![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Scattered Post-Election Thoughts
Jun. 14th, 2018 09:56 pmAll very tactical, I'm afraid.
If you look at the electoral map, the obvious first lesson is not that Ontario went blue, but that rural and suburban Ontario went blue. Rarely have I seen such a stark distinction between the larger cities and the rest of the province.
The second lesson is that, for all that people muse about, and will undoubtedly will do so again, about "uniting the left", there is no one "left" there to unite. In an election made for strategic voting like almost no other in recent history, with an imploding Liberal Party and a disaster-in-waiting at the head of the Conservatives, one-fifth of the population voted Liberal. (To be fair, in 905 ridings with a weak NDP this may itself have reflected strategic voting, but too little of it.)
A significant part of the traditional Liberal vote went to the Tories; the Liberals are a centrist party and not a left-wing one. If one were to merge the Liberals and the NDP, it's not clear how many of that 20% which stayed with the Liberals would support them (if the party were social-democratic; if the party were centrist someone would revive another party on the left in no time).
(To be fair, the Conservatives are a joining at the hip of the rural interest and financial urban interests, into which Ford has injected a trace of suburban-based populism. But there's a long history pulling them into one party, and occasional attempts to create purer expressions of the rural interest, like the Trillium Party, never prosper. The fracturing of the Federal Conservatives into PC and Reform lasted only slightly over a decade.)
The Liberal vote looks a lot like a floor and the NDP vote like a ceiling, excluding flukes like the protest votes that brought Rae to power. (Note that the spread is rather wider between NDP and Conservative than the polls were suggesting.) What it does show is that the NDP is a resolutely urban party, aside from Northern Ontario. (The North has been on the outside forever, and the dynamics there don't resemble those in the farming communities which used to have more clout and are the core of the social Conservative base in the province.)
I have seen commentators talk about Ford "delivering the 905".The 905 delivered itself; does anyone belive that if, say, Christine Elliott had been leader all those suburban ridings would have gone NDP instead? Ford's taking the 905 says little positive about Ford but a great deal about the tolerance some voters in those ridings have for him.
As far as actual government goes, Ford is no Harris, who was an amiable-looking figurehead for an ideological cadre; nor is he a Harper. His elevation is the result of a perfect storm involving Patrick Brown, a base inherited from his brother, implicit sexism (note that his main opponents in both the leadership race and the election were women), and poor management by the Liberals of some key portfolios (Hydro, revenue tools for transit including tolls on the DVP). He was put over the top in the leadership race by social conservatives whose leader he dumped as soon as she became embarrassing. He has no experience of legislative government, and his experience at City Hall is both minimal and off-putting. I expect chaos at the cabinet level.
Ford's elevation reflects international factors - anger at changes driven by technology, at shifts in acceptable social values, at financial stagnation in the middle and lower levels of society. His ability to do anything at all to "fix" what his supporters are angry about would be small had he ten times the competence.
On one of his big promises, ending the carbon tax, I see little chance of success. Constitutionally, the extensive and general power of the federal government to tax anything it likes is pretty well set in stone, and court challenges look to me like political theatre.
Ford's gut instincts are those of a suburban conservative. He may, possibly, please the 905, if he can manage actually to govern; he is unlikely to please the rural base where their interests diverge. On the other hand, he is unlikely to tear the party apart as Trump is doing to the Republicans.
If you look at the electoral map, the obvious first lesson is not that Ontario went blue, but that rural and suburban Ontario went blue. Rarely have I seen such a stark distinction between the larger cities and the rest of the province.
The second lesson is that, for all that people muse about, and will undoubtedly will do so again, about "uniting the left", there is no one "left" there to unite. In an election made for strategic voting like almost no other in recent history, with an imploding Liberal Party and a disaster-in-waiting at the head of the Conservatives, one-fifth of the population voted Liberal. (To be fair, in 905 ridings with a weak NDP this may itself have reflected strategic voting, but too little of it.)
A significant part of the traditional Liberal vote went to the Tories; the Liberals are a centrist party and not a left-wing one. If one were to merge the Liberals and the NDP, it's not clear how many of that 20% which stayed with the Liberals would support them (if the party were social-democratic; if the party were centrist someone would revive another party on the left in no time).
(To be fair, the Conservatives are a joining at the hip of the rural interest and financial urban interests, into which Ford has injected a trace of suburban-based populism. But there's a long history pulling them into one party, and occasional attempts to create purer expressions of the rural interest, like the Trillium Party, never prosper. The fracturing of the Federal Conservatives into PC and Reform lasted only slightly over a decade.)
The Liberal vote looks a lot like a floor and the NDP vote like a ceiling, excluding flukes like the protest votes that brought Rae to power. (Note that the spread is rather wider between NDP and Conservative than the polls were suggesting.) What it does show is that the NDP is a resolutely urban party, aside from Northern Ontario. (The North has been on the outside forever, and the dynamics there don't resemble those in the farming communities which used to have more clout and are the core of the social Conservative base in the province.)
I have seen commentators talk about Ford "delivering the 905".The 905 delivered itself; does anyone belive that if, say, Christine Elliott had been leader all those suburban ridings would have gone NDP instead? Ford's taking the 905 says little positive about Ford but a great deal about the tolerance some voters in those ridings have for him.
As far as actual government goes, Ford is no Harris, who was an amiable-looking figurehead for an ideological cadre; nor is he a Harper. His elevation is the result of a perfect storm involving Patrick Brown, a base inherited from his brother, implicit sexism (note that his main opponents in both the leadership race and the election were women), and poor management by the Liberals of some key portfolios (Hydro, revenue tools for transit including tolls on the DVP). He was put over the top in the leadership race by social conservatives whose leader he dumped as soon as she became embarrassing. He has no experience of legislative government, and his experience at City Hall is both minimal and off-putting. I expect chaos at the cabinet level.
Ford's elevation reflects international factors - anger at changes driven by technology, at shifts in acceptable social values, at financial stagnation in the middle and lower levels of society. His ability to do anything at all to "fix" what his supporters are angry about would be small had he ten times the competence.
On one of his big promises, ending the carbon tax, I see little chance of success. Constitutionally, the extensive and general power of the federal government to tax anything it likes is pretty well set in stone, and court challenges look to me like political theatre.
Ford's gut instincts are those of a suburban conservative. He may, possibly, please the 905, if he can manage actually to govern; he is unlikely to please the rural base where their interests diverge. On the other hand, he is unlikely to tear the party apart as Trump is doing to the Republicans.
