News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
adma said:
On balance, I can't see fatal backward slippage; and if there *seems* to be, it's all a Ford-bluster smokescreen...
Click to expand...

If you cannot see that we are slipping backwards you need to pay closer attention!
rolleyes.gif
 
Peepers said:
If you cannot see that we are slipping backwards you need to pay closer attention!
rolleyes.gif
Click to expand...

I'm talking about "tolerance". And again, it isn't so much a matter of slipping backwards, as one of moving too far forward for some people to (presently) handle. It's natural for that to happen--not everyone "tolerantizes" at the same pace.
 
k10ery said:
You're making a valid point, but I think you're exaggerating its importance. The correlation between Ford's 2010 vote and neighbourhood household income does not just hold at the Ward level, it's also true at the Census tract level. Census tracts are small and pretty homogeneous. If Ford got his votes from low-income tracts, then he almost certainly got his votes from low-income people.

We also have individual evidence from opinion polls. Ford's approval rating is highest among people with household income under $20,000.

It's also a pretty convincing hypothesis. Ford is a populist; he LOOKS like a working class striver, even if he's not; and like many populists he says he can make government cheaper, which must sound pretty good if you're poor. And, as somebody else said, he's not gay. Given all that, why wouldn't we expect the poor to vote for him?

Tough news for all you Marxist-Leninists who voted for Miller, but there it is!
Click to expand...

If anyone is exaggerating, it is Preville, which is why I'm in the right to call BS. Let's take a look at his thesis:

This [suburban vs urban] narrative doesn’t tell a true story about Toronto. There is a deep divide in the city, but it’s a class-based conflict between haves and have-nots—or, more precisely, between neighbourhoods with improving prospects and neighbourhoods on the decline. And Ford Nation hails largely from the latter.
Click to expand...

So he is explicitly rejecting the idea that Ford support hinges on urban vs. suburban lifestyle, and arguing instead that it's a matter of class and race. Even if we accept that there are no significant differences between CT and individual-level data, that data still shows a much stronger effect of driving a car and living in old Toronto vs. the inner suburbs than it does for median income (I assume you're talking about the Taylor study referenced in the Preville article). Yes, income is significant. It's part of the picture, but not the full picture. It certainly doesn't justify jumping to the conclusion that Ford Nation represents the great unwashed masses. What would happen to income if we controlled for being a senior citizen (who I suspect are more likely to support Ford)? Or if we broke it into income cohort. That opinion poll you mention also shows that Ford's support is much higher among people who make over $250,000. Even if income matters, we're a long way from determining how and why it matters.

Another thing that Peville claims is that visible minorities are more likely to support Ford. He even backs up his claim with an implicit suggestion that we should see Anthony Smith (Ford's now murdered crack dealer) as evidence of Ford's appeal in the minority community (a claim that's not only ridiculous in terms of its logic, but also leaves this racist aftertaste of a white person lumping all minorities into the same group with a dark-skinned crack dealer). I haven't seen any CT-level analysis on race and Ford support. And that opinion poll shows that people of non-European ethnicity are less likely than the average Torontonian to support Ford.

Finally, back to the census tract data. Ford got about 50% of the vote, with 50% of the turnout. Meaning on average, only 25% of eligible voters (a smaller group than would be captured by the census because of non-citizens and other ineligible voters). Even in the ridings Ford won by a landslide, the number of voters was probably still less than half the adult population. And when you think of the average suburban block (detached houses in the center, high-rise apartments at the intersections in the corners), there's still a lot of possibility that Ford voters are not representative of the area in which they live.

Anyway, this article is just another example of non-Ford supporters coming up with simplistic, stereotyped, reified conceptions of Ford Nation (in this case as the great unwashed masses, the have-nots driven by bitterness and resentment). I don't mean to claim that raising inequality is not a problem. It is. But let's deal with it in a more serious way, and not see the actual have-nots in the city through the lens of Rob Ford.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. The median income in the 905 is higher than the 416 (a lot higher in some cases), but I suspect Ford would have won those areas too if they were able to vote in Toronto's 2010 mayoral election.
 
Last edited:
Warren Kinsella sums it up nicely:
THIS FORD NATION VILLAGE HAS PLENTY OF IDIOTS
It amazes me – amazes me – that the paid-up citizens of Ford Nation thought they were doing their heroes a favour by bringing Press Council complaints against media organizations who did extraordinary investigative work about the drug-related enthusiasms of DoFo and RoFo.
All that these addled, knuckle-dragging fools have done is given the Star and Globe privileged opportunities to testify, in brutal detail, how (a) Rob Ford was in a video smoking crack and how (b) Doug Ford was a drug dealer in Etobicoke. Which said media are doing, right now, without making use of the word “alleged.”
You know that old adage about “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it?”
It’s true.
 
Silence&Motion said:
So he is explicitly rejecting the idea that Ford support hinges on urban vs. suburban lifestyle, and arguing instead that it's a matter of class and race. Even if we accept that there are no significant differences between CT and individual-level data, that data still shows a much stronger effect of driving a car and living in old Toronto vs. the inner suburbs than it does for median income (I assume you're talking about the Taylor study referenced in the Preville article). Yes, income is significant. It's part of the picture, but not the full picture. It certainly doesn't justify jumping to the conclusion that Ford Nation represents the great unwashed masses. What would happen to income if we controlled for being a senior citizen (who I suspect are more likely to support Ford)? Or if we broke it into income cohort. That opinion poll you mention also shows that Ford's support is much higher among people who make over $250,000. Even if income matters, we're a long way from determining how and why it matters.

Another thing that Peville claims is that visible minorities are more likely to support Ford. He even backs up his claim with an implicit suggestion that we should see Anthony Smith (Ford's now murdered crack dealer) as evidence of Ford's appeal in the minority community (a claim that's not only ridiculous in terms of its logic, but also leaves this racist aftertaste of a white person lumping all minorities into the same group with a dark-skinned crack dealer). I haven't seen any CT-level analysis on race and Ford support. And that opinion poll shows that people of non-European ethnicity are less likely than the average Torontonian to support Ford.

Finally, back to the census tract data. Ford got about 50% of the vote, with 50% of the turnout. Meaning on average, only 25% of eligible voters (a smaller group than would be captured by the census because of non-citizens and other ineligible voters). Even in the ridings Ford won by a landslide, the number of voters was probably still less than half the adult population. And when you think of the average suburban block (detached houses in the center, high-rise apartments at the intersections in the corners), there's still a lot of possibility that Ford voters are not representative of the area in which they live.

Anyway, this article is just another example of non-Ford supporters coming up with simplistic, stereotyped, reified conceptions of Ford Nation (in this case as the great unwashed masses, the have-nots driven by bitterness and resentment). I don't mean to claim that raising inequality is not a problem. It is. But let's deal with it in a more serious way, and not see the actual have-nots in the city through the lens of Rob Ford.
Click to expand...

Good arguments. And you didn't even get mad when I called you a Marxist-Leninist (though frankly that's a bit disappointing :)

I agree that the Taylor analysis is not definitive about what characteristics of people best explain voting for Ford. And it's odd that he did not look at race, ethnicity or immigrant status. But the class-vs-race debate is not that important to me, given they are so correlated in Toronto.

Though you're raising important caveats, I don't think you can overturn the idea that the working class support Ford. All the available evidence says low-income people support him disproportionately. (People over $250,000 are about 1% of the population, they don't matter to vote totals.) And we have a persuasive theory about why they are supporting him.

Let's not forget the context of the 2010 election, following the garbage strike. We are in a position where the average City worker earns considerably more than the average family pre-tax income in Toronto. And that's before pensions and bankable sick days. And these salaries are supported by the local property tax, which is a regressive tax that places a higher burden on poor families than rich ones.

So it makes perfect sense to me that Ford's anti-union message resonated most with people of below-average income. Yes, those people tend to live in the inner suburbs, not so much downtown, but I think they would were hearing Ford's rhetoric loud and clear, even if they were taking the bus to work every day. Inequality does matter in Toronto, probably as much or more than geography IMO.
 
Interesting - the Star has scanned the entire OPC Document submitted for the hearing and it's on Scribd.

It's especially interesting to read the complainant's initial complaint, as well as the followup. The amazing thing is how she praises the Star's journalistic efforts with the Liberal Gas Plants and ORNGE... but in the same breath decries those efforts, when directed at Ford, as complete fabrications. She also claims that she didn't want to follow through with the complaint if it meant she had to appear at the hearing, or if it meant the Star could sue her.

Um - better not go stirring up the hornet's nest if you don't want to get stung! From what I heard she actually showed up today but didn't want to speak, but then asked some rather bizarre questions.
 
There is also the Toronto Star's investigative exposé on MarineLand and its allegations of animal abuse as well. It was very informative. It generated 80,000 signatures to oppose animal cruelty in MarineLand (yes, I signed that petition) that was sent to Queen's Park. Unfortunately, it did not prevent said theme park's super annoying and super outdated commercials from being taken off the air completely. Remember, little steps go a long way.

Everyone loathes MarineLand.
 
guitarchitect said:
Interesting - the Star has scanned the entire OPC Document submitted for the hearing and it's on Scribd.

It's especially interesting to read the complainant's initial complaint, as well as the followup. The amazing thing is how she praises the Star's journalistic efforts with the Liberal Gas Plants and ORNGE... but in the same breath decries those efforts, when directed at Ford, as complete fabrications. She also claims that she didn't want to follow through with the complaint if it meant she had to appear at the hearing, or if it meant the Star could sue her.

Um - better not go stirring up the hornet's nest if you don't want to get stung! From what I heard she actually showed up today but didn't want to speak, but then asked some rather bizarre questions.
Click to expand...

I am surprised that the OPC would convene a hearing in a case like this when the complainant does not want to testify in person. The Star and G&M are being accused of wrongdoing. Shouldn't they be able to question the accuser? Of course this is sham hearing anyway. But for the fact the Star and G&M are members of the OPC they could have ignored this complaint. The Toronto SUN and SUN Media are not members of OPC as they believe it does not serve a useful purpose and I agree. We have defamation laws to deal with libel. If the allegations against the Star and G&M have merit let the Ford's sue the papers.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Au said:
There is also the Toronto Star's investigative exposé on MarineLand and its allegations of animal abuse as well. It was very informative. It generated 80,000 signatures to oppose animal cruelty in MarineLand (yes, I signed that petition) that was sent to Queen's Park. Unfortunately, it did not prevent said theme park's super annoying and super outdated commercials from being taken off the air completely. Remember, little steps go a long way.

Everyone loathes MarineLand.
Click to expand...

That place makes me sick. Nothing would make me happier than seeing it closed with the owner dragged to prison for a very long time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top