Did NDP-Liberal vote-splitting deliver the PCs a majority in Ontario?

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pogo Pogo's picture

If we had run-offs my guess would be that a lot of Liberals would vote PC if a Liberal candidate was no longer an option. 

SocialJustice101

Pogo wrote:

If we had run-offs my guess would be that a lot of Liberals would vote PC if a Liberal candidate was no longer an option. 

According to a pre-election IPSOS poll, 3 in 4 Lib supporters would want Lib MPs to support an NDP-minority government instead of a PC-minority government. 

If we had a run off, NDP would likely receive about 3 quarters of the Liberal vote and the Green vote, with the rest going PC.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Misfift wrote:
The people who voted for Doug Ford  are responsible for this majority government and they will be responsible and need to be held accountable for the damage  That Many fear is going to happen.

I actually hold the FPTP voting system responsible for this majority government. Under a proportional system the PC's would not have won a majority and Ford would not get 100% of the power with only 40.5% of the votes.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This will always ensure that the winning candidate has an actual majority support.

Doesn't it acheive that by arbitrarily reducing the options to two, in the final round?  That would seem a very mathematical, or technical, way to say "the majority has chosen".

Uh, yes.  Mathematics enters into it.

It is the system I prefer.  Germany’s second.

Pogo Pogo's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

According to a pre-election IPSOS poll, 3 in 4 Lib supporters would want Lib MPs to support an NDP-minority government instead of a PC-minority government. 

If we had a run off, NDP would likely receive about 3 quarters of the Liberal vote and the Green vote, with the rest going PC.

First 25% is not insignificant.  You can't just add the two totals and say they should be combined.  Also is this including Liberals who are already voting strategically? If so I would say the diehards would be a different kettle of fish. Particularly in the Liberal clearly 3rd place constituencies.  Most particularly in the subgroup diehard1 where the NDP is traditionally close the conservatives these Liberals voted Liberal probably knowing that their vote could contribute to an NDP'r beating a Conservative. 

SocialJustice101

The poll was among the remaining Liberal voters (the 19%), not including Liberals who already switched to the ONDP to defeat Ford. 

Many voters are not aware of their riding's electoral history and simply vote the party leader they "like" best.     We would certaintly benefit from a "sober" second round, if not from PR.

Pogo Pogo's picture

Okay still 3-1 still cuts the benefit in half (4 voters = 2 net votes).

SocialJustice101

40.5 + (19.5 * .25) = 45.375%

33.5 + (19.5 * .75) = 48.125%

Plus you have 4.6% for the Greens.   If at least half of them voted NDP in a run-off, the NDP would get an absolute majority of the popular vote. 

Obviously, it's highly hypothetical.   If we actually elected MPs using run-off voting, the PCs would probably have the most seats, but not a majority, allowing the NDP to form government with support of the OLP.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Vote splitting is when the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea divide up the same pool of voters who support Judean peopleness. 

The NDP and the Liberals are and always have been quite different parties.  Sure, supporters of either could have "voted strategically", but if they didn't then that doesn't mean that they somehow "split" the vote.

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Vote splitting is when the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea divide up the same pool of voters who support Judean peopleness. 

The NDP and the Liberals are and always have been quite different parties.  Sure, supporters of either could have "voted strategically", but if they didn't then that doesn't mean that they somehow "split" the vote.

That kind of thinking plays right into the cons' hands.   The cons are united in their defense of crony capitalism, while more moderate and progressive parties have different visions of how exactly to create a more just society and at what pace.  

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
while more moderate and progressive parties have different visions on how exactly to create a more just society and at what pace. 

But for the other 47 months of an electoral period, we hear over and over how the Liberals are indistinguishable from the Conservatives.

"Liberal, Tory, same old story".

Can you tell us how they're now, suddenly, a progressive party that NDP supporters should vote for?  And will you stick to that for the next 47 months?

SocialJustice101

It's easy to dream while you're in opposition, but in government, reality hits and you realize that the power of government is quite limited.     I'd suggest you compare provincial NDP governments to Liberal governments.   Compare apples to apples. 

(And obviously, I'm not talking about the BC Liberals, who are not really Liberals.)

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'd suggest you compare provincial NDP governments to Liberal governments.

No need to reinvent that wheel.  We spend 47 months out of every four years doing exactly that around here.  And the consensus seems to be that the Liberals are horrid.

Quote:
And obviously, I'm not talking about the BC Liberals, who are not really Liberals.

Because they eat sugar on their oatmeal?

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I'd suggest you compare provincial NDP governments to Liberal governments.

No need to reinvent that wheel.  We spend 47 months out of every four years doing exactly that around here.  And the consensus seems to be that the Liberals are horrid

There's a lot of negative feedback here about NDP governments as well.   Again, once a party gets in government, it will never be progressive enough for some people.   And this benefits the cons in the end.   We need to change the system to encourage compromise.  Otherwise, the cons can divide and conquer.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We need to change the system to encourage compromise.  Otherwise, the cons can divide and conquer.

They don't need to "divide" Liberal and NDP supporters.  Again, always been DIFFERENT parties.

If the Liberals had led the polls, I don't think anyone would have suggested that the NDP should join them.

If the NDP had led the polls, I don't think anyone would have suggested that they should partner with the Liberals and share the victory (nor would anyone claim that the Cons and Libs "split" the centre-right vote).

If the NDP is supposed to get chummy with the OLP solely because we're afraid of one man, that's not a good enough reason.  Again, it would at least require a lot of people renouncing their historic view that the Libs and NDP are not ideologically similar or morally equivalent.  And what kind of "compromise" would even put the two in the same bed?  "OK, you can sell off Hydro One, but once a year we get to tweet in support of socialism."?

Compromise always sounds nice and virtuous, but like eating more fibre or flossing three times a day, nobody really wants to do it.

SocialJustice101

Compromise between Tommy Douglas and P.E.T. comes to mind.   We need more of that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

First we'd need more Tommy Douglas.  And heck, maybe even more PET.

I don't fully understand it, even though I live in Ontario, but the animosity and hatred toward Kathleen Wynne almost reaches Hillary levels.  So the NDP should have cozied up?  "Together, we'll win!"?

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Vote splitting is when the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea divide up the same pool of voters who support Judean peopleness. 

The NDP and the Liberals are and always have been quite different parties.  Sure, supporters of either could have "voted strategically", but if they didn't then that doesn't mean that they somehow "split" the vote.

I think vote-splitting between two parties is not about the similarity or difference between the two parties, but instead it is about how their voters tend to prefer either of them over another party or other parties. No matter how similar or different they are from each other, vote splitting would not occur in an FPTP election if the NDP and Liberals were the only parties competing. FPTP's inability to function properly in elections with more than two candidates is why ranked voting is often used instead of FPTP in single-member elections. PR is another way to overcome the limitations of FPTP in multi-candidate elections. FPTP is an anachronistic two-party system from when Tories and Whigs were pitted against each in two-party elections.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
FPTP is an anachronistic two-party system from when Tories and Whigs were pitted against each in two-party elections.

Agreed.

But suggesting that the NDP and Libs should join together to stop the PCs (or, the NDP and PCs to stop the libs, or the PCs and Libs to stop the NDP) is just a de facto attempt to return to that two party system.  Our electoral model may be designed for such a system, but given that the majority of Canadians support one or the other of the two original parties, folk still seem to like it.

 

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:
I don't fully understand it, even though I live in Ontario, but the animosity and hatred toward Kathleen Wynne almost reaches Hillary levels.  So the NDP should have cozied up?  "Together, we'll win!"?

I also live in Ontario and was also puzzled by animosity towards Wynne, especially after she raised the minimum wage and conducted open town halls throughout the province.    I think it ultimately comes down to her lack of charisma, and not being aggressive enough against the Tories and their attacks.   Fight fire with fire.  Furthermore, despite what you hear, people are still sexist and still homophobic.  I think someone like Gerard Kennedy would have done a lot better in terms of image and communication, even with the same record.    I think Wynne has a similar image problem as Stephane Dion did.   Politics is a popularity contest, and Wynne didn’t look/sound like one of the “cool kids.”

The only thing ONDP could have done differently was to run a much better campaign, hitting back stronger against both the PCs and the OLP, during the final stretch.  Learn from Harper’s 2006-2011 attack ads.   There were vicious but highly effective.    

In terms of the big picture, ONDP should commit to changing the electoral system to PR, or a semi-PR.   All opposition parties in Quebec signed an agreement to PR.   We need the same in Ontario.  Perhaps the OLP would have a different view of PR in their present situation.    If they can’t agree on PR, try semi-PR.  It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.   I’m suggesting we need an electoral system that encourages party co-operation and compromise.  The current system wastes a lot of votes and encourages division. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Compromise between Tommy Douglas and P.E.T. comes to mind.   We need more of that.

OK...but I think it was actually David Lewis who was leading the NDP at the time(the '72-74 era).  Does anybody know if Lewis ever asked for pr when he and Trudeau The First were working things out behind the scenes?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Perhaps the OLP would have a different view of PR in their present situation. 

This should not be why we choose (or they support) PR.  IIRC, that was part of the problem with the PR referendum in B.C. -- it was an assumed "answer" to a specific situational problem.  When that problem had gone away by the time of the second referendum, support for that "solution" dropped below even 50+1.  People didn't support PR on its own merits, they supported it to punish a party they thought hoodwinked them.  That's not a good enough reason to change electoral models 151 years later.

Quote:
If they can’t agree on PR, try semi-PR.  It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

It seems like among existing PR supporters, it does have to be all or nothing.  I've seen it asserted that PR has failed on ballots in BC and ON in large part because the "flavour" on the ballot was not to everyone's liking (STV instead of MMP, or MMP instead of STV) even as either was surely leagues ahead of FPTP.  Best ask current PR supporters whether ANY  of the PR models are necessarily more supportable than FPTP.

 

SocialJustice101

In 2007, voters in Ontario were completely clueless on what they were voting for.  70% of voters were not familiar with the proposed MMPR, according to an Environics poll.  Parties did not really campaign on PR, and no one educated the public.  The corporate media was also silent on the subject.  If parties took a strong stand on PR and *educated* the public on the campaign trail, I think it would have been different. 

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
FPTP is an anachronistic two-party system from when Tories and Whigs were pitted against each in two-party elections.

Agreed.

But suggesting that the NDP and Libs should join together to stop the PCs (or, the NDP and PCs to stop the libs, or the PCs and Libs to stop the NDP) is just a de facto attempt to return to that two party system.  Our electoral model may be designed for such a system, but given that the majority of Canadians support one or the other of the two original parties, folk still seem to like it.

 

I agree that for good reason the NDP and Liberals are not joining together. If we keep FPTP I think we'll just have to continue to accept the things that come with FPTP in Canada like, giving the right a structural electoral advantage, vote splitting, strategic voting, strategic voting campaigns, calls from many quarters on the left to establish PR, disproportional representation, right wing governments opposed by the majority, etc.... Luckily it seems that most of the political parties in Quebec are going to be supporting MMP during this fall's election there.

cco

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Furthermore, despite what you hear, people are still sexist and still homophobic.

Did these people discover sexism and homophobia within the last 4 years?

If you're saying a portion of PC voters did so out of sexism and homophobia, sure -- that'd be the pool of "inaccessible voters" for Wynne. But since she won a majority government in 2014, attributing this year's defeat to sexism and homophobia would imply that many of the people who voted for her last time only found out after the fact that she's female and lesbian, or had long conversations with their priests and imams in between elections about those things being sinful.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In 2007, voters in Ontario were completely clueless on what they were voting for.  70% of voters were not familiar with the proposed MMPR, according to an Environics poll.

Huh.

But 100% of voters were disillusioned with the current system and wanted change, said PR supporters.

Could they have Googled it?  Would that have brought them up to speed on something so important to them?  Or, whose job is it to inform people about something apparently important to them?

Quote:
and no one educated the public

Then why would the public have been disgruntled?

Quote:
like, giving the right a structural electoral advantage, vote splitting, strategic voting, strategic voting campaigns, calls from many quarters on the left to establish PR, disproportional representation, right wing governments opposed by the majority, etc.

Whatever "advantage" the right might have is not due to the structure of our electoral system.

But if lots of NDP supporters in Ontario think they should buddy up with Kathleen Wynne, let them say so loudly and proudly.  I'll consider it, if I hear them say "yes, she's the progressive I've been waiting to endorse!".

SocialJustice101

cco, I've mentioned this before, but we had 8 female Premiers in Canada, and only 1 of them was re-elected once.    I think Canadian voters will give a woman the benefit of the doubt.   But then she is rarely perceived as a competent manager of the government and the economy.    It may be subconscious.   Women may also be less aggressive in defending themselves against opposition attacks, I'm not sure.   There is less respect for female politicians.    Also, believe it or not, not everyone knew Wynne was a lesbian in 2014, especially seniors.    The media did not really talk about it, until she was elected as the "first openly lesbian Premier."

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Whatever "advantage" the right might have is not due to the structure of our electoral system.

The right has a huge advantage because of our electoral system.    Both the Liberals and the NDP run on very similar platforms, which appeal to younger, urban, and more educated voters.   The Cons voters are the polar opposite.  The Cons have no competition on right.   The NDP are the natural allies for a Liberal minority government.   We've seen such alliances federally and provincially.  And according to polls, Liberal voters would prefer the Libs to support an NDP minority govenrment vs. Con minority government,  by a 3 to 1 margin.

Ciabatta2

SocialJustice101 wrote:

That kind of thinking plays right into the cons' hands.   The cons are united in their defense of crony capitalism, while more moderate and progressive parties have different visions of how exactly to create a more just society and at what pace.  

...

The Cons have no competition on right.   The NDP are the natural allies for a Liberal minority government.   We've seen such alliances federally and provincially.

Totally skewed vision of your party based on what you want to be part of, and not what you actually are a part ot.

The Liberals aren't committed to crony capitalism?  The party that shifted billions to Samsung under the guise of green energy?  The party that sold hydro in Ontario?  The party that just bought a pipeline?  It could beeasily  argued that Liberals are more invested in crony capitalism than the Conservatives are!

The reality is that the Liberals and Conservatives have different visions of how to get elected.

Their vision for the country is fairly similar.  The PC's competition on the right is the 20-50 percent of the Liberal vote that goes Conservative every third election!

Merging the NDP and Liberals - either to solidify the strategic vote or to try to squeeze PR through - would only deliver an actual PC majority.  This election is one where the Liberals were NEVER EVER EVER going to win.  And they still got 20% of the vote.  Those 20% of votes that went Liberal aren't going to go NDP ever.  Ditto the 23 percent that went NDP in the last election.

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:
But if lots of NDP supporters in Ontario think they should buddy up with Kathleen Wynne, let them say so loudly and proudly.  I'll consider it, if I hear them say "yes, she's the progressive I've been waiting to endorse!"

Wynne has a toxic image problem but not because she's supposedly some kind of right-winger.     Before the election, Jordan Peterson called her the most "dangerous" woman in Canada.  

Anyway, nobody is suggesting ONDP co-operation with Wynne specifically.    I'd like to see the NDP, Liberals, and the Greens to co-operate on changing the electoral system, which unfairly favors the Cons at present.

SocialJustice101

Ciabatta2, if the NDP has nothing in common with the Liberals, why did the NDP prop-up so many Liberal minority governments federally and provincially?    The fact is, they have common ground on many issues.    Co-operation is more productive than division.   I'm not necessarily suggesting a merger, but a more representative electoral system which would mostly benefit the NDP and the Greens, and encourage co-operation between non-Con parties.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Both the Liberals and the NDP run on very similar platforms

I see.

Any thoughts on why most NDP supporters and most Liberal supporters would disagree that they're the same?

This isn't something new.  Again, supporters of both sides seem to feel there's a meaningful difference, 47 months out of 48.

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Both the Liberals and the NDP run on very similar platforms

I see.

Any thoughts on why most NDP supporters and most Liberal supporters would disagree that they're the same?

Dippers claim that the Liberals do not follow through on their platform.    But that also happens to be a common criticism of NDP provincial governments.   How many Dippers are happy with Bob Rae?  Ujjal Dosanjh?  Rachel Notley?    Even John Horgan got some criticism.  You get the picture.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

OK.  You seem to feel they're wrong to think there's a difference. But  you don't need to convince me; you need to convince THEM.  How do you plan to tell NDP supporters why they should have embraced Wynne?  Or, some other Liberal leader in the future?

Practice your speech on us.

SocialJustice101

Wynne was a victim of a media / con hatchet job.  Her image was far too tarnished to win the election.   That's why I voted for the ONDP, and encouraged everyone else to do the same, unless the NDP has no chance in their riding.

NorthReport

Maybe it's time for the Liberals to close up shop. If they did my hunch is 70% would move to support the Conservatives and 30% would support the NDP. The only time the Liberals are progressive is during election campaigns or when they are being pushed by the NDP.

SocialJustice101

NorthReport wrote:

Maybe it's time for the Liberals to close up shop. If they did my hunch is 70% would move to support the Conservatives and 30% would support the NDP. The only time the Liberals are progressive is during election campaigns or when they are being pushed by the NDP.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that an actual majority preferred Ford, but that's not the case.  Your "hunches" always favor the Cons.

NorthReport

Just more Liberal talking points.

Liberals are actually nowhere near as progressive as they have conned Canadians into believing they are. 

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Whatever "advantage" the right might have is not due to the structure of our electoral system.

This is true since nothing has forced the right to unite under big-tent parties like the federal Reform and PC's did in the early 2000's under the Conservative banner and Wild Rose and the PC's just did in Alberta under the UCP banner. The right in Canada prefers FPTP because they can usually count on the left to split the vote and there is nothing underhanded about conservativs doing that. On the other hand the left in Canada prefers to support establishing PR instead of uniting under one big-tent party. There is also nothing wrong with that.

SocialJustice101

The only problem is that conservatives got what they wanted, while different stripes of progressives are divided as always.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Maybe it's time for the Liberals to close up shop. If they did my hunch is 70% would move to support the Conservatives and 30% would support the NDP. The only time the Liberals are progressive is during election campaigns or when they are being pushed by the NDP.

My hunch is that you favour the Conservatives very much over the Liberals.

Sean in Ottawa

The difference between Conservatives and Liberal is as great as the difference between Liberal and NDP. The splitting propaganda is just that -- assumptions that are false that one party is just like another.

This of course raises the other problem which is the one of merger. People complain of provincial NDP being too much like the Liberals and the same ones talk of merger and winning. They forget the essential dynamic which is that a party does not just reflect the supporters it IS the supporters. If you remove a party then its supporters will take the next best thing and by doing so change that. If you want the NDP to be the left party it is when the Liebrals exist -- then you need the Liberals to remain. The act of the Liberal party existing gives space for the "centrists" (or whatever you want to call them) to go. If the Liberal party went away those people would in  some cases join the Conservatives and in others the NDP -- bringing both closer to the centre. Both Conservatives and NDP supporters who want the Liberals to go away, should understand that the dynamic without them would utterly change those parties as well since the people do not disappear.

The idea for left NDP supporters is when the three parties are roughly equal leaving the left third a chance at power but not swamping their views with half of the third they imagine they would like to disappear.

SocialJustice101

Sean in Ottawa, if vote splitting is a myth, why do parties use ranked ballot internally for leadership races?

There are significant differences between all three main parties.   But the vote splitting part is real in any First-Past-The-Post system involving more than 2 candidates.    In Australia, this is avoided by using ranked ballot.  In France, they have run-off voting.   In Germany, they use Proportional Represenation.   All of these 3 systems are better than ours, and they all minimize wasted votes.

quizzical

quizzical wrote:

good pointing out by the Globe article a vote for the Liberals was a vote for Doug Ford.

they are the reason why ON will be a mess for another 4 years.

it sure did. and i did read the whole blah blah blah.

paraphrase the blah blahs and it's what you get.

 

NorthReport

The NDP aren't that great at marketing themselves. They need a name change and identify themselves as the Labour Party, and that they represent working people and their jobs. Yes all the other other things are important as well, but never as important as workers' jobs. What's one of the first things Ford is going to do? Cancel the next minimum wage increase!

Sean in Ottawa

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa, if vote splitting is a myth, why do parties use ranked ballot internally for leadership races?

There are significant differences between all three main parties.   But the vote splitting part is real in any First-Past-The-Post system involving more than 2 candidates.    In Australia, this is avoided by using ranked ballot.  In France, they have run-off voting.   In Germany, they use Proportional Represenation.   All of these 3 systems are better than ours, and they all minimize wasted votes.

Parties use ranked ballots for leadership becuase there can only be one leader and they boil it down. It makes no sense to do this if you want a representative legislature.

Parties do this based on a personal chocie of a single party's leader. It is not at all the same as an open election between people of different parties and ideologies.

I did not say that vote splitting never happens but to affect a result is extremely rare -- and the myth part is the part where people assume that all the voters of one party would have the same second chocie which we know is not true. It also presumes that we can know accurately which party is ahead in a tight election in each riding and do something about it. Mostly it is BS propaganda to push the voters of one party to another.

The biggest reason is that there is no reason to have this second choice voting since you can have a proportional legislature -- you cannot have a proportional single leader.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

cco, I've mentioned this before, but we had 8 female Premiers in Canada, and only 1 of them was re-elected once.    I think Canadian voters will give a woman the benefit of the doubt.   But then she is rarely perceived as a competent manager of the government and the economy.    It may be subconscious.   Women may also be less aggressive in defending themselves against opposition attacks, I'm not sure.   There is less respect for female politicians.    Also, believe it or not, not everyone knew Wynne was a lesbian in 2014, especially seniors.    The media did not really talk about it, until she was elected as the "first openly lesbian Premier."

OK...but I think you'd have to concede that virtually nobody switched from the OLP to the ONDP out of homophobia.  The ONDP is just as LGBTQ-friendly as the OLP, if not more so, being to the OLP's left.  Homophobia had nothing to do with the ONDP's gains and you can't legitimately use homophobia as a way to delegitimize those gains.

Essentially the only voters who'd have switched away from the OLP out of homophobia are those who switched to the PC's.  

So there's really no reason to keep bringing that issue up in the context of the OLP-ONDP rivalry.  It was only a factor among voters who were always going to switch from the OLP to the PC's this year, and people that were going to make that switch were simply never going to be stopped from doing so.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

The ironic thing is that the right has unity, which is supposedly a leftist value, and the left has competition, which is supposedly a right-wing value. 

The question is whether the Liberals can recover to contender status, or stay in the basement for a century as happened to the British Liberal Party. For now the Ontario Liberal Party is around the same levels of support of the British Liberal Party. If this is the case, the Liberal vote will be more or less irrelevant, and the war will be between NDP and Conservative.

If the Conservative government is characterized by corruption, waste, inefficiency, and incompetence, then voters, no matter where they are, will pick the opposition party no matter what it is.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

First we'd need more Tommy Douglas.  And heck, maybe even more PET.

 

You ain't kidding.

SocialJustice101

progressive17 wrote:


If the Conservative government is characterized by corruption, waste, inefficiency, and incompetence, then voters, no matter where they are, will pick the opposition party no matter what it is.

That's highly theoretical.     Harper wanted the Libs destroyed, because he felt the NDP would not be mainstream enough or competent enough to defeat a Con government, thus creating a new "natural governing party" in Canada.   We've seen a glimpse of it in the Ontario election.   Ford said that everyone would lose their jobs under the NDP, and they did not fight back.

Pages