SlickFranky
Active Member
Wow! Rob Ford, new mayor of Etobicoke! Do we have to fully de-amalgamate, or can we make some sort of trade with Mississauga? We could swap for their lake shore maybe?
|
|
|
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Wow! Rob Ford, new mayor of Etobicoke! Do we have to fully de-amalgamate, or can we make some sort of trade with Mississauga? We could swap for their lake shore maybe?
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Seems to me that gays and intellectuals don't care much for Ford.
adma
Superstar
And interesting how in north Etobicoke, the weakest polls for Ford were the upper Kipling tower-block corridor and, of all places, the most old-school white/exurban/artsy (of sorts) enclave remaining: SE Thistletown. (Likewise, when it comes to "white", the Kingsway is weaker than much of the rest of Etobicoke.)
archanfel
Active Member
Seems like the people of Toronto do not agree with the self-claimed elitists.
King of Kensington
Senior Member
Here are the results by former "borough" (I crunched the numbers and yes, sorted out the mixed wards into the old boroughs):
Toronto: Smitherman 51.5%, Ford 28.2%, Pantalone 16.5%
East York: Ford 43.1%, Smitherman 36.1%, Pantalone 14.5%
York: Ford 47.1%, Smitherman 30.2%, Pantalone 14.8%
North York: Ford 52.5%, Smitherman 30.0%, Pantalone 10.4%
Scarborough: Ford 57.0%, Smitherman 27.7%, Pantalone 8.0%*
Etobicoke: Ford 65.2%, Smitherman 24.2%, Pantalone 7.7%*
* These had already been calculated and I'm just taking what was done here:
http://blunt-objects.blogspot.com/2010/10/another-way-to-look-at-toronto-election.html
Toronto: Smitherman 51.5%, Ford 28.2%, Pantalone 16.5%
East York: Ford 43.1%, Smitherman 36.1%, Pantalone 14.5%
York: Ford 47.1%, Smitherman 30.2%, Pantalone 14.8%
North York: Ford 52.5%, Smitherman 30.0%, Pantalone 10.4%
Scarborough: Ford 57.0%, Smitherman 27.7%, Pantalone 8.0%*
Etobicoke: Ford 65.2%, Smitherman 24.2%, Pantalone 7.7%*
* These had already been calculated and I'm just taking what was done here:
http://blunt-objects.blogspot.com/2010/10/another-way-to-look-at-toronto-election.html
archanfel
Active Member
So I am guess you are for the 28.2% of the Toronto to form its own borough?
Sorry to be cynical, but where were these people who suddenly support breaking up Toronto when Miller was elected?
Last edited:
highlife
New Member
Urban Scrawl: Toronto not so divided after all
Special to the National Post October 30, 2010 – 8:00 am
Comment by Joshua Kertzer and Jonathan Naymark
Throughout the recent Toronto election, residents were presented with two clear options for mayor: front-runner and now Mayor-elect Rob Ford was portrayed as a puerile child who was unfit to be given keys to the cupboard, while George Smitherman became the champion of Toronto’s political and cultural establishment.
In the aftermath of the election, the media was all too happy to report that indeed Toronto was a divided city. Mr. Ford’s victory represented the insurgency of the angry suburban voter; Calgary had Naheed Nenshi, while Toronto was stuck with our own version of Joe the Plumber.
As the city released ward-by-ward electoral results, the narrative continued: A wide swath of suburban Ford blue surrounded a smaller island of Smitherman red, prompting cheeky bloggers to super-impose the old (pre-amalgamated) City of Toronto over the electoral map and shout: De-amalgamate. But if we take a closer look at the ward-by-ward voting patterns, the results are not as stark as they would otherwise appear.
Political scientists don’t like looking simply at aggregate data because it masks heterogeneity: for example, Texas is the reddest of the red states, but Austin is deeply blue.
Analyzing Toronto’s electoral data on a poll-by-poll basis removes some of the downtown versus suburban dichotomy that appears with a superficial look at the electoral numbers. Specifically, by setting aside some of the smaller polling stations that recorded fewer than 100 votes, and looking at the best-performing 10% of the polls for each candidate, a striking picture emerges: Ford fiefdoms are certainly concentrated in the suburbs, but his support is also scattered throughout the rest of the city.
In contrast, almost 60% of Smitherman strongholds are located in just two wards: Ward 27 and 28, exactly the area he previously served as an MPP.
The argument that a Ford win is a triumph of the suburbs ignores the almost 80,000 people who live in the “Downtown 13†and who voted for Mr. Ford. More than 20% of his total vote came from these 13 wards. In his weakest wards in downtown Toronto, Mr. Ford was never as weak as Mr. Smitherman was in Scarborough and Etobicoke.
While it is clear that downtowners did not take to Mr. Ford in the way they supported his chief rival, the conception that anyone who lives in the old city of Toronto rejected the victor’s message is untrue.
Importantly, however, this attempt to create a downtown versus suburb cleavage is at best a distraction, and at worst, sets a dangerous precedent. In an era when Toronto is facing so many significant issues — from endemic poverty to real questions about the city’s transit infrastructure — promulgating a culture war between the inner city and the suburbs is not what Toronto needs at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln would have noted: a megacity divided against itself cannot stand.
Furthering the downtown versus suburban division also misses a clear message from Mr. Ford’s victory: the majority of voters, regardless of location, was unhappy with David Miller’s municipal legacy.
Torontonians — both downtown and uptown — voted for change. By buttressing the narrative that the “downtown elite†did not vote for Mr. Ford, the message that Mr. Smitherman espoused risks further political alienation. The clear take-away for the so-called “progressive†vote is how to move their message north of Eglinton. No longer can these progressives rely on the paternalistic concept that they know what is right for all Torontonians (Mr. Smitherman was, after all, the candidate with a “plan.â€)
The election results do not portray a city that is divided, as we’ve been told. The reality is that a large majority of people from all over the city happily climbed aboard the Rob Ford Gravy Train; even if they’re prone to buying their gravy from Pusateri’s and not No Frills. The question that those of us who didn’t support Mr. Ford must ask is how to build a credible opposition that connects with both suburban and downtown voters?
The answer is neither succession nor suburb-hating, but finding a leader who can connect with all regions of the city; until then the “elites†and progressives are stuck at Union Station waiting for the next train to come.
National Post
* Joshua Kertzer is a transplanted Torontonian who is doing a PhD in political science in Columbus, Ohio, and Jonathan Naymark is a recent graduate of the Rotman School of Management and works in business development.
Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/30/urban-scrawl-toronto-not-so-divided-after-all/#ixzz13qPefwYZ
Special to the National Post October 30, 2010 – 8:00 am
Comment by Joshua Kertzer and Jonathan Naymark
Throughout the recent Toronto election, residents were presented with two clear options for mayor: front-runner and now Mayor-elect Rob Ford was portrayed as a puerile child who was unfit to be given keys to the cupboard, while George Smitherman became the champion of Toronto’s political and cultural establishment.
In the aftermath of the election, the media was all too happy to report that indeed Toronto was a divided city. Mr. Ford’s victory represented the insurgency of the angry suburban voter; Calgary had Naheed Nenshi, while Toronto was stuck with our own version of Joe the Plumber.
As the city released ward-by-ward electoral results, the narrative continued: A wide swath of suburban Ford blue surrounded a smaller island of Smitherman red, prompting cheeky bloggers to super-impose the old (pre-amalgamated) City of Toronto over the electoral map and shout: De-amalgamate. But if we take a closer look at the ward-by-ward voting patterns, the results are not as stark as they would otherwise appear.
Political scientists don’t like looking simply at aggregate data because it masks heterogeneity: for example, Texas is the reddest of the red states, but Austin is deeply blue.
Analyzing Toronto’s electoral data on a poll-by-poll basis removes some of the downtown versus suburban dichotomy that appears with a superficial look at the electoral numbers. Specifically, by setting aside some of the smaller polling stations that recorded fewer than 100 votes, and looking at the best-performing 10% of the polls for each candidate, a striking picture emerges: Ford fiefdoms are certainly concentrated in the suburbs, but his support is also scattered throughout the rest of the city.
In contrast, almost 60% of Smitherman strongholds are located in just two wards: Ward 27 and 28, exactly the area he previously served as an MPP.
The argument that a Ford win is a triumph of the suburbs ignores the almost 80,000 people who live in the “Downtown 13†and who voted for Mr. Ford. More than 20% of his total vote came from these 13 wards. In his weakest wards in downtown Toronto, Mr. Ford was never as weak as Mr. Smitherman was in Scarborough and Etobicoke.
While it is clear that downtowners did not take to Mr. Ford in the way they supported his chief rival, the conception that anyone who lives in the old city of Toronto rejected the victor’s message is untrue.
Importantly, however, this attempt to create a downtown versus suburb cleavage is at best a distraction, and at worst, sets a dangerous precedent. In an era when Toronto is facing so many significant issues — from endemic poverty to real questions about the city’s transit infrastructure — promulgating a culture war between the inner city and the suburbs is not what Toronto needs at the moment. As Abraham Lincoln would have noted: a megacity divided against itself cannot stand.
Furthering the downtown versus suburban division also misses a clear message from Mr. Ford’s victory: the majority of voters, regardless of location, was unhappy with David Miller’s municipal legacy.
Torontonians — both downtown and uptown — voted for change. By buttressing the narrative that the “downtown elite†did not vote for Mr. Ford, the message that Mr. Smitherman espoused risks further political alienation. The clear take-away for the so-called “progressive†vote is how to move their message north of Eglinton. No longer can these progressives rely on the paternalistic concept that they know what is right for all Torontonians (Mr. Smitherman was, after all, the candidate with a “plan.â€)
The election results do not portray a city that is divided, as we’ve been told. The reality is that a large majority of people from all over the city happily climbed aboard the Rob Ford Gravy Train; even if they’re prone to buying their gravy from Pusateri’s and not No Frills. The question that those of us who didn’t support Mr. Ford must ask is how to build a credible opposition that connects with both suburban and downtown voters?
The answer is neither succession nor suburb-hating, but finding a leader who can connect with all regions of the city; until then the “elites†and progressives are stuck at Union Station waiting for the next train to come.
National Post
* Joshua Kertzer is a transplanted Torontonian who is doing a PhD in political science in Columbus, Ohio, and Jonathan Naymark is a recent graduate of the Rotman School of Management and works in business development.
Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/10/30/urban-scrawl-toronto-not-so-divided-after-all/#ixzz13qPefwYZ
King of Kensington
Senior Member
So I am guess you are for the 28.2% of the Toronto to form its own borough?
Sorry to be cynical, but where were these people who suddenly support breaking up Toronto when Miller was elected?
I was supporting de-amalgamtion at the time. But urbantoronto didn't exist in 2003 as far as I know.
Glen
Senior Member
Is your monitor crooked?
Just where do you see that Toronto had ever matched its 1989 employment peak? It also curious how you recognize that growth in York Region is responsible for increases in employment, but ignore growth in Toronto. It must be a mystery to you why Toronto had an unemployment rate of 3.73% in 1988 while in 2009 it was 10%.
Attachments
nfitz
Superstar
I've heard that my councillor is crooked, and that that the mayor-elect was crooked. I wasn't even aware that we had monitors in the wards.
That's what I saw in an September 2010 city report I grabbed. This file from the city shows the same: http://www.toronto.ca/invest-in-toronto/xls/historical_overview.xls
What's the source of your data?
Holy cherry picking! You compared the peak period of employment to just below the downtown in 1990, to the worst year of the current recession! By the time the 1990 recession hit in full unemployment in Toronto was 10.45% in 1991, and it then increased to 12.68% in 1993.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Is that the solution when you don't get the result you want?
Glen
Senior Member
I have that spreadsheet. I think the confusion lies in what is being measured. The Graph I showed is from the 2009 Toronto employment survey. It counts the number of jobs located in the city. The Invest Toronto historical data uses Stats Can employment figures. Compare between the two. In 2008 Invest Toronto shows 1,357,540 of Toronto residents were employed. The TES shows that in 2008 there were 1,310,00 employment positions in Toronto.
One is counting the number of jobs, while the other is counting the number of jobs in Toronto.
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
It's always been the solution. Toronto has consistently been against amalgamation since day one.
Red Mosquito
New Member
As GraphicMatt said. I was never for it, and that map is the proof we need. The pre-war city was developed differently that the post-war city. We have two different lifestyles and two different ways of viewing the city. Thats not to say that Im right and the suburbanites are wrong. Its just that we want different things. And I grew up in Mississauga, so I know all about the wants and needs of our suburban friends and families.
nfitz
Superstar
What does the 2009 TES show for the number of jobs in 1988 and 1989?