Home | About | Donate

'Catastrophe' for Poor and Vulnerable as Trumpian Climate-Denier Doug Ford Wins Ontario Election


'Catastrophe' for Poor and Vulnerable as Trumpian Climate-Denier Doug Ford Wins Ontario Election

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In a "disastrous" outcome for Ontario's poor and vulnerable, Doug Ford—the Trumpian, climate-denying brother of late Toronto mayor and self-avowed racist Rob Ford—will become the premier of Canada's most populous province after his Progressive Conservative Party emerged victorious in Thursday's closely-watched election.


His victory signals either of two premises: 1. The people of Ontario are fervent climate deniers, racists, and conservative twits, or…2. Those who are not did not get out and vote. Either scenario is dismal.


And don’t forget. In this election, Ontarians did have a very viable, well organized and experienced, left-of-the (scandal-scarred) liberals, working class alternative - the NDP led by Andrea Horwath from Hamilton - Ontario’s steel-mill rust-belt. But in spite of a late resurgence - and the total collapse of the Liberals to the point that incumbent Premier Wynne actually conceded the election before election day, the NDP still lost dismally to the right wing extremist.

This does not portend well to the success of any left alternatives in elections down here.

The US left need to wake up as to how right-wing the US voters are - until we change that - and it will probably have to be a generational change, we can’t expect much success on the electoral front.


If you look at the electoral result map by riding (district) you will see that the City/suburb-rural divide was absolutely stark - the only exception being the riding encompassing the indigenous-majority far north.

This election really just reflects the shift of population in populous Southern Ontario from urban to suburban areas. It is very similar to the USA in this regard.


How the FUCK are scum bags like this “winning” elections over “people candidates”?! Is it because of “rigging” or stoopid fucking people?! OR BOTH?!

PLUS: How could ANYONE vote for a Rush Limpballs look-alike???!!!


You want more dismal: RIGGED ELECTION?


It is frightening that so many people are willing and able to vote for right-wing neo-liberal reactionaries in the US and Canada. I actually expected better from Canada but I guess ignorance is everywhere. The identity politics of the left/progressives has probably pushed a lot of people into a nationalistic, we’re all one people mode but unfortunately the “one” people is usually white and not poor. When the middle or upper class no longer see a relationship of caring and unity with the poor - we are in real trouble. This has probably always been but it seems to have gotten worse. There are divides everywhere and this horrible attitude of I don’t care what happens to the “other”. Obviously that attitude allowed the terrible death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan and for that matter, Vietnam - but the people seemed really only concerned with their “own.”


What about the election in Mexico Yunzer? A leftist of sorts might win, and they too border our country. What if he does win? What would that have to do with politics here? I would imagine, with Corbyn possibly set to head the government in the UK, that could have a lot of relevance on the other side for us here? Or, is each country different, with different challenges, demographics, systems and structural issues needing to be addressed, and it is tough to say for sure? What about DSA members actually getting elected in places like Virginia. You have, in the past, argued that there needs to be ideological diversity, and that the DSA won’t necessarily be able to win everywhere like they did in Virginia. So, in instances like that, we cannot draw any conclusions nationally, but we can with a local election in Canada. While there was a push to expand Medicare in Canada, they have Medicare. We don’t. And you have in the past argued, incorrectly, that Canadian wages haven’t stagnated. Well, let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that was the case (which it isn’t, but it is your argument). Wouldn’t a country with solid wage growth, and Medicare, vote differently than a country with a nightmare healthcare system and country like ours where wages for most haven’t grown since Reagan was first elected? Wouldn’t a country with stronger unions, which you have pointed out, vote differently than a country with very weak, and corrupt, unions? And there are many other differences we could point out as well.


Ford pulled the same stunt that Trump did in the USA. He spoke to “wealth inequality” claiming that it the Liberals that were the cause of it. He regularly attacked the Elites of the province feeding on the frustrations the peoples had with the Liberals and their close links to the Corporate bosses.

2014 elections Liberals 37 percent. Conservatives 35 percent NDP 22 percent.

2018 elections Liberals 20 percent Conservatives 41 percent NDP 33 percent.

What can b e gleaned here? The Liberals plummtted in support and they were the Party in power. This was a 17 percent drop overall with the voters turning to the Conservatives (6 percent) or the NDP (11 percent). I see this as a vote AGAINST the Liberals more than anything with some numbers suckered in by Fords promises of “Making Governmnet more efficient” and “Making Ontario work for the working class and not just its elites”

The reality is the Ontario voter is NOT moving to the right. The NDP saw the greatest gain in support.


Yes, I hope AMLO wins - in spite of an almost certain prospect of vote-counting corruption. But:

  1. I am focusing on Canada because, culturally and in terms of economic development and its history of very weak democratic institutions, Mexico is an entirely different country compared to Canada and the US.

  2. AMLO is popular primarily because Mexicans are fed up with the absolutely off-the scale levels of corruption and murderous violence of the existing government. How left he will rule - if he can avoid the almost certain vote rigging, waits to be seen.

  3. Mexico is a presidential election - not a parliamentary election. Canadians don’t vote for their PM or Priemier - they are just the leaders of the party. They only vote for the MP of MPP of their individual riding (district) so there were 124 separate elections with a Liberal, “Progressive Conservative” NDP and Green running in every one of them. In 76 of them, they picked the conservative.

My purpose in pointing this election out is to debunk this “theory” among commenters here that a majority of average USAn (and it seems Canadian) voters, are secret leftists and they only voted for Trump and other right-wing politicians out of frustration in not having a genuine leftist choice to vote for. Well, that theory got tested yesterday, there was a genuine progressive left candidate, plus a Green, on the ballot in every single riding. They still picked the loud-mouthed right-winger.


You do not understand how vote splitting works in a first past the post system. In a system where there three mainstream parties and two are deemd to “the left” of the thrid , those two parties will always split the vote. At the Federal level this kept the PC party out of power as long as there was a Reform party (Both deemed right wing) which eventually saw them merge thus giving us Stephen Harper.

The majority of the electorate did not vote Ford and while I am not going to look riding by riding , I doubt they won more then a handful of the MAJORITY (50 Plus percent) of votes in any single one. In Europe and other Countries they try to address this issue with some form of proportional representation but this has problems all of its own. As example under such a system a party that runs solely on a platform of Racism can win a percentage of votes and thus get seats in an election.

Now Justin Trudeau had promised in his last election campaign that if voted to power the Liberals would look at adopting some sort of PR system , but as soon as he gained a majority these plans shelved. Here in BC we have had a couple of referendums and this and they look at the possibility of another . The ones they propose will try and address the inadequacies of First past the post while ensuring fringe groups do not get represented (They speak to a system of “weighted voting” where you pick ALL candidates but rank them instead of a single X)


I get what you are saying, to an extent, but most people here don’t argue that people are voting or will vote based on ideology. As I have said to you before, lots of people that identify ideologically as conservative and moderate support policies on the left. They don’t do so because of ideology, they in fact often do so in spite of their stated ideology in many instances. That doesn’t mean that they are closet socialists, that simply means they are pragmatic and are willing to ditch ideology when it clearly clashes with their own best interests. They simply perceive a policy to be in their interest. With me, ideology plays a part in how I think of things, but so does what I perceive to be in my own interest, and I am not in a position to vote on ideology alone. Bill Maher is if he wants to, I am not, and neither are most here. Another issue is voter turnout. Because the public does agree with the left on policy, on almost every major issue now, if those policies aren’t offered, we can logically expect turnout to be low. Even if a non-leftist wins in that context, what can really be said about that person entering office with support from 10% of the voting age population? What people here largely say is that a sure fire way to guarantee low turnout is to have one election after another where one candidate is far right wing, the other center-right, and none of the things people want being offered. Also, as many have said, it doesn’t make sense to ignore how those in the Democratic Party work just as hard to fight the left as the right wing does, which is clearly the case. They play a role in making sure the left’s ideas are not on the ballot, and they often succeed. And if you have an issue with a particular poster, respond to that post, but don’t say that person’s particular viewpoint represents “the left” broadly, especially when that isn’t the case and especially when the left is not really making the argument you are saying it is. The left is diverse, and is really focused in on economic class. That is a bad word among those in power, class, cause they aren’t in the same class as everyone else, and neither are their donors, and no policy impacts people in radically different economic classes the same.

What the left is going to struggle with more than anything is getting people to take part in this rigged system, having faith in the system, or most any other politician. Because this system and these two parties are filled with liars, serial liars, because the system is so corrupt and because people can see how impervious to change those in charge of the system are, getting them to bother to even vote is a challenge. It is more of a challenge in our system than most others because of how bad things are here relative to other developed countries. Sanders is the most popular and trusted politician, but we can see what he has done going back decades. There aren’t many people like that in our system, which helps to explain his popularity, and the unpopularity of other politicians and the system on the whole.


I don’t think that “wealth inequality” was on the minds of Ford-PC voters. My brother reported rich Toronto neighborhoods, and all the small shops and restaurants (who hate the Liberal’s minimum-wage hike) were full of blue signs, while the poorer neighborhoods (mostly migrant) all had orange, and a smattering of red, signs.

And “wealth inequality” was absolutely NOT on the minds of any Trump voters. Trump voters adore wealthy people since they believe that wealthy people give them “jobs-jobs-jobs” - plus they all dream of being rich with their heel on the throat of some “loser” someday too!


This just to look at some very real differnences in Ontario and elections in the USA.

If you look at past US elections the Republicans tend to get more of the Rural vote and the vote in the more sparsely settled States. The Demcorats tend to have more strength inside the larger major Cities.

If you look at the map of Ontario the NDP and or the Liberals won most of the voting districts outside the “Golden Triangle”. It the flip of what happens in the USA. the core of the Conservative support comes from the Core of the “golden triangle” where the bulk of the population lives and works. I took a look at a handful of the ridings in this area and of the limited samples takne found this.

In the Ridings I looked at , the CONSERVATIVE margin of victory in ridings they won tended to be lower then the Majority of Victory that the NDP had in their own ridings. In fact of the ones looked at the Conservatives did not get 50+ percent of the vote in any riding (some exist I am sure , I just did not look at every one) while the NDP won 50+ percent every riding they ended up winning.


Wealth inequality was one of the major issues in polls leading up to the elections and Ford spent a lot of time claiming he would address this.

The PC’s alsways have their core of supporters that will vote for them no matter the issues just as there a core in the USA that will votre Republican not matter what. I am not talking to that group. I am talking about the people that did NOT vote Liberal this election and did in the past and where those voters went to. The Liberals lost 17 percent support. 6 percent of these went PC and 11 percent went NDP. The 6 percent to the Conservatives went there NOT because they agreed with that core of PC supporters on policy.


Goodness. I had no idea that Ontarioans (?) were so much like MAGA dolts in the U.S., or at least that there were so many of them there (I know they exist everywhere, but naïve me thought the US had a monopoly on them).

Sad to see our neighbor to the north becoming more and more like its moronic southern bully. Apparently close proximity does have impacts (although I always hoped it would be the other way around).


Far-right candidates and parties are exploding in popularity all over Europe as well. This rise in fascist, authoritarian, nationalist ideals has many causes, but it saddens me that the younger generations seem to be embracing this hateful ideology and repeating the mistakes of history, while discarding common decency, kindness, democracy, and other tenets that so many people over the last centuries fought and died to attain. History does repeat itself.


And yet, as with Trump, it was what more people wanted.

I know, I know: Hillary got more votes. We still have Trump. Canada has no electoral college. More people voted to cut their own throats, and they got what they wanted.

Maybe Ontario can repeal Medicare and go back to a U.S. style system of sub-par, for-obscene-profit health insurance, and show the rest of the country how much better bankruptcy is than socialized health care.

And we thought Canada was a fairly progressive country…


I lived on the west coast of Canada for several years and saw that Canada had way better health care, schools, and environmental protection than the USA.
But Canada is greatly influenced by the USA, and consumer capitalism is the religion of western industrialized countries. It’s easy to sell stupidity to the feckless masses.
It’s not just Ontario, either.
Look how Trudeau spent billions of taxpayer money to buy and expand a terrible pipeline across provinces with the potential to ruin vast amounts of Canada’s western coastline.
Humans are dumb and dumber, and there are few immune from political propaganda.


I thought the Canadians were smarter than this.