada as a whole, 2nd generation Canadians may be the most educated group of all, but not necessarily in Toronto. As I pointed out, immigrants in Canada are more likely to have degrees than the Canadian-born, but not in Toronto. The percentage of immigrants with degrees in Toronto is pretty much identical to immigrants in Canada as a whole, but the Canadian born in Toronto are about twice as likely to have degrees as the Canadian born nationwide.
Let's put it this way: well-off professionals are much more likely to stay in Toronto, or to migrate here from other parts of the country, while less educated working class "anglos" are more likely to flee to places like Barrie where housing is cheaper, fewer immigrants etc.
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
Well imagine 16 candidates plastering their signs and campaign literature on every public space and every house, non-stop door knocking by most candidates, the typical experience being while canvassing running into other canvassers for other campaigns and so forth.
Stintz said she wouldn't endorse anyone but ended up endorsing Carmichael. The general reaction to this however was that the Stintz' endorsement hurt Carmichael because Stintz is hated in this ward.
What ended up winning Carmichael the election however was the Tory endorsement. This area is a massively pro-Tory area and many voters piggy-backed the Tory-endorsed candidate, enough to win a plurality. That being said, quite amazing that despite the endorsements, all the support from the establishment and from developers, and riding the Tory-wave, Carmichael still could only achieve a 17% plurality. Crazy.
It's pretty much assumed that Carmichael is going to be a horrible representative for the ward, a backbencher at council, launch yet another family dynasty and a pawn for developers to get their way in the ward. So basically a worse Stintz. Any of the other 3 leading candidates (Taner, Boutros and Youseffi) would've been much much better.
Greg Banks
Active Member
Sure did cast a wide net, didn't he? Can't accuse him of myopic vision at least with the transition team and council...I would think the feelers are already out and preliminary decisions already made for a Deputy Mayor, the Strike Committee composition and the Speakers...
