Why Ontarians can Relate to Ford

[Centerpiece]

With The Star predictably crying out for proportional representation in today's edition, I found it surprising to find a well written article by Jaime Watt that sums up quite nicely what is going on in Ontario.  As a final act of arrogance, Kathleen Wynne delayed her election night speech for so long that the networks threatened to halt coverage - this would have stolen the opportunity for Doug Ford to speak to Ontarians. This - in spite of Wynne having had a historic length of time to prepare. So Mr. Ford spoke first - and he was castigated for it. Mr. Watt is a Conservative strategist - but I have found him to be as balanced as a partisan can be expected. I think he nailed this one - although it's self evident to the open-minded who follow Politics.

 

Quote

 

..............................................................

It was hardly the first situation when the media got a Ford story fundamentally wrong.

There exists a divide in the Ontario of today. On one side, an elite class built of media types, professionals and businesspeople, and academics who control many of the levers of communication. This class exists largely in urban centres like Ottawa and Toronto and agrees on a governing ideology that is fundamentally liberal in character.

But the rest of Ontario looks dramatically different.

It is a group that is far more blue-collar than the elite class imagines. Their appetite for liberal politics is spotty and their tolerance of political correctness barely exists.

And those Ontarians simply do not see themselves reflected in the media landscape.

They did, however, see themselves reflected in Ford and the PC party.

This campaign was particularly revealing in just how wide that schism runs. There was no shortage of articles written puzzling over the dislike of Wynne, with speculation that it was based in homophobia or misogyny.

The media was also not hesitant to let its disdain for Ford seep into its coverage. Reports on Ford emphasized his perceived boorishness or his lack of knowledge of policy, rather than the connection he was building with Ontarians.

And that pattern looks set to continue.

....................................................

 

Link: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/10/why-ontarians-relate-to-ford-and-not-his-media-critics.html

[turningrite]

48 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

With The Star predictably crying out for proportional representation in today's edition, I found it surprising to find a well written article by Jaime Watt that sums up quite nicely what is going on in Ontario.  As a final act of arrogance, Kathleen Wynne delayed her election night speech for so long that the networks threatened to halt coverage - this would have stolen the opportunity for Doug Ford to speak to Ontarians. This - in spite of Wynne having had a historic length of time to prepare. So Mr. Ford spoke first - and he was castigated for it. Mr. Watt is a Conservative strategist - but I have found him to be as balanced as a partisan can be expected. I think he nailed this one - although it's self evident to the open-minded who follow Politics.

 

I'm not sure what caused Wynne's delay on election night, but didn't she give her concession speech days earlier? Maybe she thought she didn't have to give another one? LOL. Another article in today's Star pointed to the proliferation of young and inexperienced political advisors (hundreds, reportedly) operating within Wynne's regime, including within her communications team. Maybe it's time for some experience and substance at Queen's Park. I'm not sure what style Ford's regime will feature, but the bar hasn't been set very high.

Edited June 10, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

Yes, I read the same article. It was pretty bang-on. Mind you, I've been saying the same thing for a long time so naturally I agree the man's a genius. :-P
And he's not a Star reporter. He's described as a Conservative strategist. No Star reporter would ever believe such things, much less write it. They think they're champions of the people and that what they believe is what the people want. Or at least, what they would want if they knew what's best for them..

The most of the mainstream media is scornful of anyone not properly polished, whose words aren't carefully washed and spin-doctored to be as bland and inoffensive as possible. That's particularly so if they don't follow the progressive ideological beliefs the media consider sacred. Whenever any politician says something which seems to violate those sacred beliefs the media reacts in horror and goes into a feeding frenzy, but the great mass of people really don't give a damn. The best example of that would be the fuss over burquas and such. The media was horrified at the idea of banning them at citizenship ceremonies, and even more horrified at Kellie Lietch's idea of a values test for potential immigrants. But the polls showed three quarters of the population completely disagreed. The culture of the talking-heads, in media, academia and the arts - the people with the megaphones as he says - , is completely different from that of regular people.

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

"The culture of the talking-heads, in media, academia and the arts - the people with the megaphones as he says - , is completely different from that of regular people."

Argus: I believe the form of "managed" democracy that's emerged in this country will eventually bring its own downfall. As today's Star article 'Three lessons that need to be learned from Ford's victory' notes, Wynne's coterie became obsessed "...with backdrops, and colour and guest diversity over content and meaning." Voters actually want content and meaning in government, particularly where their own concrete interests are concerned. Ford's victory, like that of so many populist parties and leaders in the West, is a result of the fact that ordinary people feel their governments have too often ignored broader and very real needs over the past few decades rather than it being the result of some kind of atavistic yearning to reimpose a supposed "white patriarchy", as so many on the left imagine to be the case. It would be more productive if our leaders, media and creative classes could recognize that ordinary people aren't always wrong.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, turningrite said:

"The culture of the talking-heads, in media, academia and the arts - the people with the megaphones as he says - , is completely different from that of regular people."

Argus: I believe the form of "managed" democracy that's emerged in this country will eventually bring its own downfall. As today's Star article 'Three lessons that need to be learned from Ford's victory' notes, Wynne's coterie became obsessed "...with backdrops, and colour and guest diversity over content and meaning." Voters actually want content and meaning in government, particularly where their own concrete interests are concerned. Ford's victory, like that of so many populist parties and leaders in the West, is a result of the fact that ordinary people feel their governments have too often ignored broader and very real needs over the past few decades rather than it being the result of some kind of atavistic yearning to reimpose a supposed "white patriarchy", as so many on the left imagine to be the case. It would be more productive if our leaders, media and creative classes could recognize that ordinary people aren't always wrong.

I think of more immediate import would be for them to realize they themselves were not always right. That some of their cultural and ideological beliefs might not necessarily be embraced by everyone, and that a difference of opinion on some of them does not make that person a heretic and blasphemer. As for the 'white patriarchy' Ford didn't win because of white votes out in the rural countryside. The tories generally do get much of that, but their real breakthrough was in the 905 suburbs of Toronto and those are heavily populated with immigrants of colour, especially from Asia and east Asia.

[eyeball]

Quote

 

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/10/why-ontarians-relate-to-ford-and-not-his-media-critics.html

There exists a divide in the Ontario of today. On one side, an elite class built of media types, professionals and businesspeople, and academics who control many of the levers of communication. This class exists largely in urban centres like Ottawa and Toronto and agrees on a governing ideology that is fundamentally liberal in character.

 

Is this a Deep State or a Deep Province?

[Centerpiece]

The Star is not alone in spreading the Fairy Tale that every one who didn't vote for Ford was a "progressive" voter. It's a convenient bucket to create the illusion/implication of some sort of unfair/illegitimate election result. Many Liberal and Green voters are fiscally responsible and want nothing to do with endless deficits and debt. "Progressive" has morphed into a fraudulent term - because putting our children behind the eight-ball (not Eyeball ) to pay the bills is not progressive - it's criminal!

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

With The Star predictably crying out for proportional representation in today's edition, I found it surprising to find a well written article by Jaime Watt that sums up quite nicely what is going on in Ontario.  As a final act of arrogance, Kathleen Wynne delayed her election night speech for so long that the networks threatened to halt coverage - this would have stolen the opportunity for Doug Ford to speak to Ontarians. This - in spite of Wynne having had a historic length of time to prepare. So Mr. Ford spoke first - and he was castigated for it. Mr. Watt is a Conservative strategist - but I have found him to be as balanced as a partisan can be expected. I think he nailed this one - although it's self evident to the open-minded who follow Politics.

 

Link: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/06/10/why-ontarians-relate-to-ford-and-not-his-media-critics.html

Well, we should all know by now that the Canadian liberal fake MSM will be attacking and mocking Ford for the next four or five years for everything that he says or does. They will be relentless just like the liberal MSM in America has been towards Trump. One can only hope that Ford can be like Trump and treat the MSM liberals like they should be treated and that is with total contempt. Ford should not worry about what the liberal lying media says about him and just get on with the march towards more and real and true conservatism and support the conservative revolution that has taken place and begin the draining of the liberal Ontario swamp that has been running and ruling over Ontario for far too long.

I hope that Ford can make Ontario great again. The first thing to do is get rid of political correctness that has been forced on the people of Ontario. Saying he or she or mother or father should not be considered hate speech or promoting hatred towards someone who does not want to be called a he or a she. Liberalism and political correctness must go now.

Works for me. 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Is this a Deep State or a Deep Province?

Ontario has become a deep state and a deep province for decades now. Now one can only hope that the deep state liberals gets their butts booted out of Ontario. And let's hope that if Sheer becomes the next PM of Canada he will do the same thing and get rid of the deep state that also runs this once great country. I wonder what the liberals will do then if that happens and Sheer becomes the PM of Canada? There will be no place or government for them to run too anymore. They will be surrounded by conservatives every where they go. How sweet that would be. 

[turningrite]

On 6/10/2018 at 4:08 PM, taxme said:

Ontario has become a deep state and a deep province for decades now. Now one can only hope that the deep state liberals gets their butts booted out of Ontario.

I'm not sure what you mean by the terms "deep state" and "deep province" in this context? To me, if one wants to summarize their general policy approaches, the Wynne Libs, and in many aspects the Trudeau Libs, seem to have embraced a philosophy of deep incompetence. In Wynne's case, the incompetence was so apparent that by early 2015 she'd blown any chance at being reelected. As for Trudeau, given his government's poor performance on several files, including democratic renewal, indigenous affairs, pipeline politics and, maybe most importantly because it's undermining his government's support even among its base, its handling of the "irregular" migrant fiasco, polling indicates steadily eroding voter support. This isn't deep state stuff. In my opinion it's just plain old garden variety incompetence. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by turningrite